America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

I yelled out "SLAMDUNK!" because it is. Those charges in this gun grab day and age would stick on anyone. They will for this crackhead too. Now, bring the money laundering, FARA abuse and bribery charges...NOW!!!!

Imagine if that was you, lying on your gun purchase. Would you get probation?

If he skates...F@CK THE ATF!

Opinion How a conservative court ruling could save Hunter Biden


Irony alert: A misguided ruling from the conservative-dominated Supreme Court — a decision that President Biden has said “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution” — might save Hunter Biden from the gun charges just filed against him.


WAPO
Last year, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court upended its approach to gun rights, saying that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms permits only those gun restrictions that have a basis in “history and tradition.” That blinkered interpretation has set off a flurry of challenges to existing gun laws in the lower courts as judges have been forced to scour colonial-era statutes for analogies to modern-day regulations.

In Hunter Biden’s case, that means finding historical antecedents for the federal law that prohibits those who use illegal drugs from purchasing or possessing firearms. Biden was indicted Thursday on three felony counts: making two false statements on a gun purchase form that he did not use and was not addicted to controlled substances, and illegally possessing a Colt revolver while he was using narcotics.

His lawyers have signaled their intention to use the high court’s ruling in Bruen as a basis for challenging the charges.

“Our response to the charge in court will point out that the United States Department of Justice, which is supposed to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, by bringing its firearm charge, is disregarding the rulings of the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit and is seeking to punish Mr. Biden for exercising a constitutional right these courts have stated he has,” Biden’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, told me.

That presents yet another layer of political discomfort for the president, whose administration has defended the constitutionality of the ban on gun ownership by drug users and would, presumably, maintain that position in Hunter Biden’s case as well.

This could also prove to be an instance of bad cases making bad law. First, the bad case: The counts on which Biden has been indicted are not often brought as stand-alone charges, absent other, serious misconduct. Biden had the gun for all of 11 days and never used it. Under an earlier, now unraveled plea agreement, prosecutors agreed to allow him to enter a pretrial diversion program — a deal that Biden’s lawyers assert is still in force and that in any event seems like a more appropriate sanction for his behavior.

As to bad law: Whatever happened in colonial times, modern-day America ought to be able to say that drug users shouldn’t have guns. Yet Biden has a reasonable chance — in the chaotic aftermath of Bruen, and especially given this conservative Supreme Court — of prevailing in his argument that the addict-in-possession ban violates the Second Amendment.

He could also attack the false statements charges on the theory that if the underlying law against addicts with guns violates the Second Amendment, a false statement about drug usage is no longer legally significant.

Most trial-level federal courts that have heard challenges to the law have upheld it. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the first appeals court to consider the issue, ruled the other way last month involving a man who said he smoked marijuana about 14 days a month but was not deemed high at the time of he was arrested and charged with illegal gun possession. After Bruen, the court said, the law, in place since 1968, was no longer constitutional.

“Throughout American history, laws have regulated the combination of guns and intoxicating substances,” wrote Judge Jerry E. Smith, a Ronald Reagan appointee. “But at no point in the 18th or 19th century did the government disarm individuals who used drugs or alcohol at one time from possessing guns at another.”

The ruling looked to such statutes as a 1656 Virginia law that banned “shoot[ing] any gunns at drinkeing” — the worry was about conserving gunpowder or generating alarms about Indians attacking — and a 1771 New York law that barred citizens from firing guns over the New Year’s holiday because of the “great Damages” done by those “intoxicated with Liquor.”

“Given the prevalence of drinking at the Founding, that handful of laws puts the government on shaky footing,” Smith observed. “The government has failed to identify any relevant tradition at the Founding of disarming ordinary citizens who consumed alcohol.”

Notably, Smith was joined not only by Donald Trump nominee Don Willett but by Stephen A. Higginson, a Barack Obama nominee. In a concurring opinion, Higginson said that conclusion was compelled by the court’s historical approach in Bruen but lamented the potential implications of prioritizing an individual’s right to bear arms while ignoring that the right is grounded in the need to protect public safety.

Such rulings “will constrain the ability of our state and federal political branches to address gun violence across the country, which every day cuts short the lives of our citizens,” he warned. “This state of affairs will be nothing less than a Second Amendment caricature, a right turned inside out, against freedom and security in our State.”

Indeed. Is public safety threatened by a pothead with a gun? Not so much. By Hunter Biden with a handgun? He was probably more of a danger to himself, or so those closest to him figured, than to others.

But a society ought to have the discretion to make those judgments for itself. It shouldn’t be constrained in its decision-making by the rules of an era of flintlocks and muzzleloaders, long before school shooters and lockdown drills, opioid epidemics and drug gangs.

You are obsessed with your own unrelated issues and seemingly to need to repeat the same points over and over again.

Too bad, too, you can't even bring yourself to read articles that make you think in uncomfortable in ways and that don't say exactly what you like from sources you like.

There is a valid legal argument laid out in that article. It may not win, but its worthy of consideration as a remote possibility, depending on how the case goes. If you had bothered to read the article, we could actually have a conversation about it to see if we agree or disagree on parts or in whole. Not a Second Amendment/Founding Fathers/"Biden crime family" rant

Now, show me the irrefutable "direct evidence" you claim exists. If it is incontrovertible/damning right now and irrefutable, then I will totally denounce Biden as President- right now- and support impeachment. P.S. Don't bring me "indirect evidence" as it proves nothing in and of itself (without piling inference on inference) to reach a conclusion you like.

If the "direct evidence" existed right now, we'd be having an actual impeachment right now, not a "fishing expedition".

I totally agree with Gorka here, the indictment on gun charges is just a smoke screen to try to cover up the greater crimes of the Crime Family, the regime doesn't really believe in justice and Hunter will never see the inside of a jail cell.

Is Hunter Biden really in trouble? Seb Gorka joins NEWSMAX

https://rumble.com/v3ifz2s-is-hunter-biden-really-in-trouble-seb-gorka-joins-newsmax.html

More evidence surfaces of Biden Crime Family collusion with Chicoms.


BREAKING: Hunter Received Two Bank Wires Originating from Beijing in 2019 with Beneficiary Address Listed as Joe Biden’s Delaware Home

By Cristina Laila Sep. 26, 2023 5:20 pm

Remember when Pedo Joe said he doesn't know? He's a liar.




George Berges also says first son made unusual request to know the identity of buyers, undercutting White House's narrative.


The art dealer who sold Hunter Biden’s paintings told Congress that President Joe Biden both called and met him at the White House as he was pitching Hunter's artwork and that the first son also made an unusual request to be informed about who bought his pieces, according to testimony that directly undercuts the White House narrative on the sales.

The Biden White House repeatedly told the public that Hunter Biden’s art sales were covered by an ethics agreement to ensure they were arms-length and that the first family -- Hunter included -- was blinded to the identity of buyers.

But George Berges, owner of the prestigious Berges art galleries based in New York and Berlin that sold Hunter Biden’s painting from 2020 to 2023, told congressional impeachment investigators that the first son likely knew the identity of 70% of the buyers – the largest who were Democrat donors – and that Hunter Biden’s first contract made an unusual request when the relationship started.

“I believe in the first contract, he was—he was able to know who the buyers were,” Berges told investigators for the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees in a transcribed interview last week that was reviewed by Just the News. “…I don’t know how it was phrased or—but I remember that there—that that was the difference.”

“Is that normal or unusual, or where’s that? Is it a normal kind of contract?” Berges was asked.

“That part was different. Normally, the gallerist does not let the artist know who the collectors are,” the art dealer answered.

Berges said a subsequent art sale deal with the first son dropped the requirement for Hunter Biden to be informed. “The first one was that I was required to disclose who the buyers were. In the second one, I was required to not disclose the buyers,” he explained.

Berges was also asked how many of the 15 artists he represents now – except for Hunter Biden – wanted to know the identity of purchasers. “None,” he answered.

Berges also revealed that he no longer represents Hunter Biden for art sales, saying the commercial relationship ended last fall. “I haven't represented him for four months now, and I think that also says something,” Berges said. “And I still talk to him as a friend.” Hunter Biden is still listed on Berges' website.

Not only did Hunter Biden know many of the buyers, Joe Biden apparently knew about the gallery selling Hunter Biden’s art and had two contacts with Berges, according to the testimony.

“Have you spoken to President Biden?” a House investigator asked at one point.
“Yes,” Berges answered.

“Okay. And was that in person or on the phone or both?” the investigator pressed.
“Both,” he answered.

“Can you tell me about the in-person meeting, where that was, when that was?” the questioner inquired. “At the White House wedding during Hunter's - Hunter's daughter getting married,” the art dealer explained.

“Okay. And then on the phone?” the congressional investigator asked.

“My daughter finished camp and he called to, you know, wish her, congratulate her for finishing camp and I answered the phone,” he said.

Berges’ account mirrors that of an earlier Hunter Biden business partner, Devon Archer, who gave explosive testimony to Congress last summer revealing that Joe Biden as vice president got on about two dozen calls with his son’s foreign business associates and had at least two dinners with them. The president had denied any contact with Hunter Biden associates.

Berges’ testimony also confirmed earlier reporting by Just the News, including that:

Hollywood superlawyer and Democrat donor Kevin Morris bought some of Hunter Biden’s art work: Berges put the total at at least $875,000;
Democrat donor Elizbeth Naftali, who Joe Biden appointed to a federal commission, bought art work as well. Berges said she bought bought one painting before her federal appointment and one after her appointment;
Joe Biden fundraiser Lanette Phillips made the connection between Hunter Biden and Berges that led to the art sales deal;
Berges sold his first piece of art for the first son in December 2020, just before Joe Biden took office; and
Berges had two art sales agreements with Hunter Biden, one in 2020 and another about a year later.

But the art dealer’s most consequential testimony for the impeachment proceeding involved Joe Biden and his White House. Berges said in addition to meeting and talking with the president while helping Hunter Biden, he had never had any contact with the White House over the supposed ethics agreement.

“When you’re seeing in the press that the White House is putting in certain safeguards regarding an ethics agreement but you’ve had no conversations with [the] White House, I mean, did you ever say to Hunter Biden, ‘Hey, where’s this coming from?’” a congressional investigator asked. “I might have. I probably did, yeah,” Berges said.

“And do you remember what he said to you?" the investigator continued. “I don’t . . . . I do remember being surprised,” Berges explained.

“Why were you surprised?” he was asked. “Because I hadn’t had any communication with the White House about an agreement,” Berges answered.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/tueart-dealer-told-congress-joe-biden-called-met-him-while-he-sold

And I know that you know what would happen to you or I if we were to operate as reckless as a Biden with firearms.

Add drugs to the mix?


https://youtu.be/CrzyRXSxuAg?si=VoK38WU88j743a7b

Uh oh! The informant against Hunter Biden has been jailed by the FBI for lying about it.

Film at 11:00!

you're kidding, right...dude swore he was totally legit...


meanwhile in a civil fraud case that was actually decided (not just suspected, or being investigated) in New York, Donald Trump and his sons were found liable for fraud; Donald Trump was fined $354 million, and his sons Donald Jr and Eric, were both fined $4 million...for actual business dealings involving both the father and his sons



anybody remember Ivanka sniffing around and getting a bunch of trademarks for her business in China while daddy was POTUS and when he was visiting?

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/ivanka-trump-trademarks/


these are real, not suspected events...

2 Billions for Jared (totally Jared) Kushner from the perps of 9/11!
That's BILLIONS. Can't believe I had to hear about it from everywhere but here.

do you need his bank account password?

yes

so Ant...if China grants business licenses to other businesses on a regular and equal basis, and China is a major player in international markets which many businesses would like to exploit...splain to me this phrase from the article above, that you cited:

"In October, China’s Trademark Office granted provisional approval for 16 trademarks to Ivanka Trump Marks LLC, bringing to 34 the total number of marks China has greenlighted this year,"


I'm not great at math, but it seems in the first 10 months of the year, China granted 18 trademarks. about 1.8 per month. Then Ivanka got 16 in one month, nearly doubling the YTD annual total.

Well let’s see. Is it only 34 trademarks in all of China or 34 for Ivanka Trump? Either way, please tell us what’s so nefarious. Or are you just assuming the worse simply because her name is Ivanka Trump?

None, the FBI seized the laptop a year before the election so it wouldn’t have been squashed, therefore he never would’ve been elected. And if it was Eric or Donald Jr. would it be handled the same way?