After the spectacular collapse of his sweetheart deal with the Justice Department in court, Hunter Biden’s lawyer angrily told the prosecutors in open court to “just rip it up.” It appears, however, that the defense team does not want to shred one part of the deal: the diversion agreement to avoid any charge over his false statement to obtain a gun permit. The defense is now arguing that, since the two sides signed the agreement before the implosion in court, it is final and complete.
The Justice Department thinks otherwise. It is arguing that neither the probation officer nor the Court agreed to the plea agreement to finalize it. Indeed, it was the sweeping immunity language buried in the gun charge section that led the Court to throw a flag on the play. Accordingly, the Justice Department is now pledging to indict Hunter by the end of the month.
Hunter, however, is insisting that the Justice Department will have to pry the agreement from his cold, dead fingers. Indeed, the President’s son may be channeling more from the National Rifle Association (NRA) than its catchline. If the court rejects the diversion agreement as executed, Hunter could be making an argument that will leave the Biden White House in something of a pickle.
One obvious attack against a charge is to argue that the underlying law itself is unconstitutional.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” including marijuana, is barred from possessing a gun and can face up to 10 years in prison.
However, recently the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled the law violated the Second Amendment in United States v. Daniels. The case involved a man who was arrested in possession of marijuana and two loaded firearms. The Fifth Circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen v. New York Rifle & Pistol Association, which established that firearms laws must conform with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
President Biden denounced Bruen as a virtual abomination and has been a vocal supporter of the underlying law. Hunter, however, may now find himself in strange company in seeking to avoid any federal charge.
In the appellate opinion, Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote that “Our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage.”
That sounds tantalizingly familiar, but is it enough for Hunter to go full Wayne LaPierre?
If so, this would not be the first time that Hunter followed a path that his father has previously condemned in others. For example, for decades, Joe Biden has railed against “deadbeat dads” despite his son’s long effort to avoid paying child support to Lunden Alexis Roberts. Hunter spent years fighting support for his daughter Navy, even after a court confirmed that he was her father. Joe Biden himself only recently acknowledged the existence of Navy after routinely excluding her from the list of his grandchildren.
Yet, the President may not be quite ready for his son to join actual hunters in advocating for sweeping gun rights protections, including for drug users.
In making the argument, Hunter will have to claim that references to gun ownership by “law-abiding citizens” in past cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and Bruen should not be read to exclude everyone who breaks the law. Judge Smith cites a prior ruling in United States v. Rahimi, rejecting the federal ban on gun possession by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders. In that decision, the court held that the phrase should be read as “shorthand” alluding to “people who were historically ‘stripped of their Second Amendment rights.'”
The government has argued (and would likely argue in the Biden case) that there were laws from the 17th and 18th centuries barring people from publicly carrying or firing guns while intoxicated. However, the Fifth Circuit rejected the historical claim and noted that “under the government’s reasoning, Congress could ban gun possession by anyone who has multiple alcoholic drinks a week…based on the postbellum intoxicated carry laws. The analogical reasoning Bruen prescribed cannot stretch that far.”
The government has tried to use other laws barring guns to the mentally ill and dangerous individuals as historical analogs, but the court would have none of it. Indeed, Hunter could find himself arguing that people are too often denied rights by the government under claims that they are “insurrectionists.” Sound familiar?
The government has pointed to how “Founding-era governments took guns away from persons perceived to be dangerous.” However, the Fifth Circuit noted that those laws targeted unpopular people, including Catholics, as akin to traitors to the Revolution. Judge Smith wrote that drug users “are not a class of political traitors, as British Loyalists were perceived to be. Nor are they like Catholics and other religious dissenters who were seen as potential insurrectionists.”
So, a rejection of the gun diversion agreement could prove an even greater diversion for the Biden family as Hunter embraces the very decisions and rights long opposed by his father. In the meantime, the Justice Department would be citing historical precedent used against Catholics (like the Bidens) as potential insurrectionists who cannot be trusted with weapons.
Of course, White House Press Spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre could defend all of this by paraphrasing the NRA that the “only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun [case] is a good guy with a gun [case].”
Hey Hunter, where’s Charlton Heston when you need him?
Dear Prof Turley,
There’s so much irony here you can cut it with a knife. I’m looking for solid legal analysis and some torts I can cling to.
This is like a DoJ circular firing squad playing Russian roulette. .. and I don’t think Hunter is the type of guy who can do 20 long years for some ‘dust in baggy’.
*this life of sin they got him in .. . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkUGDYjYgMs
I think the better inquiry would be – how often is this provision enforced against someone who did not end up using the gun on anyone. I mean, sure, if someone is an addict and then takes the gun and uses it to rob a bodega or something, then throw the book at him. But I doubt very much there are a lot of cases where someone who merely checked the “no” box for drug use and then got a gun and did not use it would be prosecuted for anything.
Not really saying this based on any data, but I suspect when this is looked into that is what will be found, and then an indictment for Hunter on a gun charge will look like it is quite unusual for someone in his circumstance, and really just caving to GOP pressure.
🤡
But had you lied on ATF form 4473, a felony, would you have gotten such a sweetheart deal?
Of course not.
Your last name is not Biden.
You would be doing time and fined.
Just like Joe was pushing for in his tough on gun crime . . . unless it is his son.
Jethro, like my little brother, just got out of prison serving 7 years hard time for a gun charge (rifle hanging in the pickup) because 20 years ago he got arrested for some marijuana – ie convicted ‘felon’.
*he can’t vote neither.
What you’re saying is not a valid argument against indictment — it’s an argument for a defense attorney to present to a jury for acquittal, or an argument to present to a judge for leniency at a sentencing hearing.
The defense attorney would, effectively, be arguing for jury nullification without using those words.
This is an unusual case, though. How often is the FBI called in to retrieve such an illegal weapon in the first place? And how often, when the FBI does obtain an illegal weapon, do they sit on the evidence for years?
You forgot one little, tiny detail. The gun was ditched in a public garbage bin where anyone could get it, and they did.
The answer is it is enforced routinely.
The Justice Department thinks otherwise. … Accordingly, the Justice Department is now pledging to indict Hunter by the end of the month……Hunter, however, is insisting that the Justice Department will have to pry the agreement from his cold, dead fingers.
Word
What is the value of one’s word?
Hunter is a sycophant of his family and esp his very sick father who has been a grifter for 50+ years in politics. They both have lived in a world where their words have no intrinsic value. Thus this recent DOJ riposte is more of the same AG Merrick Garland sophistry, trademarked by Bill Clinton’s “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”™. Their words mean nothing because the DOJ and Biden Crime Syndicate (one and the same Mafia organization) lack credibility. They make the oldest profession look sterling.
Comes now the true colors of Democrats in NYC, particularly the NYC Mayor and Commissioners. These moralizing Leftists crowed about Sanctuary City, and lectured Governors Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott about not welcoming illegal immigrants, about claiming we had an open US Border, and about sending illegals to NY State and elsewhere. Now Mayor Eric Adams has been caught on recorded video going full xenophobe, nationalist, anti-immigrant, racist, right wing protectionist, anti-Biden immigration policies
The city we knew we about to lose!!!
NYC Mayor Eric Adams, Racist / Xenophobe / Right Wing Nationalist in Chief
Youtube has already removed the following video once but it was reuploaded by the same youtube channel holder, “BlackConsevative24”
😂
Estovir,
It is all well and good when it is the border states that have to deal with the influx of illegal immigrants and they can virtue signal their grand virtureness to the heavens for all to see!
Until those same illegals start showing up in their backyards i.e. Martha’s Vineyard, or the streets of NYC and Chicago.
Then boy does their tune CHANGE!!!!
Interesting how gun control advocacy groups like Mom’s Demand Action are so quiet on Hunter Biden lying on ATF form 4473, the sweetheart deal he would of gotten and how his father was one of those pushing for jail time and fines for the exact crime Hunter committed.
It is like the #MeToo movement. All well and good until it is a Democrat who sexually assaults a woman. Then that woman is not to be believed. She is to be attacked, slandered, threatened, and canceled.
Even when there are photos and texts proving them right, i.e. former gov Cuomo.
Upstatefarmer – Are you aware of why former Gov. Cuomo is a former governor and not a current governor? Because Democrats believed the women over Governor Cuomo and he was forced to resign.
Meanwhile Trump has been found by a court to have committed rape and he is the leading Republican candidate for President.
So no, I do not see your point. I see the opposite of your point.
No.
The Democrats did not believe the woman.
The optics of the situation, more than a few, looked bad.
And then, he was forced to resign.
The optics of working with his brother, an anchor at CNN did not help either.
Both have been removed from their positions in disgrace.
Fortunately for us.
He was not found to be guilty of rape. You Progressives lie, and want everybody else to believe your lies. Turn about is going to be great fun….
The civil jury did not find Trump liable of rape.
“fingering”. What other prominent politician was credibly accused of that? Oh, yes, JRB. His accuser was ignored by the MSM and Democratic Party and now lives in Russia to protect herself.
Factually wrong. The jury found DT guilty of sexual assault, not rape. Since this happened decades ago, it is unclear how they reached that verdict, but it is NYC.
Check your facts.
Perjury does seem to have been forgotten here. Progressives seem to have a particular immunity to that charge, at least in the federal system. I wonder if it’s because they are almost always tried in a large city, if charged at all.
Seems like a nit pick. It’s still a federal crime to lie on that form. In any event your premise is wrong: perjury can be written, it doesn’t have to be spoken. The instructions to the form itself refer to the need, in some instances, for “a written statement, executed under penalties of perjury.” If you don’t believe me you can look it up, it’s ATF Form 4473, and easy to find on the internet.
First, perjury can occur in written form (see Black’s law dictionary, which I quoted for you before).
Second, the Fifth Circuit decision does not apply outside that circuit, and thus, it does not apply to Hunter’s case.
Third, even if the Fifth Circuit decision did apply, on what authority do you base the concept that it is not a crime to lie under oath if it turns out that it wouldn’t have been a crime to obtain the gun? That seems like a novel concept to me, and it also seems counterintuitive. However, if you have some legal authority that says that, kindly say what it is.
Different jurisdictions have different terms for lying on a form where that form is signed subject to criminal penalties. Some call it perjury, others call it false swearing, and so on. The most common form everyone signs – a federal Form 1040 tax return – requires a signature which is a declaration that “Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return . . . and to the best of my knowledge and belief” everything said is true.” If the feds can prove something was a lie, and prosecute the taxpayer (who does not need to testify), the taxpayer can be held criminally liable. So it seems like a nit-pick to home in on the word “perjury” as if that made any real difference to the point being made.
You’re arguing that lying on the form is the crime. You’re not under oath when you fill out the form. That’s where your confusion lies.
There are forms that have certain language that, if you sign it, you are attesting to the truth of the answers you placed on the form, subject to criminal penalties if you are found to have lied. The above is one example. Whether you want to call that “under oath” or some other description, doesn’t really matter. Here’s a little summary, it (briefly) discusses both testimonial perjury and lying on a form as a type of perjury:
It’s obvious you don’t fully understand how the law works.
I’ve cited to criminal statutes to support my assertions. You have not cited to any statutes, or indeed any other legal authority at all, to support yours.
Your point seems to be that the term “perjury” is always and everywhere limited to live testimony in court. I cited to 18 U.S.C. §1920 as a counter-example, in which “perjury” is used to indicate false statements on a document.
As for the suggestion that no crime is committed until the person testifies in court, I cited to 26 U.S.C. §7206 as a counter-example – as it makes that provision makes it a felony to knowingly lie on a form and then sign that form.
“You’re arguing that lying on the form is the crime.”
And it is. The fifth circuit didn’t somehow wipe out 200 years of jurisprudence lying on a form under penalty of perjury, and attesting to it with your signature is a crime. In this case, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
So either you are wrong, Weiss is an idiot, or the fix is in. Or is it your contention that you know more about the fifth circuit ruling than he does?
Never mind I almost forgot. This is the same person who said that evidence is not evidence of a crime, unless the evidence itself is a crime. He also said that you cannot present evidence at a trial, unless you have incontrovertible proof.
Hard to argue with that
Nah, you just changed your argument. But we’ll go with that. So Weiss hasn’t heard about the 5th Circuit ruling, is that your contention??/
More lies and obfuscations. Yes, being 22 is not a crime. But if you lie on form 4473 and say that you are 22 and not 15, it’s a felony. Lying to me about your age is not a crime. Lyjng on form 4473 is a felony.
The phrase is “under penalty of perjury”
Your trolling such idiocies should be a crime. Then again, Media Matters uses idiots like you so there is that
carry on, Troll
🤡
Leave it alone Tom.
Don’t get stuck in this idiot’s pedantry loop
Fair enough. How do i always get sucked in lol
If he’s being “schooled” by anonymous, then this is a case where the teacher is wrong.
Right, I’m being schooled by the guy who says you can never be held liable for lying on form 4473. Because if you go to court, we all know you have the right to remain silent so therefore you’ll never be found guilty of perjury.
Then he tries to say that everyone else is conflating perjury and lying, when he’s the only one that’s doing.
Well it’s a bit of a giveaway that he keeps making these blanket statements about how limited the term “perjury” is, but he has not cited a single authority in support.
Anon – it would help if you supplied some legal authority for your assertions. Your entire argument collapses if the 5th circuit’s ruling doesn’t apply to Hunter’s case – which it doesn’t because Hunter is not being prosecuted in the 5th circuit.
Even putting that aside, where do you get the idea that it’s suddenly not a crime to lie on a federal form, executed under penalties of perjury, when the feds could not have withheld certification based on the answer? At the time Hunter executed the form the statements were material, and so any knowing falsehood would have been a federal felony. See 26 U.S.C. §7206(1).
Your theory seems to be that if a judicial decision issued subsequent to the execution of the form makes the statement immaterial, that judicial decision works retroactively to nullify the felony. That’s a creative argument, and if I were Hunter’s lawyer I’d make it, but if the court asked me for authority to back it up, what should I say? What would you say?
“”Under penalty of perjury” means when you’re found to have committed perjury in court.”
Thats hilarious. “it doesn’t mean what it says, It means what I say.”
“You can lie on the form. The catch is your liable to be charged with perjury when you’re questioned about what you stated on the form if you lie in court. This is not a hard concept to grasp.”
Sure you can lie on the form. And it’s a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
If you lie about it in court, you could also be charged with perjury.
You dont own a gun when u fill out the form. You will never get one when they run your birthdate. U will still be guilty of lying on the form and susceptible to being prosecuted.
Anonymous – Actually, lying on a tax form is treated as perjury. https://www.thetaxlawyer.com/tax-fraud-tax-crimes/information-advice/prosecution-for-false-statements-on-tax-return
It is nitpicking, but that is all the left can do. The term for lying in a document where the name is signed is lying. Perjury is a term of art and, in this case, is a legal term.
We cannot forget that the left is not honest, and they will deflect and deceive. Thank you for your explanation.
Two things. First, even if you were right, your point is a trivial one. It’s like saying, you’re totally wrong to suggest Mr. Smith can be charged with statutory rape; it is clear at most he committed statutory sexual assault!
Second, you’re not right. Your position is that the only time perjury can occur is when testifying in court. But that’s false, there is such a thing as false statements in writing which constitute perjury. To take one of many examples, under the federal system if someone lies on an application for federal employee compensation, that’s defined as perjury:
18 U.S.C. §1920: “Whoever knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up a material fact, or makes a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, or makes or uses a false statement or report knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry in connection with the application for or receipt of compensation or other benefit or payment under subchapter I or III of chapter 81 of title 5, shall be guilty of perjury, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine under this title, or by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both; but if the amount of the benefits falsely obtained does not exceed $1,000, such person shall be punished by a fine under this title, or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both
Here, let me try it—-
“No, no, thats only if you go to court and lie about it again under oath”!!
—-bug face
I’ll leave the distinction of perjury and lying to Oldman since he knows what he is talking about and you don’t.
The point involved whether perjury or lying in this circumstance is the same, in that both are illegal. You try to hide the illegality through nitpicking. That is usual for ATS and Bug. The former is an ideologue and the latter an idiot.
Lying on form 4473 is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Incidentally, illegal possession by a drug user only gets you five years.
It’s a good thing lying on this blog is not a felony
Mere possession of a shotgun at 15 is not a crime I either
Depends on which state you live in. Legally a 15 year old can’t purchase a long gun or shotgun in any state. But a Parent can and give it to the 15 year old depending on the state. Some places you can be 13 yrs old.
Your argument was that “merely” possessing gun as drug addict is not a crime. So what? Neither is posssessing a shotgun at 15.
You’re forgetting that a key element of perjury is that the lie must be material. An immaterial lie, even when under oath, is not a crime. Therefore if the law banning drug users from owning guns is invalid, then his false claim not to be a drug user was immaterial and was not perjury.
Well it is a conundrum for the President and his misguided son. To win a victory by utilizing an argument that degrades a basic foundation of his father’s moral outrage (or lack of it} is truly something delicious to even think of. The question may be, “ was he intoxicated at the time?” I have no problem with limiting the scope of gun ownership in certain individuals because of dangerous actions such as carrying a firearm while drunk or intoxicated by drugs and I I would accept that. I don’t like marijuana because, as a physician, I find the literature shows it is far more dangerous and mind altering than many people think. If you drink and drive or are intoxicated with marijuana, then you deserve to lose your license but if no firearm was involved then you should not lose your 2nd amendment rights. But if you are intoxicated with a far more dangerous drug like cocaine, and which is still generally illegal, or are drunk with alcohol or marijuana and carrying a firearm then you should be charged with a felony and lose you 2nd amendment rights for a specific period of time and completion and monitoring by a alcohol treatment program or a drug treatment program. If a person competes the rehab and stays crime free for specified period of time, then the firearms could be returned.
Violence committed with a firearm in these circumstances is a far different animal.
GEB,
Well said and I agree.
Hunters problem is he committed a felony lying on ATF form 4473 and he just may have committed additional crimes prior to and after the firearms felony in the form of tax evasion.
Why does nobody ever talk about Perjury? He lied when he signed the form which is perjury.
Because we have a two system court.
That’s not true. You should be better informed when you go to make a blanket pronouncement of law like that. (See my response to you above.) I happen to have a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary on my desk, and under “perjury” the definition reads:
In criminal law, the willful assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge, made by a witness in a judicial proceeding as part of his evidence, either upon oath or in any form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath, whether such evidence is given in open court, or in an affidavit, or otherwise, such assertion being material to the issue or point of inquiry and known to such witness to be false.
Now this is getting interesting. What is a “judicial proceeding” and what does it mean for an assertion to be made “in” such a proceeding? The term “judicial proceeding” can be understood in a narrow sense to mean convening in person (or via zoom) for a hearing. This is the way you are understanding it. But what you overlook is that it can also be understood in a broader sense to mean the overall judicial process of resolving a matter.
The fact that Black’s includes “affidavits or otherwise” in its definition of perjury is a clue that it has the broader definition in mind. People don’t generally write or execute affidavits in open court during a live hearing; that is something done in the lawyer’s office (or elsewhere) during other times, and then submitted to the court in some way, mainly through the mail or electronically, or by dropping it off to the court clerk in person (but again, outside a live hearing in court). Another clue is that the federal form Hunter filled out refers to perjury by affidavit. It says nothing about in-person testimony which has no application to the filling out of a federal gun form.
In this respect, Black’s also includes a broad definition of judicial proceeding to mean any step taken in a court of justice in the prosecution or defense of an action. Here, it is important to understand the preposition “in.” A step can be taken “in” a court of justice by filing a document. I’ve spent the last 25 years of my life involved in judicial proceedings, and only a small fraction of the steps taken “in” the court actually involve a live hearing. And when a live hearing is convened, most documents referred to (including affidavits) have already been submitted to the court in some way.
Is your distinction that the crime is called something else when it’s on a document? Or are you saying it’s not a crime to lie on a document, only when giving live testimony?
If the latter, then what do you make of 26 U.S.C. §7206(1), which makes it a federal felony to lie on “any return, statement, or other document” which is signed under penalties of perjury?
“I am correct. You’re not.”
Once again you are nitpicking whether right or wrong. You are trying to obscure the truth.
“You’re not refuting it with any facts that prove me wrong.”
Here ya go, dumba$$
If you need me to find it in Federal Law, I am sure I can.
Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-10-101 Perjury I Written statements shall be treated as if made under oath if [Read as appropriate]: a. The statement was made on or pursuant to form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable; (OR) b. The statement recites that it was made under oath, the declarant was aware of such recitation at the time he/she made the statement and intended that the statement should be represented as a sworn statement, and the statement was in fact so represented by its delivery or utterance with the signed jurat of an officer authorized to administer oaths appended thereto. [13A-10-100(b)(3)]
Read it again if you need to. FORM
Read it again. FALSE STATEMENTS MADE THEREIN ARE PUNISHABLE…
Whats astonishing is that you either a)are that misinformed and ignorant of the law OR b)\didn’t think anyone would bother to look it up.
You are a liar or an idiot. Your choice. The truth is both are illegal and that is the point behind this discussion.
I just gave you the Legal definition of PERJURY IN THE FIRST DEGREE in Alabama. It includes lying on any form that bears a statement, authorized by law, that false statements made therein are punishable.
So clearly, you are the ignorant one here. Call me all the names you want, it’s not gonna change the facts.
You said that lying on the form and perjury are two different things. This says they are the SAME EXACT THING
You are welcome for the law lesson. Case closed.
Tom,
I have not bothered to read through this whole thread as, well, you are arguing with a person who uses the dictionary and wiki and some serious mental gymnastics to try and fail to make his argument.
Do not bother. It is a waste of time.
As the good Estovir pointed out to me my own advice, just scroll past.
Upstate
You are correct of course. I can ignore his idiotic statements of “fact”, it’s just when he tries to claim intellectual or educational superiority over others here (and is dead wrong) that I feel obliged to respond.
I would have posted the statute earlier and not wasted the rest of the argument, but I was driving and couldn’t easily access the code. Besides, it was kinda fun watching him twist his argument into a knot.
He really should stick to mowing lawns. I’ve no doubt he is good at it.
“The truth is both are illegal and that is the point behind this discussion.”
The truth is you have no idea what the truth is. Earlier you said that you can lie on the form and nothing will happen unless you repeat the lie in court. Do I need to quote it?? Now you say both are illegal.
When oldman said you were nitpicking, you tried to make a distinction between the two by claiming one was a crime and the other was not.
When you sign a form affirming that it is true and correct, and it has the statement regarding perjury, you are under OATH, by the definition. I can provide that if you need to be schooled further. If you lie on that form, it’s perjury.
Best stick to mowing lawns.
“An affidavit is not a federal form. It’s a court document.”
Also a lie. I fill out affadavits all the time. Never been to court or submitted one to a court.
Hunter’s lawyers have a professional obligation to make whatever argument is likely to work, regardless of prior political positions of the client or what the client’s father says.
To illustrate: there was once a lawyer providing oral argument before SCOTUS, and he made an argument the direct opposite of what he had argued the previous year. One Justice asked, “Weren’t you here last term arguing the opposite?” He answered, “Yes, your honor.” The Justice asked, “How do you explain that?” He answered, “Different client, your honor.”
At which point all Justices nodded their head in agreement. That’s how the system works.
Pretty funny. Let’s hear it for gun rights for druggies and deadbeat dads.
^^Official DNC paid troll^^
Worthiness is a disqualifier to be hired by the DNC Troll Farm. “Bottom dwelling scum” gets you hired tho’ in a flash.
Yep.
That sums it up pretty well.
Our two tiered justice system on full display.
The hypocrisy of the Biden Crime Family on full display.
“. . . the Biden White House in something of a pickle.”
That is unsurprising.
From limousines to private jets to masks and now to guns, the Left’s pathology has always been: Rules for thee, but not for me.
When you spurn consistency, you can spawn all manner of absurdities.
Can Judge Smith cite a “historical tradition” for crack addicts being pimped out by their father to collect bribes from foreign officials ? The American bribery whore defense ? It might just work for poor little Hunter. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Jon…why do you still think there is a rule of law? I mean it is pretty obvious…it is DEAD!
I guess the Billions “going to” Ukraine will help to fund Biden’s defense? Heard there are lots of art collectors in Ukraine!
no one on planet earth believe anything will happened…beyond performance art. He will plead guilty….suspended sentence, where the JUDGE will hand him back the gun before he jumps in his 8 secret service gasoline SUVs to then jump on his PRIVATE JET to head his $20k month mansion.
The Rule of Law is DEAD in America.
Same afternoon, FBI will invade Trump’s home…find a BB gun and he will be sentence to 100 years in jail for an illegal hand gun!
Guy, if President Trump farted, Jack Smith would seek a felony indictment for Toxic Waste Disposal.
At least President Trumps farts are just gas unlike leaky Depends Joe.
And thank God for the second amendment, right?
C’mon. Let me hear you say it.
The Fifth Circuit ruling only applies to the region in their jurisdiction. Delaware is not in their jurisdiction. It is still criminal everywhere else.
When a federal circuit court of appeals issues a ruling, it only applies in that circuit. Only SCOTUS’s decisions apply to all circuits.
Explain how districts can have conflicting decisions
Suppose there is a federal statute that regulates some activity (speech, gun possession, etc.), and someone challenges it in Boston, and someone else challenges it in New York City. The First Circuit (which includes Boston) may rule that it violates Constitution, whereas the Second Circuit (which includes NYC) may rule that it doesn’t violate the Constitution. In that situation, the federal statute may be enforced in the Second Circuit (New York, Vermont, and Connecticut), but not in the First Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island). That’s called a circuit split and is one of the signals to SCOTUS that it should grant cert and resolve the issue on a national basis.
Thats why all those incarcerated souls got turned loose the next day….riiiiiiight.
But he is not guilty of possession…he is guilty of LYING on a federal form.
Indeed. The IRA defense Turley is talking about is irrelevant. It is not about gun possession but about perjury.
I will never vote for Hunter Biden.
your mailed ballot says otherwise…it is already completed
12 years old kids are not permitted to vote.
Fascinating irony! BTW New email layout of column is excellent!
Progressives would not have standards, if not for double standards. Republicans should embrace the conversion and push for more gun ownership.
Judge Smith wrote that drug users “are not a class of political traitors, as British Loyalists were perceived to be. Nor are they like Catholics and other religious dissenters who were seen as potential insurrectionists.”
Not to mention that those actions by the government were based on bigotry toward Catholics as a class, and pre-dated the Fourteenth Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause.