Well, another fallen individual at the hands of the court has taken place...Hunter Biden is now a convicted felon...he was convicted on all 3 counts....
The AP article wrote:
Hunter Biden was convicted Tuesday of all three felony charges related to the purchase of a revolver in 2018 when, prosecutors argued, the president’s son lied on a mandatory gun-purchase form by saying he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.
Hunter Biden, 54, stared straight ahead and showed little emotion as the verdict was read after jury deliberations that lasted only three hours over two days in Wilmington, Delaware. He hugged his attorneys, smiled wanly and kissed his wife, Melissa, before leaving the courtroom with her.
President Joe Biden said in a statement issued shortly after the verdict that he would accept the outcome and “continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal.”
Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced by U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, though as a first-time offender he would not get anywhere near the maximum, and there’s no guarantee the judge would send him to prison. She did not set a sentencing date.
Another black eye to our nation regarding these political leaders and affiliates...an ex president convicted on felony charges and now a sitting president's son is convicted on felony charges...
What the f u c k are we doing America...how do we make this stop???
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
1
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Well, another fallen individual at the hands of the court has taken place...Hunter Biden is now a convicted felon...he was convicted on all 3 counts....
The AP article wrote:
Hunter Biden was convicted Tuesday of all three felony charges related to the purchase of a revolver in 2018 when, prosecutors argued, the president’s son lied on a mandatory gun-purchase form by saying he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.
Hunter Biden, 54, stared straight ahead and showed little emotion as the verdict was read after jury deliberations that lasted only three hours over two days in Wilmington, Delaware. He hugged his attorneys, smiled wanly and kissed his wife, Melissa, before leaving the courtroom with her.
President Joe Biden said in a statement issued shortly after the verdict that he would accept the outcome and “continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal.”
Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced by U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, though as a first-time offender he would not get anywhere near the maximum, and there’s no guarantee the judge would send him to prison. She did not set a sentencing date.
Another black eye to our nation regarding these political leaders and affiliates...an ex president convicted on felony charges and now a sitting president's son is convicted on felony charges...
What the f u c k are we doing America...how do we make this stop???
I never expected that he would even consider such a thing. Biden if nothing is more respectful of his position and of the establishment than SOME others. I do not see any twitter tirades or calls to arms either, but then again I would not expect outlandish behavior and tantrum press conferences from Biden at any time.
Hunter is a troubled person and broke the law, what consequence he has to face should be his and pardoning him is enabling yet again and maybe this time dad will not enable and give freebies to someone who is undeserving.
1
@ABooksNightmare
I never expected that he would even consider such a thing. Biden if nothing is more respectful of his position and of the establishment than SOME others. I do not see any twitter tirades or calls to arms either, but then again I would not expect outlandish behavior and tantrum press conferences from Biden at any time.
Hunter is a troubled person and broke the law, what consequence he has to face should be his and pardoning him is enabling yet again and maybe this time dad will not enable and give freebies to someone who is undeserving.
The legal system worked and he got what he deserved, funny concept isnt it?
That is what they want you to believe right after Trump's verdict. That was the whole purpose of this excercise. Especially when our DOJ tried to push an unpresidented deal last summer to get Hunter off the hook for tax felony crimes and gun charges. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/20/politics/hunter-biden/index.html
Personally, would believe a reasonable punishment in this case would be just a diversion program.
Now let's see the tax evasion trial and FARA violations. Oh darn they delayed that one til September and it sure won't be over until after the election.
Hunter Biden may never have been tried on felony gun charges without IRS whistleblowers coming forward and careful questions from an observant federal judge.
Hunter Biden was convicted on three felony gun charges Tuesday in Delaware and is set to go to trial in September on felony tax charges. After years of avoiding charges entirely, special counsel David Weiss was forced to bring Hunter Biden’s case to trial after his “sweetheart” plea deal, which would have had Biden plead guilty to two misdemeanors and enter a diversion agreement to avoid jail time for a felony gun charge, fell apart last July under questioning by U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika.
Hunter Biden began negotiating his plea deal in May 2023, shortly after IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley first came forward in April by sending a letter to Congress, not yet identifying himself but expressing his intention to expose the Hunter Biden investigation.
1
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
The legal system worked and he got what he deserved, funny concept isnt it?
That is what they want you to believe right after Trump's verdict. That was the whole purpose of this excercise. Especially when our DOJ tried to push an unpresidented deal last summer to get Hunter off the hook for tax felony crimes and gun charges. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/20/politics/hunter-biden/index.html
Personally, would believe a reasonable punishment in this case would be just a diversion program.
Now let's see the tax evasion trial and FARA violations. Oh darn they delayed that one til September and it sure won't be over until after the election.
Hunter Biden may never have been tried on felony gun charges without IRS whistleblowers coming forward and careful questions from an observant federal judge.
Hunter Biden was convicted on three felony gun charges Tuesday in Delaware and is set to go to trial in September on felony tax charges. After years of avoiding charges entirely, special counsel David Weiss was forced to bring Hunter Biden’s case to trial after his “sweetheart” plea deal, which would have had Biden plead guilty to two misdemeanors and enter a diversion agreement to avoid jail time for a felony gun charge, fell apart last July under questioning by U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika.
Hunter Biden began negotiating his plea deal in May 2023, shortly after IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley first came forward in April by sending a letter to Congress, not yet identifying himself but expressing his intention to expose the Hunter Biden investigation.
@ABooksNightmare I never expected that he would even consider such a thing. Biden if nothing is more respectful of his position and of the establishment than SOME others. I do not see any twitter tirades or calls to arms either, but then again I would not expect outlandish behavior and tantrum press conferences from Biden at any time. Hunter is a troubled person and broke the law, what consequence he has to face should be his and pardoning him is enabling yet again and maybe this time dad will not enable and give freebies to someone who is undeserving.
I bet he does pardon him.
Time will tell.
3
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@ABooksNightmare I never expected that he would even consider such a thing. Biden if nothing is more respectful of his position and of the establishment than SOME others. I do not see any twitter tirades or calls to arms either, but then again I would not expect outlandish behavior and tantrum press conferences from Biden at any time. Hunter is a troubled person and broke the law, what consequence he has to face should be his and pardoning him is enabling yet again and maybe this time dad will not enable and give freebies to someone who is undeserving.
usually, a pardon is given after the convict has already served their time. Nothing has been said about commutation though:
A commutation of sentence is a reduction, either totally or partially, of a sentence currently being served. A President’s decision to commute a sentence does not eliminate a federal conviction. It also does not imply that the person was innocent of the crime for which he or she was convicted, nor does it remove the ramifications of a criminal conviction, such as losing the right to vote or inability to hold elected office.
The President’s exercise of the clemency power comes in five forms: reprieves, pardons, amnesties, remissions, and commutations.
the irony here is if Joe thought he could easily beat Trump at the ballet box, he could commute Donnie boys sentence since it will happen July 11. But he will never do that because he knows deep down its closer to 50/50
0
usually, a pardon is given after the convict has already served their time. Nothing has been said about commutation though:
A commutation of sentence is a reduction, either totally or partially, of a sentence currently being served. A President’s decision to commute a sentence does not eliminate a federal conviction. It also does not imply that the person was innocent of the crime for which he or she was convicted, nor does it remove the ramifications of a criminal conviction, such as losing the right to vote or inability to hold elected office.
The President’s exercise of the clemency power comes in five forms: reprieves, pardons, amnesties, remissions, and commutations.
the irony here is if Joe thought he could easily beat Trump at the ballet box, he could commute Donnie boys sentence since it will happen July 11. But he will never do that because he knows deep down its closer to 50/50
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: @ABooksNightmare I never expected that he would even consider such a thing. Biden if nothing is more respectful of his position and of the establishment than SOME others. I do not see any twitter tirades or calls to arms either, but then again I would not expect outlandish behavior and tantrum press conferences from Biden at any time. Hunter is a troubled person and broke the law, what consequence he has to face should be his and pardoning him is enabling yet again and maybe this time dad will not enable and give freebies to someone who is undeserving. I bet he does pardon him. Time will tell.
Donald Trump is a convicted felon.
Convicted felons can’t own guns.
The POS owns a gun at Mar-a-Lago.
So the POS is breaking one of the same gun laws Hunter Biden broke.
Right or wrong UNIMAN?
0
Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN:
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: @ABooksNightmare I never expected that he would even consider such a thing. Biden if nothing is more respectful of his position and of the establishment than SOME others. I do not see any twitter tirades or calls to arms either, but then again I would not expect outlandish behavior and tantrum press conferences from Biden at any time. Hunter is a troubled person and broke the law, what consequence he has to face should be his and pardoning him is enabling yet again and maybe this time dad will not enable and give freebies to someone who is undeserving. I bet he does pardon him. Time will tell.
Donald Trump is a convicted felon.
Convicted felons can’t own guns.
The POS owns a gun at Mar-a-Lago.
So the POS is breaking one of the same gun laws Hunter Biden broke.
And I believe there will be no jail time for Hunter for this gun violation and I have no problem with that.
It's the tax violations he deserves jail time for, at least the ones that the statue of limitations haven't passed, and IMO should be a minimum of 5 years.
Pedo Peter will pardon/commute that one for sure.
0
And I believe there will be no jail time for Hunter for this gun violation and I have no problem with that.
It's the tax violations he deserves jail time for, at least the ones that the statue of limitations haven't passed, and IMO should be a minimum of 5 years.
Despite media reports, Rubenfeld insisted that it's "not true" that Trump is already a "convicted felon," arguing that one is "not a convicted felon because of a jury verdict."
"You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt."
Despite media reports, Rubenfeld insisted that it's "not true" that Trump is already a "convicted felon," arguing that one is "not a convicted felon because of a jury verdict."
"You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt."
Lets play lawyer ball...come on you are kicking the dirt and do not need to. The jury convicted and there are many lawyers out there not spitting technicalities and for sure not fighting with others about it like you are.
0
@UNIMAN
Lets play lawyer ball...come on you are kicking the dirt and do not need to. The jury convicted and there are many lawyers out there not spitting technicalities and for sure not fighting with others about it like you are.
No time for illegal weapons charge but jail time for tax evasion...you have to admit that's pretty funny...if you aren't drawing the line at a gun charge while hopped up on narcotics then how are you drawing the line at tax evasion....just seems odd to me...
one can kill you and the other is just trying to skirt a government agency out of money...
Carry on I suppose
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
0
No time for illegal weapons charge but jail time for tax evasion...you have to admit that's pretty funny...if you aren't drawing the line at a gun charge while hopped up on narcotics then how are you drawing the line at tax evasion....just seems odd to me...
one can kill you and the other is just trying to skirt a government agency out of money...
I'd say he broke his probation and should serve whatever time was lopped off early especially since he is hooked on drugs. A probation violation has consequences and he should be held to them no different than anyone else. Hunter is a wreck and he brought all this on himself so you get what you get and you serve the time,
0
I'd say he broke his probation and should serve whatever time was lopped off early especially since he is hooked on drugs. A probation violation has consequences and he should be held to them no different than anyone else. Hunter is a wreck and he brought all this on himself so you get what you get and you serve the time,
I'd say he broke his probation and should serve whatever time was lopped off early especially since he is hooked on drugs. A probation violation has consequences and he should be held to them no different than anyone else. Hunter is a wreck and he brought all this on himself so you get what you get and you serve the time,
Is he a ‘wreck’ or was he a ‘wreck’ and now better?
I see this as nothing but retaliation and an opportunity jumped on by the Republicans. Granted, I have not kept up with it in detail. But if they want to get his dad for something fishy with Ukraine — do that, if it is legitimate. Otherwise, it looks petty from my superficial view. Also ridiculous to blame him for taking a job someone was willing to pay him for when he had no ‘direct experience’. A lot of folks are in those types of situations — you cannot blame a person for getting paid. Maybe his (or their) other experience is hoped to be translatable. If something fishy really went on because of who his dad was at the time — make that stick. Right or wrong — all sorts of folks that should not get guns get them but it is not a national deal.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
I'd say he broke his probation and should serve whatever time was lopped off early especially since he is hooked on drugs. A probation violation has consequences and he should be held to them no different than anyone else. Hunter is a wreck and he brought all this on himself so you get what you get and you serve the time,
Is he a ‘wreck’ or was he a ‘wreck’ and now better?
I see this as nothing but retaliation and an opportunity jumped on by the Republicans. Granted, I have not kept up with it in detail. But if they want to get his dad for something fishy with Ukraine — do that, if it is legitimate. Otherwise, it looks petty from my superficial view. Also ridiculous to blame him for taking a job someone was willing to pay him for when he had no ‘direct experience’. A lot of folks are in those types of situations — you cannot blame a person for getting paid. Maybe his (or their) other experience is hoped to be translatable. If something fishy really went on because of who his dad was at the time — make that stick. Right or wrong — all sorts of folks that should not get guns get them but it is not a national deal.
WRONG! Trump is NOT a convicted felon before the judge determines his fate on July 11th. Maybe stop listening to CNN and MSNBC and you have better chance of not embarassing yourself.
Oh, shit. That's your stance???
0
Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN:
WRONG! Trump is NOT a convicted felon before the judge determines his fate on July 11th. Maybe stop listening to CNN and MSNBC and you have better chance of not embarassing yourself.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: I'd say he broke his probation and should serve whatever time was lopped off early especially since he is hooked on drugs. A probation violation has consequences and he should be held to them no different than anyone else. Hunter is a wreck and he brought all this on himself so you get what you get and you serve the time, Is he a ‘wreck’ or was he a ‘wreck’ and now better? I see this as nothing but retaliation and an opportunity jumped on by the Republicans. Granted, I have not kept up with it in detail. But if they want to get his dad for something fishy with Ukraine — do that, if it is legitimate. Otherwise, it looks petty from my superficial view. Also ridiculous to blame him for taking a job someone was willing to pay him for when he had no ‘direct experience’. A lot of folks are in those types of situations — you cannot blame a person for getting paid. Maybe his (or their) other experience is hoped to be translatable. If something fishy really went on because of who his dad was at the time — make that stick. Right or wrong — all sorts of folks that should not get guns get them but it is not a national deal.
I believe this is the crux of the issue in that he was not qualified so he was appointed because of course his dad couldn't be and somehow Joe profited off it as well...not saying that's what happened, but I believe that is the issue. That Joe was more involved than is being led on....However, no one pays that kind of money to someone with no experience unless there is a reason..I mean it's not like the kid went to school for what he was hired to do or had or showed any interest at that point in his life to be on that board so it is a little suspect....is it possible that by hiring him that somehow there was some kickback by Joe and his cronies??? Don't know, but that is the issue that others want to find out...
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it must be a duck...possible fishiness but also possible stupidity on Burisma's part...I'm only putting someone like that on my board if they are not qualified unless I had an agenda....most businesses don't take that huge of a leap but his last name might have helped...
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: I'd say he broke his probation and should serve whatever time was lopped off early especially since he is hooked on drugs. A probation violation has consequences and he should be held to them no different than anyone else. Hunter is a wreck and he brought all this on himself so you get what you get and you serve the time, Is he a ‘wreck’ or was he a ‘wreck’ and now better? I see this as nothing but retaliation and an opportunity jumped on by the Republicans. Granted, I have not kept up with it in detail. But if they want to get his dad for something fishy with Ukraine — do that, if it is legitimate. Otherwise, it looks petty from my superficial view. Also ridiculous to blame him for taking a job someone was willing to pay him for when he had no ‘direct experience’. A lot of folks are in those types of situations — you cannot blame a person for getting paid. Maybe his (or their) other experience is hoped to be translatable. If something fishy really went on because of who his dad was at the time — make that stick. Right or wrong — all sorts of folks that should not get guns get them but it is not a national deal.
I believe this is the crux of the issue in that he was not qualified so he was appointed because of course his dad couldn't be and somehow Joe profited off it as well...not saying that's what happened, but I believe that is the issue. That Joe was more involved than is being led on....However, no one pays that kind of money to someone with no experience unless there is a reason..I mean it's not like the kid went to school for what he was hired to do or had or showed any interest at that point in his life to be on that board so it is a little suspect....is it possible that by hiring him that somehow there was some kickback by Joe and his cronies??? Don't know, but that is the issue that others want to find out...
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it must be a duck...possible fishiness but also possible stupidity on Burisma's part...I'm only putting someone like that on my board if they are not qualified unless I had an agenda....most businesses don't take that huge of a leap but his last name might have helped...
From what I have seen he has been in and out of sobriety for a long long time and that to me is a wreck. He has been on and off drugs many times and seems out of control. I hope he finds his way forward but if you break parole what does he think will happen?
0
@Raiders22
From what I have seen he has been in and out of sobriety for a long long time and that to me is a wreck. He has been on and off drugs many times and seems out of control. I hope he finds his way forward but if you break parole what does he think will happen?
@UNIMAN Lets play lawyer ball...come on you are kicking the dirt and do not need to. The jury convicted and there are many lawyers out there not spitting technicalities and for sure not fighting with others about it like you are.
The question posed to me was one of legality, NOT personal perspective like your comeback is. I gave what I believe is the correct answer based on the law.
NO, Trump is not violating the law by owning a gun today because he is not a convicted felon today like many are led to believe.
End of story.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@UNIMAN Lets play lawyer ball...come on you are kicking the dirt and do not need to. The jury convicted and there are many lawyers out there not spitting technicalities and for sure not fighting with others about it like you are.
The question posed to me was one of legality, NOT personal perspective like your comeback is. I gave what I believe is the correct answer based on the law.
NO, Trump is not violating the law by owning a gun today because he is not a convicted felon today like many are led to believe.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: I'd say he broke his probation and should serve whatever time was lopped off early especially since he is hooked on drugs. A probation violation has consequences and he should be held to them no different than anyone else. Hunter is a wreck and he brought all this on himself so you get what you get and you serve the time, Is he a ‘wreck’ or was he a ‘wreck’ and now better? I see this as nothing but retaliation and an opportunity jumped on by the Republicans. Granted, I have not kept up with it in detail. But if they want to get his dad for something fishy with Ukraine — do that, if it is legitimate. Otherwise, it looks petty from my superficial view. Also ridiculous to blame him for taking a job someone was willing to pay him for when he had no ‘direct experience’. A lot of folks are in those types of situations — you cannot blame a person for getting paid. Maybe his (or their) other experience is hoped to be translatable. If something fishy really went on because of who his dad was at the time — make that stick. Right or wrong — all sorts of folks that should not get guns get them but it is not a national deal.I believe this is the crux of the issue in that he was not qualified so he was appointed because of course his dad couldn't be and somehow Joe profited off it as well...not saying that's what happened, but I believe that is the issue. That Joe was more involved than is being led on....However, no one pays that kind of money to someone with no experience unless there is a reason..I mean it's not like the kid went to school for what he was hired to do or had or showed any interest at that point in his life to be on that board so it is a little suspect....is it possible that by hiring him that somehow there was some kickback by Joe and his cronies??? Don't know, but that is the issue that others want to find out... If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it must be a duck...possible fishiness but also possible stupidity on Burisma's part...I'm only putting someone like that on my board if they are not qualified unless I had an agenda....most businesses don't take that huge of a leap but his last name might have helped...
But my proposition is the phrase 'he was not qualified' is not very good.
An awful lot of 'advisors' and board members I know and have known have no really 'qualifications' to have those positions. You can argue this many different ways. Some of the ambassadors and advisers that are appointed should not have those positions.
But you can easily counter that a 'fresh set of eyes' from another area would help. There are certainly a LOT of them out in place because of who they are and who they know. It is n to a problem in ay other area. But here it is. Now if they can make the connection well enough to make a case -- do it.
I know a lot of folks that are called in to advise from unrelated fields and do quite well in a new one that they have really no experience. I used to deal with this quite a bit and have seen it work well for everyone and not work.
But I always say -- just because someone does something for a living does not mean they do it well. Maybe Biden could do better than many others that are 'qualified'.
But if they can draw the kickback relationship and question the legality of it -- then do that.
What is the gun charge really amounting to?
0
@ABooksNightmare
Quote Originally Posted by ABooksNightmare:
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: I'd say he broke his probation and should serve whatever time was lopped off early especially since he is hooked on drugs. A probation violation has consequences and he should be held to them no different than anyone else. Hunter is a wreck and he brought all this on himself so you get what you get and you serve the time, Is he a ‘wreck’ or was he a ‘wreck’ and now better? I see this as nothing but retaliation and an opportunity jumped on by the Republicans. Granted, I have not kept up with it in detail. But if they want to get his dad for something fishy with Ukraine — do that, if it is legitimate. Otherwise, it looks petty from my superficial view. Also ridiculous to blame him for taking a job someone was willing to pay him for when he had no ‘direct experience’. A lot of folks are in those types of situations — you cannot blame a person for getting paid. Maybe his (or their) other experience is hoped to be translatable. If something fishy really went on because of who his dad was at the time — make that stick. Right or wrong — all sorts of folks that should not get guns get them but it is not a national deal.I believe this is the crux of the issue in that he was not qualified so he was appointed because of course his dad couldn't be and somehow Joe profited off it as well...not saying that's what happened, but I believe that is the issue. That Joe was more involved than is being led on....However, no one pays that kind of money to someone with no experience unless there is a reason..I mean it's not like the kid went to school for what he was hired to do or had or showed any interest at that point in his life to be on that board so it is a little suspect....is it possible that by hiring him that somehow there was some kickback by Joe and his cronies??? Don't know, but that is the issue that others want to find out... If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it must be a duck...possible fishiness but also possible stupidity on Burisma's part...I'm only putting someone like that on my board if they are not qualified unless I had an agenda....most businesses don't take that huge of a leap but his last name might have helped...
But my proposition is the phrase 'he was not qualified' is not very good.
An awful lot of 'advisors' and board members I know and have known have no really 'qualifications' to have those positions. You can argue this many different ways. Some of the ambassadors and advisers that are appointed should not have those positions.
But you can easily counter that a 'fresh set of eyes' from another area would help. There are certainly a LOT of them out in place because of who they are and who they know. It is n to a problem in ay other area. But here it is. Now if they can make the connection well enough to make a case -- do it.
I know a lot of folks that are called in to advise from unrelated fields and do quite well in a new one that they have really no experience. I used to deal with this quite a bit and have seen it work well for everyone and not work.
But I always say -- just because someone does something for a living does not mean they do it well. Maybe Biden could do better than many others that are 'qualified'.
But if they can draw the kickback relationship and question the legality of it -- then do that.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
