You regurgitate whatever MAGA theory is making the rounds that day. When people call you on it and ask for proof <cough election fraud cough>, you change the subject. That you want us to believe you're an independent thinker is laughable in light of this. An independent thinker would have realized that if they've lost EVERY SINGLE attempt to prove there was fraud (even in front of Republican judges), they might be wrong.
But hey, you go ahead and keep thinking you're a maverick independent thinker while wiping orange makeup off your pants.
hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 12, 2024 12:53 pm
But hey, you go ahead and keep thinking you're a maverick independent thinker while wiping orange makeup off your pants.
I'd have gone with: "while wiping tennis shorts starch off your lips."
Sometimes when the government is being unreasonable, you have to take your chances in court. The judge basically prompted the prosecution to not settle the other issues, and questioned why Hunter would plead to a technical gun charge based on the constitutional questions. If you’re the defense, you don’t have anything left at that point except a jury who might feel differently.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
em2nought wrote: Wed Jun 12, 2024 1:28 am
I revise my previous comment from garnering sympathy votes for dear ol' dad to Hunter being a sacrifice to save face at the DOJ.
Don't you hate it when they suddenly change the talking points?
Most of my thoughts are my own, ascertained prior to hearing anyone else's take on matters.
I do tend to suspect that Hunter may have some decent grounds for appeal given the testimony about the form which was not allowed. IMHO, better odds than Trump's appeal.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I'm not a fan of Hunter's, but I agree with an earlier assertion that this sets a bad precedent for recovering addicts if they realize that they can be punished for things that didn't harm anyone while they were in the throes of addiction.
hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 12, 2024 3:31 pm
I'm not a fan of Hunter's, but I agree with an earlier assertion that this sets a bad precedent for recovering addicts if they realize that they can be punished for things that didn't harm anyone while they were in the throes of addiction.
Republicans wanted vengeance though.
Not just vengeance - see Ukraine Extortion, etc. - They want any allegation of dirt they can get so they can spam the hell out of it and make the misinformation/allegation seem true, no matter how fake it is (see the Ukraine Extortion again- all they wanted was an investigation to sow the seeds of alleged improprieties to influence the election - heck, see Comer's lead witness in the Biden Impeachment hearings spewing Russian lies)...
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Zarathud wrote: Wed Jun 12, 2024 2:05 pm
Sometimes when the government is being unreasonable, you have to take your chances in court. The judge basically prompted the prosecution to not settle the other issues, and questioned why Hunter would plead to a technical gun charge based on the constitutional questions. If you’re the defense, you don’t have anything left at that point except a jury who might feel differently.
The judge did the prosecutors job for him.
They had Biden dead to rights on this charge. And yet he was pleading guilty for a trifling punishment. No judge doing their job is going to let that pass.
And any defence was going to be hard because the jury knows because of the mass coverage that he’d pled guilty before and changed his plea.
He’d have been better off pleading guilty. Some jail time is inevitable now.
As for punishing recovering addicts - I agree in principle but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in jail for just that right now. We love to punish addicts - and believe in self control over highly addictive substances even if it’s madness. It’s our puritanical roots showing.
hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 12, 2024 3:31 pm
I'm not a fan of Hunter's, but I agree with an earlier assertion that this sets a bad precedent for recovering addicts if they realize that they can be punished for things that didn't harm anyone while they were in the throes of addiction.
Hold up a second. I’m not sure where everyone is getting the take the Judge Noreika is the reason why Hunter didn’t plead guilty. She didn’t “do the prosecutor’s job,” and she didn’t do a disservice to Hunter either. She did exactly what she was supposed to do: Ask questions of a plea deal that is ambiguous and subject to different interpretations. The DOJ had worded the plea deal in such a way that it wasn’t clear whether they were still pursuing additional investigations and potential charges against Hunter. My understanding is that Judge Noreika asked Hunter what his understanding of the deal was, and he and his attorneys answered that they thought the plea deal ended those additional investigations. She then turned to the prosecution and asked them if they shared that understanding, and they answered negatively.
A judge is not a rubber stamp for a plea agreement. It’s the judge’s job to make sure that both sides have a meeting of the minds and all parties understand what is being agreed to. When Judge Noreika did that, it was clear that there was a significant misunderstanding.
Also, having worked on a daily basis with Judge Noreika for three years in DE when she was in private practice, I can tell you she is not some partisan hack. She’s super solid.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Maybe now the hunters of Biden can return their stones to their little glass houses and find some meaning in their cold sad little pathetic hateful stupid lives and move on.
Crrr crrree crbwahahahahaha! Who am I kidding?
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake. http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
When in doubt, skewer it out...I don't know.
Skinypupy wrote: Sun Jul 21, 2024 5:35 pm
And just like that, the GOP never spoke of Hunter Biden again.
**poof**
Came here to post just that. Thank God. It was my Dad's goto "anti-Lib" argument. He would actually lead with that. Wonder what he will rotate to now? Probably whatever Tucker Carlson tells him to.
Hunter Biden has pleaded guilty to all nine charges in his federal tax evasion case, catching federal prosecutors off guard as they prepared to begin his trial.
...
The last-minute reversal in the tax case was announced in a Los Angeles court on Thursday as jury selection was about to start.
...
Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell said his client wanted to forego a trial “for the sake of private interest”, sparing his friends and family from testifying about something that happened "when he was addicted to drugs".
Judge Mark Scarsi said that in pleading guilty, Biden faces a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison and fines ranging from $500,000 to $1m.
He is due to be sentenced on 16 December, a month after the White House election and a month before his father leaves office.
The CBC reporting seems to shed some light on how he arrived at the decision.
Hunter Biden had agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax offences last year in a deal with the U.S. Justice Department that would allow him to avoid prosecution in the gun case if he stayed out of trouble. But the agreement imploded after a judge questioned unusual aspects of it, and he was subsequently indicted in the two cases.
His decision to change his plea Thursday came after the judge issued some unfavourable pre-trial rulings for the defence, including rejecting a proposed defence expert lined up to testify about addiction.
U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi, who was appointed to the bench by former president Donald Trump, placed some restrictions on what jurors would be allowed to hear about the traumatic events that Hunter Biden's family, friends and attorneys say led to his drug addiction.
The judge barred attorneys from connecting his substance abuse struggles to the 2015 death of his brother, Beau Biden, from cancer, or the car crash that killed his mother and sister when he was a toddler.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
Which is a fair point, but at the same time, it was a justified pardon against an unjustified prosecution. Everything that happened to Hunter was, first and foremost, an attempt to attack the President. Having your career destroy your child's life is bullshit enough that I can't blame him for saying, "Screw it."
Trump's election proved the pardon won't cost Biden anything. Integrity doesn't matter to voters anymore. Biden did what he could, even stepping aside.
Leaving Hunter Biden exposed to further persecution would have been foolish, with Trump promising retribution for perceived wrongs.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
Blackhawk wrote: Mon Dec 02, 2024 12:44 am
Which is a fair point, but at the same time, it was a justified pardon against an unjustified prosecution. Everything that happened to Hunter was, first and foremost, an attempt to attack the President. Having your career destroy your child's life is bullshit enough that I can't blame him for saying, "Screw it."
+1. Yes, Dems are expected to hold themselves to a higher standard of ethics than Reps do, but this doesn't budge my outrage meter.