Now That DOJ Is Running Fact Checks On Gun Applications

[gab13by13]

Richard Painter wants to know what was Boebert vaping in that theater. Painter wants an investigation because of the way Boebert was acting in the theater she may have been under the influence.

https://www.rawstory.com/boebert-biden-vape/

Shouldn't DOJ be impartial and investigate what Boebert wrote on her gun application? Maybe Garland should appoint another special counsel?

[Lovie777]

1. I'm pretty sure they will find tons of false information on gun applications....................

especially from the GQPs.

[gab13by13]

2. Will they be indicted for 3 felonies?

[Beastly Boy]

27. That would depend on the circumstances of each inquiry, now wouldn't it?

[gab13by13]

35. So Hunter's case was more serious than Patrick Daniel's?

Hunter is a reformed addict who never loaded his illegal gun. I imagine that Patrick Daniels is still smoking hootch and still has loaded guns in his car.

Andrew Weissmann agrees with me when he said that prosecutors should not prosecute because they can, they should prosecute because they should. Weissmann said the 3 count indictment was clearly excessive.

Do you believe that Hunter's case was more serious than Daniel's?

It seems also that Daniels is the only stand alone case that anyone can come up with, other than Hunter's.

[Beastly Boy]

48. That is up to the jury to decide, not me or you. And not Garland or Weiss.

That's pretty obvious, no?

[wnylib]

5. A vulnerability of theirs that we should use to the hilt.

When their unreasonable behavior has negative consequences for them, they might start pulling back from the political theatrics.

Every time they pull a BS stunt, find the weakness in it and exploit it. Should not be too hard to do. Their projections point directly to their own misdeeds and vulnerability.

So in this case, examine every MAGA known to have an addiction problem and check for gun applications. When an application lie is found, throw the legal book at them. Start with Donnie Jr. I'm sure he owns a gun. We know he is addicted to coke and who knows what else?

Hardball retaliation is necessary to rein in the aggressive extremism. Watch how fast they start embracing recovery help for addicts instead of politically persecuting them.

[2naSalit]

20. +1

[calimary]

49. A MOST interesting suggestion!

[wnylib]

77. The idea was inspired by what I learned about the Salem witch trials.

The accusations spread far out from Salem and became a reign of terror, with everyone afraid to speak up because, if they did, they got accused.

One minister in Andover, MA, Rev. Dane, spoke up and saw his married daughter, his wife, and other women in the family accused. He and his family fought back by filing defamation charges against the accusers. His daughter was convicted, but not executed immediately because she was pregnant. Other families went on the offensive with legal charges against the accusers.

Executions stalled, partly because so many people were imprisoned that executing them all would be a problem, but also because of the counter charges being filed against the accusers.

When the accusers were bold enough to double down and accuse the colonial governor's wife, he halted all the trials, threw out the bogus "spectral evidence," and ordered all the prisoners released. Rev. Dane's daughter won a suit for the financial costs of her imprisonment and got the conviction legally nullified.

So when a community (or nation today) is in the grip of crazed people running amok, go on the legal offensive instead if cowering in fear.

(Rev. Dane's daughter's married name was Faulkner. The Faulkner name is in my family a few generations back. The family story is that we descend from those Faulkners, but I have not found records of a direct descent although other branches of the family trace back to colonial MA.)

[calimary]

86. Hah! "Spectral evidence".

Spectral evidence is a form of legal evidence based upon the testimony of those who claim to have experienced visions. Such testimony was frequently given during the witch trials of the 16th and 17th centuries. Wikipedia

https://www.google.com/search?q=spectral+evidence&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

Just as I suspected. A bunch of hooey.

[wnylib]

88. Have you ever seen the play or movie, The Crucible?

It's about the Salem witch craze and has some historical inaccuracies, but also has some wild scenes of the girls claiming to see the spector of an accused witch coming after them and pinching them.

Even among Puritans, spectral evidence was supposed to be inadmissible. But the magistrates and Rev. Cotton Mather did not stop it from being used. Cotton Mather's father, Rev. Increase Mather, had been in England when the witch trials started. When he returned and saw the madness going on, he chewed out his son for allowing it to happen. Then the governor shut the whole business down.

[qwlauren35]

58. I would love to see this.

I wish the idea would go viral.

the meth-heads with guns, the coke-heads with guns. Mostly Republican.

The jails would be full fast.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

3. Is this another bash DoJ/AG Garland thread?

Asking for a friend.

[radical noodle]

9. It doesn't seem that way to me

It's more a "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." The GOP opened the door to fact-checking gun applications when the person in question had done nothing inappropriate with the gun. Now everyone is fair game, including the gun-happy Republicans.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

10. Fair enough,

I ask because the OP has a history of bashing the DoJ and AG Garland, but your explanation is a very valid one.
Peace out
Daniel.

[radical noodle]

12. It's a great comeback when talking to MAGAts

When they start to gloat about the indictment of Biden on the gun charge, I say how happy I am that the GOP is finally getting serious about gun control. Their eyes get glassy and I can almost hear the pinballs in their heads pinging around.

Happy Sunday!

[calimary]

51. EXCELLENT!!!

“When they start to gloat about the indictment of Biden on the gun charge, I say how happy I am that the GOP is finally getting serious about gun control.”

Let’s TOTALLY do it!!!

[radical noodle]

83. It works almost as well

as a comment on a Facebook post about Hunter's indictment. Sadly, you miss that deer-in-the-headlights look, though.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

65. Perfect!

Love it!

[sl8]

14. And she seems to own more than one firearm.

If she is an unlawful drug user (including cannabis), she could well be charged with more counts than Hunter Biden.

That was one of the first things that occurred to me when vapegate broke.

[Beastly Boy]

29. To me, it seems like stretching an analogy to ridiculous extent in order to create yet another

opportunity to pile on DOJ.

These are matter that need to be looked into on individual merits.

What is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the snake. It may be better or worse, depending on circumstances.

[gab13by13]

11. Do you think that Hunter Biden was treated fairly by DOJ?

I was given a similar case to prove that someone else was indicted for owning a gun while being an addict, USA v Daniels.

Patrick Daniels was stopped by cops for not having a license plate. The cops found marijuana butts, could smell marijuana, and 2 loaded firearms in the car. The cops did not do a drug test on Daniels. Daniels admitted he used marijuana several times a month. Daniels was indicted under Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)(3) which states a person is banned from owning a gun if he is an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The best I can tell Daniels was indicted and convicted and sentenced to 4 years in jail for that 1 count.

DOJ investigated Hunter Biden to determine he lied on his gun application. DOJ then charged Hunter for 3 fucking counts:
1. Lying on the application
2. Giving that application to a gun shop owner.
3. Owning the firearm
25 year sentence. (maximum)

Hunter Biden owned his never loaded firearm for 11 days before his girlfriend threw it away.

1 charge for Patrick Daniels who appeared to be under the influence while driving, marijuana in the car, a loaded 9 MM pistol and loaded rifle in the car. With all of that information about Daniels the 5th circuit court of appeals threw out the indictment and conviction of Daniels.

It sure looks to me that Merrick Garland's DOJ is treating Hunter Biden much more severely than Patrick Daniels was treated.

It appears to me that Garland is being partisan because this all happened because Republicans raised hell after finding out about the plea deal so Garland washed his hands and made Weiss a Special Counsel.

Was Hunter Biden treated fairly by Garland's DOJ?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

13. I have no idea if he was treated fairly by the Garland's DoJ,

I'm not following that at all.
Have a great Sunday.
Peace out
Daniel.

[Autumn]

15. So what are you following? Posters who think Garland was wrong to appoint a partisan hack like Weiss

to go after Biden's son while Trumps grifting daughter and SIL skate?

[gab13by13]

17. We can wait until the cows come home

for Jared Kushner to be investigated. Where is the Senate committee investigating him?

I guess Democrats aren't supposed to fight back, if they do they will get death threats from Magats.

People are so afraid to speak out and justifiably so.

[Beastly Boy]

32. People who think Garland was wrong to appoint Weiss tend to be

the people who think Garland was wrong in every little thing he did as an AG. And more often than not they themselves are proven to be wrong. This never deters them from their mission.

The consistency of what they think is conspicuous to say the least. Each time they think Garland was wrong on any subject only reinforces the notion that the subject has no role in informing their opinions.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

36. 100+.

[Sky Jewels]

37. "every little thing he did as an AG"

How about every BIG thing he didn't do as an AG ... like appoint a special counsel as soon after taking office as possible in 2021 to investigate a fucking coup d'etat attempt, rather than sit on his hands for almost two years?

[Beastly Boy]

50. That is implied in my post.

If the undeserved criticism is piled on Garland for every little thing, you can be sure it will come for every big thing as well, including the items you posted.

And you can be sure that no matter how many times your old tired talking points get debunked, they will come up again and again to prove my point.

[Skittles]

79. careful, Sky Jewels

some people very averse to anything that doesn't paint Garland as the all-knowing, all-doing powerhouse

[Sky Jewels]

81. You're right.

I don’t get the insistence that he is not to be criticized at all.

He’s not even an elected Democrat. It’s not even clear what his preferred political party is.

[Skittles]

82. he is definitely "central"

even Obama knew that

[Sky Jewels]

84. Yes, the palatable pick that would have appeased the right,

theoretically, if McTurtle hadn’t decided to steal the seat.

[gab13by13]

39. Is this post a defense of Garland?

Why, all of a sudden, is there this need to appoint special counsels?

[Beastly Boy]

52. All of a sudden?

A special counsel does not get appointed all of a sudden.

And considering how many times I gave you a link to 28 CFR § 600.1, you should be able to recite the reasons for appointing a SC in your sleep by now.

[Autumn]

40. Quit reading what I didn't say. I eagerly await you proving me wrong

I don't have a mission. I just watch Garlands action, also his inactions. BTW, Did you know that the DOJ probes related to Pence’s and Trump’s handling of classified documents have reached or appear to be reaching their ends. Meanwhile Biden had yet to be interviewed as of June this year ?

[Beastly Boy]

54. What is there in your post to be proven you are wrong?

Are you entitled to misguided opinions? You absolutely are.

Am I entitled to critique your misguided opinions? I absolutely am.

If you want to be proven right, post something that is based on verifiable information, and cite it.

[Autumn]

56. I don't need to be proven right, you seem to have a need to prove people wrong.

In truth you seem to have a vested interest in doing so. And once again you try to run with something I never said. Yes I do think Garland was wrong to appoint Weiss. And that's the only thing will find me saying about Garland. He was wrong to appoint the man who has hounded Hunter for the last several years , he kept after Garland until he gave in and gave Weiss the job he wanted.

Beastly Boy (6,793 posts)

32. People who think Garland was wrong to appoint Weiss tend to be

the people who think Garland was wrong in every little thing he did as an AG. And more often than not they themselves are proven to be wrong. This never deters them from their mission.

The consistency of what they think is conspicuous to say the least. Each time they think Garland was wrong on any subject only reinforces the notion that the subject has no role in informing their opinions.

[Beastly Boy]

60. Then, should I take it that you need to be proven wrong?

"I eagerly await you proving me wrong". That's you talking, not me.

And what possible vested interest can I have in proving you wrong, when I stated that there is nothing in your post to be proven wrong? Didn't I make it, to borrow the phrase, pellucidly clear?

And the portion of my post you bolded is actually a matter of record. You can verify it yourself by tracing back your own posts about Garland.

[Autumn]

61. Now you are stretching the discussion.

I have no interest in playing your game. Garland was wrong to appoint Weiss. I stand by that and I will await you proving me wrong.

[Beastly Boy]

63. There is no need to stretch the discussion. It only shows what I pointed out the first time around.

You have opinions, but nothing to back them up with. And that, of course, is why you lose interest when this simple truth is pointed out to you.

Sadly, I have learned the hard way that no matter how many times Garland bashers are proven wrong, they stubbornly ignore all evidence handed out to them on a silver platter and come full circle to the same old tired memes that perpetually dive their narrative. No lessons learned.

I no longer expect this to change, so I can only welcome your decision to end this exercise in futility.

[Autumn]

64. You said I and others would be proved wrong. We won't be.

[Beastly Boy]

69. I didn't say you WOULD be proven wrong. I said you WERE proven wrong.

Many times. And you were reminded, time and again, that you were proven wrong, and exactly how you were wrong.

Regardless, the only responses that were offered in return resemble your current response to a T, and there is no point in repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

[Autumn]

74. I must have slept though it and missed being proven wrong.

Just because you think something is right your thoughts are not proof of anything.

I played a Play station game last night. I killed hundreds of bad guys and was lauded in the game . Now I know the difference between fact and fantasy so I may have thought I was a mighty warrior in the game but I know better

[Beastly Boy]

76. I directed you to your own past posts and responses to them.

Yep, you promptly slept through them, and that's one of my points. And quit blaming me for that.

[stopdiggin]

71. +1. pretty much sums it up

there's no winning - and there's no end ..

[gab13by13]

16. You called me a Garland basher.

I want to know why Patrick Daniels was acquitted from doing worse things than Hunter Biden did? I want to know why Patrick Daniels is allowed to own guns and be an admitted controlled substance user? I want DOJ to be fair, not partisan.

Hunter Biden has been investigated for 5 years for the sole purpose of trying to find criminal activity of his that is tied to President Biden.

If Trump beats President Biden we lose our democracy. The Republican party has become a domestic terrorist organization.

An appeals court nullified Patrick Daniel's indictment and conviction and the Garland DOJ turns around and indicts Hunter Biden for 3 charges under the same statute as Daniels was indicted and exonerated for.

I guess I am supposed to trust in Garland and keep my mouth shut. Now that Weiss is a special counsel we will hear about Hunter Biden right up to the election. The Magat talking point will be there is no difference between Trump and Biden, both committed crimes.

Oh and not to mention there is still a special counsel looking into Vice President Biden's possession of classified documents. When will his report come out, right before the election?

[housecat]

25. Why not? They got away with it when Hillary was about to win.

[azureblue]

33. so why isn't the NRA defending Hunter?

There is a very uneven application of the statute here - Hunter gets the max, while otehr cases resulted in the gun being taken away and community service (because the guy was a Repub and friends with the mayor).

If we use the standard being applied to Hunter, the Lorraine goes to jail, period. But that will never happen, much less she gets charged with anything, because she is a Repub. Hopefully Hunter's lawyers will point this out to the judge.

[uponit7771]

22. "I have no idea", On its face that's horrible in and of itself

[RandomNumbers]

41. Hunter should have made a plea deal that stuck

Saying "the law is unfair" and "you didn't hold that other guy accountable" doesn't work for other people, and he has the bad luck to be part of a high-profile family.

It appears he broke the law, as minor as his circumstances might be compared to others who also broke it. If he broke the law, make a deal that works for everyone, and STFU.

Now, if they won't make a deal that's fair because of who is father is, that really sucks of course, but lots of things suck for lots of normal people, every f***ing day.

(And couldn't Biden just pardon him the day after the election?)

[Beastly Boy]

47. Once again, it is the jury that convicted Daniels

The Biden case has yet to be tried. Zero convictions.

At this point, it is ridiculous to compare the two cases. As things stand now, Daniels got a 4 year sentence and Biden got zero. Daniels' sentence was overturned on appeal,which has nothing to do with Garland's DOJ, and Biden is yet to stand trial.

And if you ever stop forcing the comparisons between Daniels and Biden, the answer to your question is obvious: yes, Biden was treated fairly by Garland. Unless you can show Garland to be in violation of any of the statutes he charged Biden with, regardless of any circumstances in the Daniels case.

[stopdiggin]

70. and we just had to sneak in Merrick Garland there somewhere

amiright?

[uponit7771]

21. Deservedly so, a politically driven SC for a gun charge is disgusting on its face ... period end of

... story and none of the DOJ defenders have even bothered to defend what were the credible allegations for a SC was given in the first place.

[Freethinker65]

4. If Hunter had committed a crime with the gun he lied to get, prosecute.

If Hunter declared he wasn't an addict or currently using to get the gun, pay a hefty fine and get court ordered help for addiction.

I can imagine plenty of addicts don't really believe they are addicts, even when undergoing treatment for addiction. Many declare themselves free of addiction, only to fall back to using. Many will use part of the 12 step program to admit they are addicts to themselves, friends, and family but don't truly believe it. They say it to get through the program.

There was also chatter that the gun may have been purchased to take his own life? I don't know the validity of that claim or where it originally came from, but seems odd to put someone on trial because if suicidal thoughts. They need mental health care.

Hunter has managed to change his behavior after all of this came to light and should be commended for that change in behavior. Boebert's behaviors have been getting worse. She needs an intervention from friends (if she has any left) and family.

[wnylib]

6. +1000

[MarineCombatEngineer]

7. 100+.

[uponit7771]

24. +1

[azureblue]

34. there was also chatter

That it was planted in advance by a repub operative seeking to discredit Hunter. /S

[RandomNumbers]

42. +1000. Own it and get it over with. nt.

[malaise]

8. I'm betting

Molly - that’s what a close friend’s son suggests and he is an expert on these matters.

[usonian]

18. Joe should pardon not out of politics but because it is the compassionate thing to do

And maybe some other presidential kid.

IF ......

This being Sunday and holydays. During football, so nobody notices.

[sl8]

19. The Richard Painter tweet referenced in the article:

(Painter was the chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration)

Link to tweet

Richard W. Painter
@RWPUSA

So, what did @laurenboebert say on the forms she signed to buy her guns? What did she say about drug use? She only does vapes? Only in movie theaters?

Now that @TheJusticeDept is running fact checks on gun buyers, we can find out.

3:57 PM · Sep 16, 2023 · 70.9K Views

[Rebl2]

23. Maybe she was

smoking crack cocaine. We know she is a liar, simply because, well, she’s a republican.

[Beastly Boy]

26. Maybe Garland shouldn't appoint a special counsel in this case.

That would be a blatant example of abuse of power.

I am appalled by the amount of shallowness I see in discussions having to do with special counsel. And it is so easy to avoid if one is inclined to discuss the subject with any degree of awareness.

Just three short paragraphs.

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

[intheflow]

28. Weed is legal as is alcohol, so who cares if she was under the influence?

Vaping is like smoking indoors, that’s the problem with her vaping. Also, I smoke a lot of weed and never once did I feel my date up in a public theater full of families. The issue is that she’s trashy, no matter what legal substances she ingested to make her even trashier.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

30. 100+. nt

[sl8]

31. It's still illegal federally.

The Form 4473 required to purchase firearms from a dealer helpfully reminds people:

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

Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

It's also illegal to posess firearms if you're an unlawful drug user.

Take a look at the Hunter Biden charges. And that was just for one revolver. By all appearances, Boebert owns quite a few guns.

[intheflow]

38. She was in Denver where it's legal.

No one is being prosecuted for using weed in legalized states, and the Biden administration is considering legalizing it. I don’t think it’s gonna fly, if trying to tie it with guns. Besides, who has ever heard of anyone who was only on weed going on a shooting spree? Even if they did, you could get them to stop by giving them a coke and a bag of Doritos.

[sl8]

44. It's illegal in the United States, including Denver.

You're right that no one is being prosecuted for marijuana possession federally, but it's still against the law.

More to the point, the Federal firearms laws that prohibit transfer and possession by unlawful drug users, including marijuana, are, quite famously, being enforced. At least, against some people.

Whether that's a good law is a separate question.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

45. ....

She was in Denver where it's legal.

No one is being prosecuted for using weed in legalized states, and the Biden administration is considering legalizing it. I don’t think it’s gonna fly, if trying to tie it with guns. Besides, who has ever heard of anyone who was only on weed going on a shooting spree? Even if they did, you could get them to stop by giving them a coke and a bag of Doritos.

I got a big laugh with the part I bolded because as funny as it is, it's also the truth.

[W_HAMILTON]

68. That's not how jurisdictions work.

[stopdiggin]

73. I think federal law still applies in Denver -(nt)-

-------- -------

[ColinC]

43. It is not.

It is still federally as illegal as heroin and cocaine

[intheflow]

46. Good lord, you want to go after her for smoking weed,

the only way it’s gonna fly is because she was smoking weed in public, which is illegal in Colorado. I haven’t heard of a case of someone being brought up on federal charges just for smoking weed, not for trafficking or distribution. Biden’s floated legalizing it federally. It’s nonsense. The groping and the indoor smoking are the issues.

[ecstatic]

59. You might be missing the point which is that the doj opened up a can of worms

Frankly, any right-wing gun owner caught doing drugs needs to be reported to the FBI, since we're locking up people for that now.

[ColinC]

62. Not "going after" her would be preferential treatment

All federal employees and contractors are randomly drug tested on a regular basis. If they are caught doing federally illegal drugs, they are -at the very least, fired. Do you think it should be different for elected federal employees? And if so, why?

[Mr.Bill]

87. Weed is against federal law.

The paperwork to buy a gun is a federal document.

[gab13by13]

53. Thom Hartmann laid it all out

"The DOJ’s indictment of Hunter Biden reveals a horrible truth: our criminal justice system just caved to threats of political violence. This is a terrible milestone, revealing how far down the fascist rabbit-hole the GOP has gone. It should be front-page news but is instead relegated to a footnote.

Trump-aligned Nazis threatened violence against FBI agents and prosecutors investigating Hunter Biden after Republicans in Congress and hosts on Fox “News” and other rightwing outlets named people they claimed were “going soft” on the president’s son.

As a result, the FBI has been forced to create a unit just to protect people working on the gun and tax charges brought against Hunter yesterday and in previous months. These attacks on government officials are largely unprecedented. They echo the terror campaigns run by followers of Mussolini and Hitler in the early days of their rising to power."

https://www.alternet.org/thom-hartmann/

[Beastly Boy]

55. Well, if you insist on going in circles:

It's a friggin opinion piece. Opinions are exceedingly common. Everybody has one, as the saying goes.

So do I. But I will not opine on the matters of fact. I will just point out the glaring inaccuracies Mr Hartmann inserted into his opinions.

The description of the plea deal Mr Hartman is opining on, "involving checking an “I’m not a drug addict” box on a gun purchase application and failing to pay his taxes" is not only a complete misrepresentation of the deal, but also misquotes the actual content in the application in question. There is no such thing as "“I’m not a drug addict” box" in the application, which Mr Hartmann puts in quotation marks as if it accurately represents what Biden had been charged with (https://courts.delaware.gov/Forms/Download.aspx?id=33068). That was not the charge.

Then, Mr Hartmann, as so many other DOJ detractors do time and again, despite clear evidence to the contrary, assumes that the Fifth Circuit ruling that struck down the law barring users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms, and would make you believe that this ruling has anything to do with Biden's charges. Yet, in the ruling, Judge Smith clearly states, referring to the defendant in the case: "We conclude only byemphasizing the narrowness of that holding. We do not invalidate the statute in all its applications, but, importantly, only as applied to Daniels" (https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60596-CR0.pdf , Page 29)

[stopdiggin]

75. +1. the 'gun app' charge

as with many, many other such incidences - was originally bundled in with a slew of other charges. Often these are used as leverage to induce a 'plea'. Which is exactly where this was going with Biden - until the plea blew up.

Hunter Biden still clearly, and knowingly, lied on the application. And that is still clearly against the law. And trying to somehow 'hang' this on Merrick Garland, turns this from a discussion of the facts and legal aspects - into a food fight.

"We conclude only by emphasizing the narrowness of that holding. We do not invalidate the statute in all its applications, but, importantly, only as applied to Daniels"

[ecstatic]

57. I want Don Jr tested immediately. nt

[KentuckyWoman]

66. Junior.

Get Jr. to pee in a cup. End of conversation.

[W_HAMILTON]

67. Don't forget about that Madison Cawthorn guy...

...and his claims of fellow Republicans inviting him to cocaine-fueled sex parties.

[AncientOfDays]

78. Well, maybe

If perhaps this goes to trial and Hunter maybe just gets a slap on the wrist - then there cannot be any future prosecution on this charge.

I'm thinking it's possible they're bringing this to trial knowing they will lose.

[Blue Owl]

80. K&R for visibility

[FBaggins]

85. Except they aren't.

Nowhere in the current story did DOJ "run a fact check" on applications* (in general or with Hunter specifically)

As with almost all prosecutions for violating this part of the Brady Bill... the prosecution arose as part of a different investigation.

* - unless you count the required FBI background check as a "fact check" on the felony question... in which case nothing has changed.