After the collapse of the Hunter Biden plea bargain, it was telling that the Biden Team seemed most insistent on one demand: the gun charge agreement was still in full effect. Many of us noted that Hunter’s placement into the pre-trial diversion program not only contradicted the position of his father and the Biden Administration on such charges, but was sharply in contradiction with similar contemporaneous cases. Perhaps for that reason, the Biden attorneys were apoplectic in maintaining that the gun charge was inked and sealed. The Justice Department just declared, however, that it is dead as Dillinger. That is the problem when your counsel tells the prosecutor in open court to “just rip up” the plea deal.
In a motion to vacate the prior briefing order, the Justice Department on Tuesday filed a categorical rejection of the Biden claim and told the court “to reiterate, the now-withdrawn diversion agreement, by its own terms, is not in effect.” The Justice Department pointed out that the Biden argument was manifestly wrong since Margaret M. Bray, the Chief United States Probation Officer for the District of Delaware, never signed off on the agreement.
That means that Biden could be treated like other defendants. Indeed, usually when a plea deal is rejected, the Justice Department will seek maximal charges and sentencing.
A recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit could present an interesting twist in this ongoing saga. Hunter Biden could oppose the position of the Biden Administration in its tough take on such gun violations — a position repeatedly championed by his father.
In U.S. v. Daniels, the treatment of Patrick Darnell Daniels was starkly different from the President’s son. Daniels was found with a handgun and found to be a regular user of marijuana. He was convicted of the unlawful possession of a firearm due to his drug use and sentenced to four years in prison.
The Fifth Circuit recently reversed the trial court, ruling that the federal statute conflicts with the Second Amendment. While the trial judge found that Daniels’ drug use placed him outside of the protection of the Second Amendment, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen to toss out the sentence. The court ruled that “even as a marijuana user, Daniels is a member of our political community. Therefore, he has a presumptive right to bear arms. By infringing on that right, § 922(g)(3) contradicts the plain text of the Second Amendment.”
What was most striking was the concurrence of Judge Stephen Higginson, who registered his clear disagreement with Bruen: “It is also important to acknowledge that other gun safety laws, especially longstanding status-based prohibitions previously understood to be constitutionally unassailable, have been recently struck down by courts across the country as they attempt to faithfully implement Bruen.”
Biden’s team is likely to now argue that he had a right to the gun, even as a serious drug user. However, he will have to address also knowingly falsifying a federal form to gain possession.
Of course, the most pressing question is whether the new Special Counsel will reconsider a host of crimes not charged under the earlier deal. Some of those crimes were allowed to expire under the statute of limitations. Many of us remain perplexed why any prosecutor would allow such an expiration to occur, particularly when the statute of limitations could have been extended. Weiss was supposed to be called before Congress to answer that question when Attorney General Merrick Garland inexplicably made him Special Counsel. It is now expected that he will refuse to answer such questions as part of his “ongoing investigation.”
FIVE YEARS OF DERELICTION AND NEGLIGENCE
The Supreme Court must impose Judicial Review and “decide” that charges against Hunter be filed before the statute of limitations runs.
This is corruption by way of prosecutorial misconduct.
The crime is the lie on the ATF Form 4473, which is very specific about the consequences of lying. To get the gun, you answer honestly, and supposedly pass the background check. If you lie it is as much a crime as lying to a Federal agent or in court.
And that is why so many Americans are mad.
Had anyone of us not named Biden did the same, we would of been charged, convicted and already serving time in prison.
But Hunter gets a sweetheart deal.
Not only is the corruption of the Biden Crime Family on full display but the corruption of the DOJ.
@Sine
I cut-n-pasted the actual question from the form.
Here it is…
-=-
“g. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized
for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” (Taken from the form)
-=-
The issue is that if you smoked marijuana in the past, does that make you an unlawful user?
What’s the time limit?
Did Daniels start smoking marijuana on a regular basis before or after he got his gun?
Did Daniels buy his gun from a gun store where he has to fill out a 4473 form?
Daniels was arrested in possession of MJ along w the firearm.
Hunter? Not so much and to the point. He did lie on the 4473. (Note: He also skated on the military question. Because of Joe he was discharged on less than honorable but not dishonorable so that wasn’t a lie. He should have been dishonorably discharged…)
-G
@Anon
A lot has changed in 2yrs.
We now see the plea deal which protects the Bidens.
Also 2yr earlier would have let Weiss do his job if he were so inclined.
Garland’s second in command would have had no influence on Weiss or the investigation.
-G
Turley is wrong on the comparison to US v. Daniels.
In U.S. v. Daniels, the treatment of Patrick Darnell Daniels was starkly different from the President’s son. Daniels was found with a handgun and found to be a regular user of marijuana. He was convicted of the unlawful possession of a firearm due to his drug use and sentenced to four years in prison.
The question of Daniels, did he lie on his 4473 to get a gun in the first place?
“g. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized
for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” (Taken from the form)
I don’t know if the court looked at Daniels 4473 or if he purchased his gun from an FFL holder / gun store.
Had Hunter purchased his gun from a ‘friend’ in a private legal transaction… the gun charges would have gone away. Unless of course the gun purchase was a straw man purchase. (Which would be a different issue.)
Now the fun part…
See: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2023/08/16/the-latest-allegation-from-hunter-bidens-lawyers-is-a-problem-for-garland-doj-n2627048
Team Biden wants to say that the gun deal is still in effect and that Hunter has immunity even though the deal fell apart.
They want that immunity.
Joe must be scared.
You are so sophisticated and weary, so biting and cynical, so worldly and tough, so full of contempt for the inferiors you skewer with your rapacious wit. You know what “schtick” means! You really owned Turley there!! You know how to condescend to your inferiors (“l’orange” – Comme c’est magnifique!). You are packed with decency. Your virtue enables you to see with crystal vision the skewed hypocrisy of the boys and girls – and professors of law! – whose vanity you expose with your witty insults and penetrating nicknames. What a man of truth and decency you are. What an exemplar. Would that we might praise you directly except… you are also too cowardly to use your own name. So sad, that, in such an otherwise superior man.
Saving this for future use. Eloquent and accurate.
That was awesome.
Garland is the farthest from the person they would have wanted. I am sure you can appreciate why.
The saying in the old days was he’s just to smart for his own britches. How is it that when Hunter turned down the plea deal that he thinks he gets to keep the part of it that he likes. It’s true that those on the right wanted a Special Counsel two years ago before the Statute of Limitations would run out on Hunter’s criminal tax evasions. The only reason that Garland made the appointment was so that Weis wouldn’t have to go before Congress to explain why he slow walked the original investigation. Hopefully their attempt to put their thumb on the scale of the 2024 election will be recognized by the American people. Considering that 51 former intelligence people said that Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation we should not be surprised at anything the will stoop to. Maybe some judicial use of a lot of TP should be in order but it seems that they’ve used up their last roll and there’s still a lot more to come.
Sorry, my post at 10:58 should have been by Thinkitthrough. Puppy stepped on my tablet.
There should have had a Special Counsel years ago. But to now appoint the counsel that has slow walked this investigation for five years, let some serious charges expire due to statute of limitations, and also agreed to a sweetheart plea deal that had no precedent does not engender any confidence of a fair investigation.
Joe and Hunter in adjoining cells. Priceless!
Cellmates would be more appropriate for each.
I think the bloviators on this blog should leave the Professor alone. So many seem to feel that the Professor should be a showman and make outrageous statements for his side or their side and likewise show some rage. I prefer his demeanor as it is. Whether I agree with him or not I appreciate his calm and cool approach and his discussion of the nuances of the law. Having opposed or dealt with attorneys in many aspects of medical care whether health care law, federal law in regard to medical care, fraud provisions, mergers of health care entities, suits against other medical groups, malpractice actions, medical review panels, violators of non-compete agreements, I have found the most effective to be calm, knowledgeable, focused and prepared. They tend to win in remarkable number of cases. The colorful, blowhards, inability to understand an opponent, and making a scene tend to forget the focus and end up missing key components of their cases, especially not asking the right questions when facing highly trained subspecialists.
So carry on professor, I like the calm guy who continues to work while the storm and madness rages around.
GEB,
Well said.
The other day against one of our leftist friends declared that all our comments read like right-wing mob of rage.
I commented that they read like well thought out, logical, reasoned comments.
Interestingly enough, shortly afterwards the original comment was deleted as was mine.
Turns out it was ATS, using a different handle in an attempt to smear the rest of us.
Naturally Darren deleted the comment.
Jonathan Turley most likely is a Democrat. He’s always fair to both sides of an issue. It would be nice if most people in the law profession had his attitude on the law.
“Jonathan Turley most likely is a Democrat”
That statement cannot possibly be true. It doesn’t matter if he has liberal views on social and fiscal issues of the day. “He doesn’t toe the party line, therefore he is not one of us.”—todays libtard Dem
Turley has stated several times that he is a Democrat. He is clearly a reasonable one. Not many left.
I would argue there is no such thing as a “reasonable” democrat in the same way there is no such thing as a good or moral democrat. Death-marching indian citizens 1000 miles to steal their land to sell it at great profit? Fighting a war to keep slaves? Forming an organization to fight the rights of minorities via terrorism and murder? Not casting a single vote to give non-whites their right to vote or have Constitutional protections? Filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act? And then, arguing to allow the murder of innocent babies in the womb (and even after birth)? Arguing that just choosing to be a sexual deviant MUST be recognized as acceptable, even celebrated, by others?
Again. There are no reasonable democrats. Nor moral, nor patriotic.
Daddy, a.k.a. the Big Guy, will pardon his prodigal son.
McCaryrae,
I think they painted themselves into a corner.
The “sweetheart” deal on the gun charges were a slap in the face of Americans whom had they done the same thing, they would of already be serving time in prison.
Also Joe Biden himself was pushing for harsher crimes for that exact charge Hunter violated. And there is a difference between marijuana and crack cocaine.
Then, if Hunter is actually convicted on the gun charge and Joe pardons him, another slap in the face of Americans.
Now that Weiss is a Special Prosecutor….and has withdrawn the Sweetheart Deal of the Century….he can ignore questions.
He can now issue a report summarizing his findings there are no prosecutable crimes and let Hunter and the rest of the Biden Family go scot free.
The problem for Garland, Weiss, and the Biden Family is the House of Representatives are uncovering yet more dirt on the Bidens with each passing day.
Dirt the DOJ…..FBI….IRS…..Treasury Department….all should have uncovered and successfully investigated and prosecuted culpable individuals as a result.
The Bidens cannot ignore the facts, the media cannot ignore the truth, and the DOJ/FBI/IRS et al cannot deny their failures any longer.
The Democrats have built a House of Cards and at some point the winds of nature are going to blow it down.
Nature abhors a vacuum as does Public Opinion…..and in face of all the unanswered questions the People are going to see through the hoax being perpetrated by the Democrats.
2010 will look like a Democrat triumph compared to what is coming.
When the Silent Majority finally wakes up to this grand scheme….the Democrats shall reap the Whirlwind and its tower of cards is going to be scattered around like the contents of Fibber McGee’s closet.
Ken: Many of us have noticed the same thing. I believe Mr. Turley may use a voice to text app to dictate his articles. I noticed this when Derek Chauvin was referred to in one post as “Eric.”
Regarding Hunter, all the charges will be dropped. This is going to be Durham 2.0. Lots of talk and social media buzz and no convictions. Personally, I feel the same way I felt and still feel about the Ghislaine Maxwell case. While she is clearly guilty, she shouldn’t be the only one to stand trial and do time. She was born on Christmas Day and she took on the sins of the whole filthy pedo world and was crucified for it. Hunter, too, is clearly guilty, but right and left are all too pleased to make him the sacrificial lamb in lieu of impeaching and/or prosecuting the Big Guy.
Professor Turley has expressed the hope that “Biden” will resign rather than face impeachment but Shady Joe is no Richard Nixon. As convenient as that solution would be for Democrats, who could get rid of this albatross without having to actually admit they made a horrible mistake, that’s not how it’s going to go. In fact, if Trump somehow manages, Roadrunner-like, to evade all the snares of Wile E Coyote Smith and win the election, I think this administration will simply refuse to leave. If they have to start a nuclear war to stay in power, so be it.
Impeachment is a real possibility.
It didn’t work against Trump like the DNC hoped.
But it will work against Biden.
You have to understand the mechanics here.
1) Actual factual evidence would be presented.
2) There is actual evidence of a criminal conspiracy and one which Biden admitted to … captured on C-SPAN.
3) The MSM and big tech have been covering for Joe and this would be something they couldn’t hide.
Remember, many who voted for Joe said they wouldn’t have voted for him had they known about the laptop.
The impeachment proceedings in the House would be on every major network. To big a story to bury.
The evidence will get shown.
Regardless of the outcome… Biden will lose in 2024 assuming he survives the impeachment.
You don’t know how the Dems will vote. It could be large enough to fracture their party and some may put the nation in front of their party.
The reason the Republicans want damning evidence is so that there is no wiggle room. No accusations of a Trumped up charge. (Pun intended)
-G
Ian,
Well said.
This may be another case where Biden and the Democrat’s have painted themselves into a corner.
If the Republicans can present real hard damning evidence leaving no wiggle room, it will be for all to see.
If the Biden, Democrats, the DOJ try some kind of fast one, trick, or other shenanigans, it will be for all to see how much the US has become a banana republic.
And if that were the case, I would venture many life long Democrats, like the good professor would stay home on election day than vote for Biden.
That just might be a case with no impeachment.
“Attorney General Merrick Garland inexplicably made him Special Counsel. It is now expected that he will refuse to answer such questions as part of his “ongoing investigation.”
What else should one expect from corruption, from a corrupt administration? They can make their fancy legal moves but it does not nor cannot hide their depravity.
If these people were real men, they would admit what they did that was wrong, make amends. If they begged forgiveness, made restitution and did what was best for the American citizens by resigning, the world could catch its breath. Oh, that is this were so, but alas, in the real world the dregs rise to the top and those who occupy positions of power are most often self serving, greedy and cannot see beyond their blind ambition.
Wonder if TURLEY will opine on the Muskegon, Michigan 2020 election voter registration fiasco. FBI has had this since 2021 and still no prosecutions.
It’s hard to avoid the obvious. These are democrats, working together with both Justice and the media who simultaneously protect the Bidens while vigorously going after Trump and his associates.
“Many of us remain perplexed . . .” (JT)
With all due respect: Seriously?!
Many of us are outraged!
Or, as I previously questioned, will all charges be dropped and refilled in the rouge DC Circus? Then will the Plea Deal be resubmitted in a Biden loving court?
I enjoy following you but I have noticed that most of your articles contain misspelled words and grammatical errors. Perhaps this is due to insufficient time to proof read and apply edits. What say you?
You should read what I mean, not what I write.
We yet but turn another page!!