In case you were wondering who the evil democrats, abusing the DOJ with "lawfare," were targeting next, Hunter Biden's trial starts today with jury selection. The President has declined to, as yet, pardon his own son. I'll leave you to reflect within your own honesty how that would be different for a similar situation involving Donald Trump and his family.
The President's son is charged with illegally possessing a handgun and lying on a form to acquire it. Hunter bought the gun, filling out a required form stating that he was not a drug addict, when in fact he was. He possessed the gun for 11 days before his girlfriend threw it into a dumpster fearing he would use it to commit suicide. This prosecution has been sustained in defiance of a DOJ policy generally forbidding prosecutions under this statute unless the gun at issue is involved in violence. It has also continued despite United States Court of Appeals decision (in a different Circuit) holding that the statute and form at issue violates the 2d Amendment.
The judge has made a series of late decisions favoring the prosecution. The judge will not allow an expert to testify as to how addicts often view their addiction. The judge will not allow evidence, or defense questioning, related to what the defense claims is strong political bias against the Biden family by a key prosecution witness, the dealer who sold Hunter Biden the gun. Finally, the judge refused to admit a later version of the form at issue, one altered by the shop owner. The defense claims the alteration proves the shop owner violated the law and they sought to impeach him on that basis. The judge in the case, Maryellen Noreika, is a Trump appointee.
One of the interesting questions is whether Hunter will take the stand. It is rare for defendants to testify in criminal cases and there are strong reasons for Hunter to not do so, including a pending trial for tax charges where testimony in this case could be used against him. However, there are things Hunter Biden could do for himself on the stand that only he could do. He could present a sympathetic story to the jury of a man who hit bottom with drug addiction to recover from it. He could also testify as to how his addictional delusions made him believe he wasn't addicted when he signed the form. Or he could claim that his brain was so muddled at the time that he really didn't know what he was doing. He might be able to present a perspective that his expert witness was denied the opportunity to offer.
Of course, the bottom line is that the prosecution has a strong case. Hunter Biden indisputably signed a form saying he was not a drug addict when his own book, and other evidence, shows that he plainly was. That's a res ipsa loquitur sort of smoking gun (pun intended).
NOTE: Originally misposted on Northgate and moved here.
The President's son is charged with illegally possessing a handgun and lying on a form to acquire it. Hunter bought the gun, filling out a required form stating that he was not a drug addict, when in fact he was. He possessed the gun for 11 days before his girlfriend threw it into a dumpster fearing he would use it to commit suicide. This prosecution has been sustained in defiance of a DOJ policy generally forbidding prosecutions under this statute unless the gun at issue is involved in violence. It has also continued despite United States Court of Appeals decision (in a different Circuit) holding that the statute and form at issue violates the 2d Amendment.
The judge has made a series of late decisions favoring the prosecution. The judge will not allow an expert to testify as to how addicts often view their addiction. The judge will not allow evidence, or defense questioning, related to what the defense claims is strong political bias against the Biden family by a key prosecution witness, the dealer who sold Hunter Biden the gun. Finally, the judge refused to admit a later version of the form at issue, one altered by the shop owner. The defense claims the alteration proves the shop owner violated the law and they sought to impeach him on that basis. The judge in the case, Maryellen Noreika, is a Trump appointee.
One of the interesting questions is whether Hunter will take the stand. It is rare for defendants to testify in criminal cases and there are strong reasons for Hunter to not do so, including a pending trial for tax charges where testimony in this case could be used against him. However, there are things Hunter Biden could do for himself on the stand that only he could do. He could present a sympathetic story to the jury of a man who hit bottom with drug addiction to recover from it. He could also testify as to how his addictional delusions made him believe he wasn't addicted when he signed the form. Or he could claim that his brain was so muddled at the time that he really didn't know what he was doing. He might be able to present a perspective that his expert witness was denied the opportunity to offer.
Of course, the bottom line is that the prosecution has a strong case. Hunter Biden indisputably signed a form saying he was not a drug addict when his own book, and other evidence, shows that he plainly was. That's a res ipsa loquitur sort of smoking gun (pun intended).
NOTE: Originally misposted on Northgate and moved here.
