Hunter Biden -- Guilty

[Carborendum]

So, Hunter Biden has been found guilty.  Duh.

Just watch, he'll get a lighter sentence for three gun charges than Trump got for a non-crime.

[NeuroTypical]

I heard some random talking head claim that Pres. Biden said he wouldn't pardon Hunter if he was convicted.  

If that turns out to be true, I will publicly praise Pres. Biden.  That would be a meaningful act of moral leadership.  Gotta wait until his last day in office to tell one way or the other.  

[Carborendum]

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

If that turns out to be true, I will publicly praise Pres. Biden.  That would be a meaningful act of moral leadership. 

It depends on the punishment.

To be fair, if Hunter gets a sentence that is normally given for such offenses, then, yes.  I'd agree that he deserves some credit.

If he is given a light sentence (compared to others convicted of the same crimes) then why would he bother pardoning him?  "House arrest for 6 months"?  Yeah 6 months to be away from public eyes and shooting up cocaine without having to go the the Old Man for a hit...

Sounds like praiseworthy leadership to me.

*Edit: for accuracy, he'd be guilty of aggravated perjury (two counts).  But Delaware doesn't seem to have that category. The third charge is one that I don't believe in, personally.  So, I'm fine with him getting that one removed or served concurrently... blah blah.

If this is Federal, then there is no minimum sentence.  And the penalty could simply be monetary.  So, he's got plenty of that. Basically a slap on the wrist for something that the average person would be imprisoned for.

Edited June 11 by Carborendum

[Phoenix_person]

It's an interesting case in that, generally speaking, both sides of the political spectrum agree on two things: 1) The gun possession charge brought against Hunter shouldn'tbe a crime, and 2) If Hunter's guilty, he shouldn't get any leniency or preferrential treatment. 

[mikbone]

This is what happens when you weaponize the law for politics.

Biden won’t pardon his son now, but before he leaves office he will.  And there are more lawsuits to follow… I bet he already made Kamala promise to pardon him if he dies in office.

[Carborendum]

It just occurred to me that Biden would win a LOT of votes if he simply pardoned Trump of all these charges.  Conservatives would have a fit because there's nothing bad we could say about it.

...  of course, that's never going to happen.  I don't know why he wouldn't.  He is already going to win the election.  Mail-in ballots will ensure that.

100% guarantee.

Edited June 11 by Carborendum

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

It just occurred to me that Biden would win a LOT of votes if he simply pardoned Trump of all these charges.  Conservatives would have a fit because there's nothing bad we could say about it.

...  of course, that's never going to happen. 

Dean Philips called for Trump to be pardoned by Biden for this reason, and that may have been the final nail in the coffin of his career as a D̶F̶L̶ Democrat politician. The two of you aren't wrong, but if there's one thing that liberals and leftists have in common, it's that we REALLY want to see Trump in an orange jumpsuit. Yes, it's petty. Biden's not petty. He would probably pardon Trump if the people around him told him it was a good idea. But it definitely seems like this administration is leaning more into using Trump as an example that nobody is above the law. Plus, this way Dems get to spend the next 5 months reminding voters *why* Trump was moving money around in the first place. That's what I would do, anyway. Because I'm petty.

[mirkwood]

I think the more likely outcome is Biden commutes his son's sentence.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Dean Philips called for Trump to be pardoned by Biden for this reason, and that may have been the final nail in the coffin of his career as a D̶F̶L̶ Democrat politician. The two of you aren't wrong, but if there's one thing that liberals and leftists have in common, it's that we REALLY want to see Trump in an orange jumpsuit. Yes, it's petty. Biden's not petty. He would probably pardon Trump if the people around him told him it was a good idea. But it definitely seems like this administration is leaning more into using Trump as an example that nobody is above the law. Plus, this way Dems get to spend the next 5 months reminding voters *why* Trump was moving money around in the first place. That's what I would do, anyway. Because I'm petty.

As I understand Trump did not break the law with the NDI - nor any of the moving funds around (which is very common in the business world and during presidential campaigns – as per the example of Bernie Sanders that became a multi-millionaire running for president).  The problem was in covering up everything that was done.  Like Hillary using a private server for email, deleting the email and destroying the hard drive on her computer.

What bothers me the most about all this with Hunter is the 50 (or whatever the number was) that signed a letter (used by Pres, Biden in the 2020 presidential debates) testifying or giving witness as government security officials, that the Hunter laptop was a fake planted by Russia to create disinformation to corrupt the election.  I find it interesting that the federal justice department (from which many of those officials were employed) entered the laptop as evidence and the defense did not object with a reference to the signed letter from the bunch of government information experts – but there is no ramification or discipline towards those officials for falsely misleading the citizens during an election (I thought that was one of the main counts that Trump was found guilty of.

I wonder if our politics are digging holes that this country will never be able to crawl out of.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

The problem was in covering up everything that was done.  Like Hillary using a private server for email, deleting the email and destroying the hard drive on her computer.

No, the problem was that the judge precluded any exculpatory testimony.  Many experts were submitted to testify on Trump's behalf.  They were to indicate that every one of the transfers he did were common practice methods that have historically been considered legal under the laws in question.

The judge forbade such testimony and decided that they were illegal actions, period.  Forget the fact that we have 40 years of legal history backing up the legality of such actions.  The judge simply gave the jury instructions that basically said, "I don't care about the law.  We all have to just get together and find him guilty of something, anything, so we can see him in an orange jumpsuit."

The jurors were happy to oblige.

Hunter, OTOH, was given a mirror image treatment.  He has a whole laundry list of really horrible offenses which was buried by the Biden admin.  But they threw conservatives a bone and said, "See!??  We're convicting him of some crimes."

The magician is waving his right hand so you can't see what he's doing with his left.

Edited June 12 by Carborendum

[Phoenix_person]

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

As I understand Trump did not break the law with the NDI - nor any of the moving funds around (which is very common in the business world and during presidential campaigns – as per the example of Bernie Sanders that became a multi-millionaire running for president).  The problem was in covering up everything that was done.  Like Hillary using a private server for email, deleting the email and destroying the hard drive on her computer.

The NDI aspect wasn't illegal. All I meant is that at the core of this case was the fact that Trump paid a porn star to keep quiet about, ahem, services rendered. A lot of conservatives (including the religious variety) apparently are willing to overlook that, but I think a lot of swing voters might be put off by it. 

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

What bothers me the most about all this with Hunter is the 50 (or whatever the number was) that signed a letter (used by Pres, Biden in the 2020 presidential debates) testifying or giving witness as government security officials, that the Hunter laptop was a fake planted by Russia to create disinformation to corrupt the election.  I find it interesting that the federal justice department (from which many of those officials were employed) entered the laptop as evidence and the defense did not object with a reference to the signed letter from the bunch of government information experts –

I'm not going to defend Biden, but I hope you were equally concerned about the slew of illegal activities that multiple members of Trump's 2016 campaign team were charged and convicted on. A couple of them even went to prison. 

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

but there is no ramification or discipline towards those officials for falsely misleading the citizens during an election (I thought that was one of the main counts that Trump was found guilty of.

Trump was found guilty of falsifying business documents to cover up the source of the money Stormy Daniels was receiving from Michael Cohen. See, misleading American citizens is one thing. But misleading the American business class is something that the justice system takes very seriously in this country.

 

40 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, the problem was that the judge precluded any exculpatory testimony.  Many experts were submitted to testify on Trump's behalf.  They were to indicate that every one of the transfers he did were common practice methods that have historically been considered legal under the laws in question.

The judge forbade such testimony and decided that they were illegal actions, period.  Forget the fact that we have 40 years of legal history backing up the legality of such actions.  The judge simply gave the jury instructions that basically said, "I don't care about the law.  We all have to just get together and find him guilty of something, anything, so we can see him in an orange jumpsuit."

The jurors were happy to oblige.

I couldn't find much information about this, so if you have links, they would be appreciated. What I DID find is that Trump was granted a 30 day delay to review new evidence brought forth by the prosecution. And I would also add that Trump's activity on Truth Social didn't exactly gain favor with the judge. There's a reason why the Miranda Rights start with "the right to remain silent". 

Edited June 12 by Phoenix_person

[Carborendum]

1 minute ago, Phoenix_person said:

I couldn't find much information about this, so if you have links, they would be appreciated. What I DID find is that Trump was granted a 30 day delay to review new evidence brought forth by the prosecution. And I would also add that Trump's activity on Truth Social didn't exactly gain favor with the judge. There's a reason why the Miranda Rights start with "the right to remain silent". 

I don't get what you're getting at.  He's right.  What did he say here that is incorrect?

[Phoenix_person]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't get what you're getting at.  He's right.  What did he say here that is incorrect?

It isn't about the accuracy of what he's saying. If a defendent has concerns about the way their case is being handled, there are ways to address that within the legal system. A defendent screeching into the void about the judge overseeing their case is never going to go well for the defendent, regardless of the accuracy of what they're saying. If I were on trial and tweeted something like that, any halfway decent lawyer would throw my phone into the Mississippi River. There's an assumption that Trump can afford good lawyers, but it sure seems like he struggles to find them. That may be because all the good lawyers know that working for him is career suicide. But in any case, it's lawyers who should be having those coversations.

[Carborendum]

7 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

It isn't about the accuracy of what he's saying. If a defendent has concerns about the way their case is being handled, there are ways to address that within the legal system. A defendent screeching into the void about the judge overseeing their case is never going to go well for the defendent, regardless of the accuracy of what they're saying. If I were on trial and tweeted something like that, any halfway decent lawyer would throw my phone into the Mississippi River. There's an assumption that Trump can afford good lawyers, but it sure seems like he struggles to find them. That may be because all the good lawyers know that working for him is career suicide. But in any case, it's lawyers who should be having those coversations.

I still don't get what he did was illegal.

[ZealoulyStriving]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I still don't get what he did was illegal.

He doesn't know because whatever "law" he "broke" was a federal campaign law which the jury was allowed to not disclose. He still convinced that the "felony" Trump committed was a bookkeeping issue.

[Carborendum]

40 minutes ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

He doesn't know because whatever "law" he "broke" was a federal campaign law which the jury was allowed to not disclose. He still convinced that the "felony" Trump committed was a bookkeeping issue.

Yup.  And that is something the liberal media doesn't even want to touch -- because it makes no sense.  The media talks about this bookkeeping thing as if it is the smoking gun.  And conservatives are wondering at the outright denial of reality it would take for him to be convicted of campaign interference.

But the fact is that none of it actually held water.  So, the only choice the judge had was to ignore reason and simply give the jury sufficient "plausible deniability" to convict him on all charges.

I have yet to hear what laws he actually broke and why no one in history has ever been convicted of similar actions.  Equal protection under the law.

If it can get a former President, why does anyone think it can't get any of us?

Quote

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[Phoenix_person]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I still don't get what he did was illegal.

Not inherently illegal, just incredibly stupid. In Trump's case, his stupidity resulted in a gag order, the violation of which IS a crime. The reality of our justice system is that there are always restrictions on free speech when someone is facing a criminal trial. And there are laws about it (witness tampering, compromising the jury, intimidation, etc.). That's why the "right to remain silent" comes with the "right to an attorney", so someone smarter than you can comment on your ongoing case without breaking any laws or further incriminating the defendent. This kind of treatment isn't unique to Trump. What's unique in his case is that he never spent a day in jail despite violating a gag order seven times. Most of us would have been awaiting the verdict and sentencing from a jail cell if we did that. 

As for the actual charges in the indictment, I'm not fluent enough in business or campaign finance law to have an informed stance on that. A jury decided Trump committed a crime based on the arguments and evidence provided. At its core, that's how our justice system is supposed to work. Trump has the right to appeal. And then there's the matter of the cousin of a juror who posted something on social media. The judge has already asked the legal teams on both sides to review the information around that, so it's quite plausible that a mistrial declaration is coming. 

The ugly truth about our justice system is that, yes, it can be incredibly corrupt. That's not an excuse to go scorched earth in defense of your own criminal case. Donald Trump is incredibly fortunate to have supporters all over the country, including in government, who have his back and can say the things Trump can't. Millions of Americans get screwed over by the courts every year with no one in their corner except a public attorney and a few family members (if they're lucky). I honestly don't hate the fact that some of this corruption is being exposed by Trump's legal headaches. If they can screw over a former president, they can (and frequently do) absolutely hose the rest of us. It's interesting that you posted the "no one left to speak for me" quote, because Trump represents the class of people that's usually doing the "coming for". Welcome to The Resistance™️, bucko. It ain't much fun, is it? Maybe if we prosecute more of the elite, we'll finally see some positive change in the justice system.

At the same time, we're deep in unprecedented legal territory. Yes, it's extremely unlikely that an average business executive would face the legal repercussions that Trump has for the clerical crimes he committed. But your average business executive isn't a former US president runninf for a second term, and holding those who seek the highest offices on our government to higher legal standards than the rest of us is fine by me.

Edited June 12 by Phoenix_person

[Carborendum]

11 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Not inherently illegal, just incredibly stupid. 

If stupidity were a crime...

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

at the core of this case was the fact that Trump paid a porn star to keep quiet about, ahem, services rendered. A lot of conservatives (including the religious variety) apparently are willing to overlook that, but I think a lot of swing voters might be put off by it. 

I just want to go on record on this topic: I find an endless list of things Trump has done to be loathsome, disgusting, sinful, and horrible.  The infidelity and buying hookers was just part of it.  Dood also peddled in beauty pagents, with all the casting couches and power imbalances and selling girls' bodies for profit that goes along with that industry.  Openly bragging about how rich guys like him can always find young women to play with.  As far as I can tell, he's one of the few rich and powerful guys who never needed to go to Epstein's island, because he could have as much of that, whenever he wanted, wherever he was.  Both Clinton and Trump is like having Hugh Heffner in the white house.  

I threw a massive fit during the Clinton/Lewinski scandal, and several others with all of the sexual assault allegations.  It would be the height of hypocrisy for me to defend Trump as some sort of moral paragon of virtue.  

No.

Closest I can come to supporting Trump, is what the Republicans used to say about Nixon.  "He may be a *beeep*, but he's our *beeep*."

I've been holding my nose and voting for the least offensive choice for many elections now.  

Edited June 12 by NeuroTypical

[ZealoulyStriving]

Being a slimeball isn't illegal, and though I don't support Trump (or Biden), inventing laws to go after your political opponents is not something I want for our country- so of necessity I am obliged to side with Trump on his conviction.

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I just want to go on record on this topic: I find an endless list of things Trump has done to be loathsome, disgusting, sinful, and horrible.  The infidelity and buying hookers was just part of it.  Dood also peddled in beauty pagents, with all the casting couches and power imbalances and selling girls' bodies for profit that goes along with that industry.  Openly bragging about how rich guys like him can always find young women to play with.  As far as I can tell, he's one of the few rich and powerful guys who never needed to go to Epstein's island, because he could have as much of that, whenever he wanted, wherever he was.  Both Clinton and Trump is like having Hugh Heffner in the white house.  

I threw a massive fit during the Clinton/Lewinski scandal, and several others with all of the sexual assault allegations.  It would be the height of hypocrisy for me to defend Trump as some sort of moral paragon of virtue.  

No.

Closest I can come to supporting Trump, is what the Republicans used to say about Nixon.  "He may be a *beeep*, but he's our *beeep*."

I've been holding my nose and voting for the least offensive choice for many elections now.  

My issue is when Trumpers downplay or try and dismiss their god-kings behavior. “You are so judgmental! You aren’t perfect either! You Christians should forgive!” Then they go insane with rage over Hunter Bidens criminal behavior.

 

The hypocrisy is so obvious and delicious that it’s best to make jokes about it.  

Edited June 12 by LDSGator

[Traveler]

In some ways I am glad to see a discussion.  I am not impressed with our legal system.  I personally object to calling the system our justice system because I do not believe at any level, justice is close to being served.  As a general rule I have big problems with the politics of our country.  I am not any more a republican than I am a democrat and believe both parties are more interested in political power than the good of this nation or its citizens.  I have tried to be a good republican – I was raised to be a republican and at one point of my life prepared to run for political office.  However, I did not get along with party leadership and ended up trying to be a democrat.  As bad as republican leadership seemed to me – I believe that the democrat leadership is exponentially worse.

I believe that the real problem for Trump (besides his having all the morals of a range bull) is his defiance towards this country’s military industrial complex.  I believe that the greatest sin in our society is economic – to challenge the power brokers of this country’s control of money and the economy.  This sin of money is greater than lying (even before a judge – including a FISA judge), adultery or paying off someone to keep adultery quiet or even murder (like David did with Uriah or Hillery with ambassador Christopher Stevens).

I do not intend to upset anyone (too much) but it is my opinion that both @Phoenix_person and @Carborendum are missing seeing the forest because of all the trees.  We should have learned from US history and the history of the LDS Church (or the treaties between the government and indigenous peoples) that powerful people in government do not need to follow the law to take what they want from who they want.

Let me give a little example:  I cannot believe that any citizen of the USA that cares about this country and the world would not support Donald Trump and his establishment of the Abraham Accords.  Nor can I believe that any citizen of the USA that cares about this country and the world, would support Biden’s throwing out and abandoning the Abraham Accords.  When was the last time anyone heard anything in the news about the Abraham Accords related to what is currently going on in the Middle East.  The news is only interested in the goings on in the Donald and Hunter legal battles.

 

The Traveler

Edited June 12 by Traveler

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

I cannot believe that any citizen of the USA that cares about this country and the world would not support Donald Trump

Then that’s on you. You can be a very left wing guy and still be a patriotic American. Same with being very right wing. 

[Traveler]

6 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Then that’s on you. You can be a very left wing guy and still be a patriotic American. Same with being very right wing. 

I am sorry I did not word that correctly – I meant support for the Abraham Accords that Donald Trump initiated.  My concern is that as soon as some see the name of Donald Trump (or Biden) – they do not connect to anything else.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

I am sorry I did not word that correctly – I meant support for the Abraham Accords that Donald Trump initiated.  My concern is that as soon as some see the name of Donald Trump (or Biden) – they do not connect to anything else.

 

The Traveler

Okay. 
 

I’m doing what right wingers did in 2008, 2004, and 2012. Staying home or voting third party. After all, if they did it for those elections it’s okay for me to do it too. I at least admit it’s a selfish and self congratulatory action, lol.