Garland blew it with Hunter Biden

[edhopper]

He bowed to Congressional GOP pressure to appoint an SC and then appointed a partisan Trumper who requested he be given SC status. Garland should have picked a outside, more neutral party, as is the norm.
And now they scrapped up charges that are almost never brought in isolation to string up the President's son.
This is the real political witch hunt and Garland could have prevented it.


All explained here:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/column-hunter-biden-was-indicted-on-gun-charges-heres-the-real-reason-hes-in-trouble/ar-AA1gJQoP

[claudette]

1. Garland

is the best AG that America ever had.

[Polybius]

85. Better than Janet Reno?

[dem4decades]

2. GARLAND IS GREAT!

[Sky Jewels]

5. Why is he great?

I'm curious why you think so.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

11. Because he is. nt

[Sky Jewels]

14. LOL.

Why am I not surprised by this inane reply?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

18. Becaust that's all it deserves. nt

[AZSkiffyGeek]

20. I don't know what is more obnoxious

The nonstop Garland bashing or the “we’re so clever we’ll pretend we like him to avoid hides!” Maybe Third-Way Manny is back from the other site…

[MarineCombatEngineer]

23. 100+. nt

[sheshe2]

62. Oh Noooos! Not Manny!

[Recycle_Guru]

87. yeah. it is going to be VERY interesting this next year on DU

[housecat]

97. It's always very interesting on DU. This crowd can entertain and enlighten even without

any "breaking news."

[ancianita]

33. +1

[mountain grammy]

25. Seriously? Because he isn't..

[MarineCombatEngineer]

31. Seriously? Because he is.

See, I can do that too.

[ancianita]

37. No he isn't. Garland is Badass.

This isn't happening the way you think it's happening.

[orleans]

67. that sounds intriguing ("This isn't happening the way you think it's happening.")

so then how is this happening? can you explain without being so mysterious?

[ancianita]

69. See post #'s 30 and 44.

My posts -- and those of a whole lot of other DU'ers -- have been literal enough in support of Garland over the last year.

[orleans]

77. i was just going to edit and let you know not to bother b/c i finished reading downthread

including the posts you mentioned.

but... thanks

[MusicLikeDirt]

92. A Jedi mind trick?

These aren't the droids you're looking for . . .

[housecat]

29. He brought in Jack Smith

[Sky Jewels]

66. Yeah, almost TWO YEARS after

a violent attempt to overthrow the government and destroy 250 years of democracy!

[housecat]

94. Imagine if Smith wasn't here.

[Sky Jewels]

95. That would absolutely suck.

[housecat]

96. So forget the two years and enjoy the show

[ramen]

51. How so? nt

[MarineCombatEngineer]

53. Because he is. nt

[ramen]

74. Oh. nt

[JanMichael]

133. Maybe a festoon.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

3. ...why did republicans scream like stuck pigs when special counsel was appointed? Contradiction.

The garland bashers, same as the whats taking so long folks…do not want to let go of their social media basing sticks and admit…were all very wrong all along…it’s kind of sad,

[ancianita]

42. It only takes one doubter to bring all the Garland bashers out. LOL

IF they all want to call Garland political, then Garland IS doing exactly what the GOP DON'T WANT HIM TO DO.

Here's the Freedom Caucus Koch boss front, hating on Garland for appointing David Weiss as special counsel:

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/garlands-special-counsel-charade-violates-the-law-and-undermines-the

[OhioTim]

75. I Said Garland Was Incompetent From

day 1

[MarineCombatEngineer]

84. And you were wrong from day 1,

so there's that.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

93. How soon the bashers forget some remember very clearly... sad for them. Again!

[Recycle_Guru]

4. yay! You are the 100th post on the subject--tell him what he's won!

An all expenses paid trip to live reenactment of Nighthawks taking place in NY MoMA

[marble falls]

6. They aren't going to do much to Hunter. This is a common crime, just not caught much or ...

... prosecuted much.

[republianmushroom]

27. agree

A feel good law, passed in Washington.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

7. And another thread bashing the best AG we've had in a long time.

[Sky Jewels]

9. How is he the best AG we've had in a long time?

I guess I'll have some of whatever you're smoking.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

10. #1.

Numerous indictments and convictions of J6 traitors, and
#2. I don't smoke anything at all. be it cigarettes, pot, meth, etc.
USDOT regs are pretty strict on controlled substances on commercial drivers.

[Sky Jewels]

15. He went after the little guys, the low-hanging fruit, the chumps that did the dirty work.

He sat on his hands when it came to the big guys because he didn't want to appear "too political." He had to be pressured into appointing Jack Smith.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

19. Welp, if that's what you want to believe,

then have at it.

[Cha]

43. ..

smH!

[marble falls]

34. This is the traditional Fed method of prosecutions. Start with the low hanging fruit and then ...

... you hang the bosses with help from what comes out of the low hangers cases and turncoats who realize the bosses ain't going to protect them. Ask John Gotti.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

41. Nailed it 100%. nt

[ancianita]

39. Doesn't take much, does it. FUD is the trigger when folks here believe media HYPE.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

40. So true.

[LexVegas]

8. It's an unconstitional law meant to limit Second Amendment rights. nt

[stopdiggin]

12. 1) you forgot to add the 'sarcasm' thingee

and 2) it's still the law - and breaking the law is still considered at least semi bad form - among people who still care about such things. (like most people subscribing to DU)

[LexVegas]

13. Similar convictions have already been overturned as unconstitutional.

Hopefully this one will as well.

[stopdiggin]

16. doubt that

the man clearly broke the law. And 'similar' charges have not been declared unconstitutional.

[Shermann]

17. Unlawful user of, and addicted to, any stimulant, narcotic drug, and any other controlled substance

How is "user of" defined? If I have a bag of blow on me, OK you got me. What if I just went to a party last week?

How is "addicted to" defined? Isn't that a medical diagnosis? Can a lay person decide for themselves? Who gets to decide when you're no longer addicted?

This is all a bit nebulous and clearly in conflict with the relatively clear Second Amendment which makes no such exceptions.

[Happy Hoosier]

88. That provision is currently undergoing...

Litigation. Given the SCotUS’s recent expansion of gun eights… two courts have rules the provision is Unconstitutional in different cases (Daniels and Harrison)

This will go to the SCotUS and I would not be surprised that the court strikes the provision down.

It’s not a violation that is prosecuted very much and given he above, it’s a bit surprising the SC chose to charge this. H. Biden will probably move to dismiss on those grounds. We’ll see.

[Shermann]

89. It's really a hot mess

These rules extend past the purchase to ownership itself as I understand it.

So, what if I build a gun collection legally, then become addicted later? Am I required to turn in my gun collection? All based on these vague, subjective definitions?

Conservatives are OK with that?

[Zeitghost]

103. Federal law sets the definitions

In 21 USC 802.

[Shermann]

111. OK so the term "addict" is defined as...

...any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.

The first part doesn't seem to apply to Hunter's uneventful 11 days.

The second part gets into the disease aspect of addiction. Doctors diagnose diseases. What if you put in your memoirs that you feel you are addicted, but are actually mistaken? How is any of this proven beyond a reasonable doubt in this case?

[Zeitghost]

112. What if...

Hunter was an addict. To suggest that his actions, behavior and words do not create enough probable cause to charge him with a crime takes an incredible amount of denial.

And the charge doesn't even require him to be an addict, "unlawful use" is enough.

[Shermann]

113. Unlawful user of AND addicted to

That's how it is worded. It's an AND not an OR.

[madville]

117. Hunter admits he's an addict

He’s had a decades long cocaine addiction, wrote a book about it, got kicked out of the Navy for it, documented his own drug use with pictures and videos, etc. That part isn’t really up for debate…

[Zeitghost]

119. You do know the form 4473 is a quick search away on the internet yes?

It most definitely says "Or".

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? "

[Shermann]

122. I stand corrected

It's kind of irrelevant to my main point though, I never asserted Hunter wasn't an addict nor a drug user. My point is that these things are somewhat subjective and hard to prove and can't possibly be added as an asterisk to the Second Amendment.

The only controversial part is whether liberals will rise up to defend the gun rights of a wealthy white male. That may be a bridge too far.

[Zeitghost]

127. They are not very subjective

And have well crafted definitions that have been created through law and upheld in the courts.

[Shermann]

129. "Endangering the public morals" isn't subjective?

That's the peak of subjectivity. You may as well have religious police enforcing that one. And NONE of this has been tested by SCOTUS.

[Zeitghost]

135. You do understand

That there are books of case law that have developed over multiple cases determining what various legal terms mean?

From the constitution on down, terms like "reasonable" and "unusual " have had to be hashed out in court.


But as I've said from the beginning, anyone trying to deny that the actions, behaviors and words of Hunter Biden do not at the very minimum create reasonable suspension that he was addicted to drugs when he purchased the gun is being absurd.

The rest will be for a jury to decide if Hunter does not take a plea.

[Shermann]

136. As others have pointed out, lower courts have already ruled it unconstitutional

So, I reject your argument that there is all this legal precedent which supports this.

Imagine this same exception being applied to the First Amendment. You are stripped of your First Amendment rights if you are found to be endangering the public morals. No other supporting convictions are required, the religious police can comb your memoirs and Facebook posts and decide.

Would that be OK? Of course not. So, it's not OK with the Second Amendment either unless a legitimate threat to the public can be demonstrated (which it wasn't in this case).

[Zeitghost]

137. One court has rejected it on 2nd amendment grounds

Not because of nebulous definitions.

I'll also point out that you are using one small portion of the relevant law. Keeping drug addicts from purchasing weapons (something I never thought I'd see defended here) is based on a lot more than "public morals". You know that, I know that.

[Shermann]

138. The problem is the good wording is mixed with the weasel wording

H. Biden is one of very few to get strung up in this way. He documented his addiction and unknowingly strayed into legal jeopardy as a high value political target. By the letter of the law, he has a potential problem. I can accept all that. What I can't accept here on DU is the position that catching a federal felony charge is good and just in this case. That is frankly a right-wing position.

[Emile]

21. Joe Biden should pardon his son just to piss off Trump!

[edhopper]

22. I Love that!

won't happen, but I love it.

[mountain grammy]

26. Best thing he could do.. and I agree!

[marble falls]

35. Just an all around bad idea. Funny to joke about, but not something to seriously consider.

[pazzyanne]

76. + 1 nt

[Rebl2]

50. 👆

[Ligyron]

79. IDK about that but the WH does need to start pushing back against this.

Otherwise, they're just getting buried under a pile of BS that breaks through to the average uninformed citizen and the same deal with the impeachment nonsense. Joe Average simply hears all this noise and figures something must be wrong...Biden bad.

[Zeitghost]

107. That might be one of the easiest ways

To lose in '24.

[Marius25]

24. Sorry, but you're not allowed to criticize Garland here apparently.

[republianmushroom]

32. You nailed it.

The Garland cult/club will get you if you do. They are very sensitive about Garland.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

36. Sure you are, otherwise your posts or threads would be hidden,

but expect to get push back when bull excrement is posted bashing AG Garland.

[Cha]

45. Sorry you're Wrong.. there's tons of

that goin' on.

[ShazzieB]

114. Sure is!

[mountain grammy]

28. Yep he did! This is a real and dangerous political prosecution..

and everyone here knows it. At some point are we "mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore?"

[MarineCombatEngineer]

38. ....

and everyone here knows it.

Apparently not everyone here knows this, hence the push back.

[ancianita]

30. Garland did NOT bow to GOP pressure. Y'all are confused AF.

The special counsel announcement marked a stunning reversal: Just last month, Mr. Weiss denied a claim that he had asked to be made special counsel. Mr. Garland had also scoffed at the idea, saying Mr. Weiss actually possessed more power as a sitting U.S. attorney than he would as special counsel...

At a news conference on Friday, Mr. Garland said that Mr. Weiss had concluded that the investigation reached a stage in which the powers of a special counsel were necessary. He did not explain what Mr. Weiss meant.

“The appointment of Mr. Weiss reinforces for the American people the department’s commitment to both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive matters,” Mr. Garland said. “I am confident that Mr. Weiss will carry out his responsibility in an evenhanded and urgent manner and in accordance with the highest traditions of this department.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/us/politics/garland-weiss-hunter-biden-special-counsel.html


IF you want to call Garland political, then Garland IS doing exactly what the GOP DON'T WANT HIM TO DO.

Here's the Freedom Caucus Koch boss front, hating on Garland for appointing David Weiss as special counsel:

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/garlands-special-counsel-charade-violates-the-law-and-undermines-the

[bigtree]

44. no he didn't

...his move, whatever he intended, actually blocked House republicans from interfering in the investigation.

Weiss had the authotity to bring these charges all along, so it's a canard to blame the SC appointment for today.

It was NOT this SC designation by Garland which triggered the unraveling of the plea deal which extended this case, and it wasn't responsible for Weiss bringing charges he could have brought all alonng.

Nothing after that judge balked and refused the plea deal meant that the case was going away, so it's absurd for folks to blame the SC appointment for the reality that Weiss' Hunter Biden probe isn't over.

But having the ability to put the REPUBLICAN-LED committee off until after the election BENEFITS the effort to de-politicize the probe. What in actual hell is wrong with that?

And having an SC designation doesn't give Weiss ANY MORE authority than he ALREADY HAD to continue his probe as long as he wants. He always had that option.

Your OP is completely false, and doesn't bother to mention that Trump put Weiss on Hunter Biden, and Pres. Biden allowed Weiss to stay and continue his investigation. It didn't just start the day Garland gave him SC status.

All of those recs for a completely false representation of who Weiss is and what he's doing. The cap to all of this misinformation is the claim Garland could have replaced him at this point. What kind of scandal-generating falderal is that?

[ancianita]

57. Exactly. Thank you.

[chowder66]

58. +1

[Joinfortmill]

132. 👍

[MarineCombatEngineer]

49. I disagree with your premise about AG Garland,

but, I do agree that some innocuous posts are hidden for no real reason, like what happened to me, so I sympathize with you on that point.
Peace out
Dan.

[Johonny]

52. To be fair, Hunter is incredibly guilty of these crimes

The gun charge appears to be just an FU to give him a felony. The tax charges, though, appear to be legit. I assume he's still willing to a plea deal. Seems like a waste to have a trail on charges he was willing to plea to just to make a political statement.

[edhopper]

54. The plea deal

Never should have been thrown out. The Judge found fault with the prosecutor and then penalized the defendant.
Anybody else and the charges go away with the deal.

[Johonny]

78. It seems weird to not be able to reach a plea deal

When the defendant has been openly working with prosecutors. He's already paid the back taxes and admitted to evidence. The whole thing feels political to have him get jail time topeove to congress they did the max they could do. The thing is, the jury might not convict him, where as the plea deal was a slam dunk win for the prosecution.

[edhopper]

80. Weiss is. Trump appointee

and Garland picked HIM, othing more needs to be said

[ShazzieB]

115. Please read ancianita's posts nos. 30 and 44.

[womanofthehills]

130. Hunter's lawyer said no deal unless all future charges disappear

Judge Maryellen Noreika said no way

[edhopper]

131. It's not that simple

and much more political than that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/19/us/politics/inside-hunter-biden-plea-deal.html

[emulatorloo]

55. Not this bullshit again.

[msfiddlestix]

56. So sorry Edhopper your post devolved immediately.... Just so you know, I agree with you.

[edhopper]

61. I expected the push back

But also see a lot of folks agree.
Thanks.

[msfiddlestix]

64. I have never understood the Sainthood status given to him

With the exception of appointing Jack Smith, I don't feel he deserves that level of regard. I

mean Saint Hood status is a little over the top, all things considered.

[ShazzieB]

116. Please read ancianita's posts nos. 30 and 44.

[William769]

59. ...

[Raven123]

60. This is a nothingburger. I'm more concerned about the SC hasn't cleared Joe

in the classified documents case, yet.

[edhopper]

63. Why is there even an SC for that

But none for Jared or the other Trumps?

[Raven123]

90. Fair question, but still not as important as the SC not clearing Joe already

[uponit7771]

99. +1

[Hortensis]

65. Sorry, but let's not take ourselves too seriously. And that

happens every time we imagine we know a scrap of the what professionals involved know, much less more.

Now, yelling outraged "advice" and sharing disgusted postmortem analyses over sports teams on TV is different -- opportunities for acting out our Dunning-Kruger are part of that product.

[edhopper]

68. Not my opinion

Last edited Thu Sep 14, 2023, 09:37 PM - Edit history (1)

But they opinion of many of the top professionals you speak of.
Ones we should listen too and not just give adoring reverence to Garland about everything.

[Hortensis]

73. No. Btw, I don't believe you should regard anyone

with adoring reverence. Big no to that.

And within our frustrating limitations, we can quote those who strike us as right accurately and be honest.

But we cannot ascribe our ignorant opinions to them honestly. Those belong to us. And we do own them. Including turning anger on Democrats for what Republicans do. To me that's always defining, and not in a smart way.

[brooklynite]

70. I'd let President Biden know. Perhaps he's not as perceptive as you are...

[edhopper]

71. Know what

He might think the same thing but would never say or act on it.
I am not saying Garland should be removed, just that he blew this one.

[bigtree]

83. he now thinks he should have interfered in the investigation into his son

...by making the politically explosive act of removing the U.S. Attorney investigating him?

Some ephiphany, supposing he's going to suddenly adopt a trumpian attitude of autocratic authority, wishing he'd interfered in the judiciary on behalf of his son.

[edhopper]

86. Not what I said

In any way shape or form. Not even close.

[Evolve Dammit]

72. The in-fighting here is a bit alarming. We can disagree respectfully. Just saying....

[edhopper]

81. Where was I disrespectful

to anyone?

[Joinfortmill]

134. 👍

[Takket]

82. Biden will get his day in front of an impartial jury just like everyone else

rethugs were already humiliated when the Durham investigation found nothing and the one person charged was acquitted. if the H. Biden charges really are trumped up bullshit, then he will be acquitted as well.

The fact he's been indicted on gun charges and not all the supposed backroom financial dealings with China between him and his dad just goes to show they are already "settling" for something much smaller than the giant pie they have been telling us is out there.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

98. Hunter IS guilty. He already pled guilty to these common tax and gun charges once.

Any other defendant not a presidents son and target of fascist propaganda and a politicized justice system…this would be over with years ago.

[SYFROYH]

102. I agree with you.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

108. 100% agree

I don’t get this “poor picked on Hunter” narrative.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

110. 100+. nt

[gulliver]

100. Garland did the right thing.

There's no sweeping Hunter under the rug. The whole story needs to be out there.

Hunter may be convicted of a crime that the 2A absolutists on the right won't find particularly compelling. Hell, Hunter could do us all a favor by going to jail for it. Then, we could all start asking why Hunter, who had some tax problems and had some guns when he technically shouldn't have had them is going to jail, but Trump isn't.

[edhopper]

101. The right thing would be

if he was to appoint an SC to do what is always done. Pick someone from outside the DOJ. NOT let the same guy who tried and failed to prosecute him, a guy with an obvious Trump agenda to be the SC, which is unprecedented.

[Zeitghost]

104. When was there a failed prosecution?

?

[edhopper]

105. When his plea bargain deal fell apart.

Weiss was the US Attorney whose case fell apart. Then he got a redo as SC. Again, that has never happened. Garland did follow normal procedures. He bent over backwards to appease right wing critics.

[Zeitghost]

106. That's not a failed prosecution

Hunter was given a sweetheart deal that absolved him of anything and everything he may have ever done and when a Judge struck down a portion of it, Hunter backed out of the deal.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

109. Hey man,

don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

[inthewind21]

121. So

You don't know the difference between a plea deal and a prosecution? Got it.

[edhopper]

123. Not sure how you came to that conclusion?

[ShazzieB]

118. Hunter shouldn't have to go to jail for something people rarely even get prosecuted for.

And if he does (which at this point looks like it could happen), I don't like the idea of him being some kind of sacrificial lamb, which is what you're describing sounds like to me.

At this point, whatever is going to happen is going to happen, and there's not much we can do about it. I just hate the idea of Hunter going to jail and that being regarded as a "favor" to the rest of us. For reasons I can't fully articulate, that feels gross to me.

[Zeitghost]

124. Hunter should go to jail

If he is tried, convicted (or pleads guilty) and is sentenced to jail time for the crimes he is accused of. Period, full stop, nothing else should matter.

The number of others convicted of similar crimes is not pertinent to his guilt or innocence. Especially considering that the reason so few are prosecuted for this particular crime are that most who are guilty of it don't include the details needed to convict them in a published memoir.

Of all the reasons he finds himself in this predicament, the vast majority are a direct result of his actions and his actions alone.

[ShazzieB]

125. Yes, In general, people who are convicted of crimes should be held accountable.

However, if Hunter goes to jail for this, especially after having had a plea deal that was already in place yanked out from under him, I believe it will be chiefly for political reasons/Republican vindictiveness. For that reason, it would leave a very bad taste in my mouth. That is all.

[Zeitghost]

126. Hunter backed out of the plea

After large portions of it were found to be inappropriate.

Like I said, Hunter is here almost entirely due to his own actions. No Republican were involved in him buying a gun, or disposing of it in a parking lot across the street from a high school or telling the tale in his book. If he goes to jail, it's on him.

[ShazzieB]

128. Whatever.

[Hotler]

120. If the orange one takes power, Garland will be one of the first political enemy's arrested.

And he won't need to worry about looking political. He may wish he had those 23-months of nothing back.