Let's get something straight about Hunter Biden's guilty tax charge

Hunter, and Joe, know how to rake in the coins from foreign governments. Both are millionaires and neither has ever had a job. Joe said he is proud of his son -- LOL

 

I'm surprised to see you acknowledge Repubs would abuse their power. Good for you.

 

So.....an exhaustive 5 year investigation by a Trump appointed US attorney isn't enough to convince you otherwise? Color me un-surprised.

 

I'm just going by the reportage, which, from several sources, confirms the fact that few people are incarcerated because of lying on gun permit applications.

As for the few that are, your point is a red herring to mine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-form-yields-few-prosecutions-new-data-shows/

 

Now you're grasping at straws.

 

Right before that sentence, it stated:

The odds of being charged for lying on the form are virtually nonexistent.

Now why would it say that and then follow it up with '50%'? Because your quote doesn't actually say what you think it does.

As the GAO paper states, of the known false applications, that number was 112k , and only 12 were prosecuted. See the link, that is why it says 'virtually nonexistent'.

 

Few people are convicted and incarcerated for lying on a gun permit application.

Few people are charged for being late on tax filings and paying late.

Few people ARE INVESTIGATED FOR FIVE YEARS by a Special Counsel.

The ONLY reason he was charged and was investigated for five years by a Special Counsel was because HIS NAME WAS BIDEN.

THe opposite of what is being alleged, is true. He is NOT getting 'favorable' treatment.

Weiss tried for five years ot pin something on Hunter Biden and couldn't find it, years ago he knew about the late tax filings, and since
he couldn't find anything else, he charged him with that, (which he could have done in 2021, when Hunter filed and paid his taxes) in order to save face for his failure. Just like Durham's 300 page whine about the FBI, but no prosecutions.

 

He got a sweet deal. Personally, I don't feel that the drugs he was doing should be illegal in the first place. As far as the gun issue, he just got caught up in the crap trap his daddy's party set up for him. It is common for these laws to ensnare nonviolent people while doing nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Bottom line: Ones support or opposition is based on ones party affiliation. I feel that he would never have been held accountable if it weren't for the charges against the other guy. This was a token for appearance.

 

What, you don't think that Weiss, during the 5 years he investigated Biden, didn't find answers to such questions?

He found nothing, and knew about the late tax filings 2 years before Hunter was charged, so that was a case of not being able to pin somehting serious on Hunter
so he went with the back up charge, then one he would use in case he couldn't find anything else......

You know, the one that few people are ever charged for:

1. Late tax filings, paying taxes late, and underpaying. Most people just file, pay the tax they owe, and that's the end of it. That's what happened to me.
2. Lying on gun permit application.

 

Tax evasion is a felony. Hunter was given preferential treatment.

 

People who have a political affiliation should not be able to vote because they [obviously] cannot think clearly.

Everybody should be independent by deconstructing the two party system and having people pick the best policies based on their merit instead of conforming to an orthodoxy. Imagine having to actually learn about the candidate and their positions.

 

???? Thats the point. They sit and do nothing with incriminating evidence on Hunter, Joe, Hillary etc while perusing baseless accusations on anyone associated with Trump. And that Trump appointed attorney had all the evidence they needed on the tax issue, when Hunter paid his taxes and amended his returns 2?-3? years ago. And had all the evidence they needed on the gun issue with Hunters laptop in December 2019 and confirmed with Hunters book in 2020. There was no 5 year investigation and there is FBI whistleblowers confirming that authorities within the FBI and DOJ were preventing an investigation.

 

#1 there are those in prison that would disagree.
#2 Not only did he lie, he was an habitual drug loser who shouldn't have been close to a gun. He had his gun unlawfully disposed of as well. His Daddy would easily throw a Republican in prison for that alone!

 

Uh, slight bone to pick with your position, I see some issues with it, to wit:

There is your assumption of biased thinking: The argument posits that people with a political affiliation cannot think clearly. This is a sweeping generalization that seems to assume that people with political affiliations are incapable of independent or critical thinking. However, political affiliations are often a reflection of a person's values, beliefs, and policy preferences rather than an indicator of their ability to think clearly. Many affiliated voters are capable of critical thinking and can discern between different policy proposals, candidate merits, and political messages within their party of choice. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are monolithic groups.

You overemphasize independence: The assertion that everyone should be independent can be critiqued on a couple of fronts. First, it implies that independent voters are inherently superior in their decision-making process, which is not necessarily accurate. Independent voters can be just as susceptible to biases, misinformation, and flawed decision-making as affiliated voters. Secondly, political affiliations can provide structure and guidance for voters, who may not have the time, resources, or expertise to fully understand every policy detail.

You appear to have an Idealistic vision of policy-based voting: While the idea of people voting based on the merit of individual policies is appealing, it overlooks the practical challenges. A deep understanding of complex policies often requires extensive knowledge in areas like economics, law, and sociology. Many citizens simply lack the time or resources to gain such understanding. Political parties can help by summarizing these complex issues into more digestible platforms, based on a coherent set of values and principles. I've noticed how some who are biased against parties never mention this.

And your deconstruction of the two-party system: The argument assumes that a multi-party system or no-party system would inherently be more beneficial. However, this is not a guaranteed outcome. For instance, a multi-party system can lead to fragmentation and instability, with no single party able to gain a sufficient mandate to govern effectively. On the other hand, the absence of parties may result in an incoherent policy landscape and make it more difficult for voters to understand what each candidate stands for. Thing is, we have several parties, and new ones are being tried, and none, to date, have garnered much traction. I think the reason is that there are, essentially, in the broad political spectrum, parties that are variants of both the right and left. In America, most have coalesced into two dominant parties, Republicans and Democrats. In my own case, though I am ideologically more in tune with the Green Party than the Dem party, but because only the Dems have a large enough caucus to effect policy on any real scale, I vote as a Democrat. I imagine the reasons are similar for others and those on the right for voting Republican, rather than libertarian, who have no caucus, to speak of.

Not to mention your unrealistic expectations: The argument suggests that voters should "actually learn about the candidate and their positions". This implies that voters currently don't do so, which is a broad generalization. Many voters indeed spend time learning about candidates and their positions before voting. Furthermore, expecting all voters to have a detailed understanding of every candidate and every policy position may be unrealistic given the complexity of modern governance.

In conclusion, while your argument raises valid concerns about political affiliations and the current state of democracy, its assumptions and proposed solutions aren't compelling. Your position appears to underappreciate the role of political parties in organizing complex political information and overestimates the average voter's capacity or willingness to engage deeply with policy details.

 

I imagine that the FEW who are incarcerated would. but, uhhh, that is the point, eh? ---- the FEW?

A drug addict doesn't need to be incarcerated, he needs treatment, and grace.

Don't be silly.

 

They sure are getting a lot of" treatment and grace" in San Francisco! At sometime, everyone of them made a choice. Are they ever responsible for that choice? That includes Hunter. So did the drugs make him part of a multifaceted money laundering scheme? Did the drugs make him capable of earning an $80,000/ month salary? Sure, we need to go soft on poor Hunter! Give him and his father treatment and grace.
So drug users get guns and they just need treatment and grace. Law abiding citizens are the ones that need gun restrictions.....just ask the Big Guy!

 

Maybe a few people...maybe not. If the party system did not completely favor the parties, there would be no party system.

That's really weak. Look at the reality of the situation and then re-examine what you wrote.

You've got to be kidding. I wouldn't believe anything a political party says. Why would you?

I get how it works. What I am telling you is that it gets to the point where the corruption is so entrenched that it doesn't work very well anymore. And we've been there for over 50 years.

If you're a Greens, you should go over to Germany and see how wonderful they're making out over there.

Then you get what you pay for. As George Carlin said on many occasions...this is the best we can do. An lazy, stupid population gets lazy, stupid politicians.

Look out any window and see for yourself the sh*tshow that this country has become. Keep voting Democrat and things will continue to spin clockwise down the drain.

 

That isn't a gun permit application it is a background check. I can't believe you don't know this.

 

How about throwing the gun into a trash can near a school without reporting it lost or stolen?
Are you one of those folks that want eliminate police?

 

It was Form 4473 that he lied on. Yes, it's an application to get a background check. I didn't think the precise language was that important in the post. But, had I known
you were going to raise a stink about it, I would have made sure the language met with your esteemed aprovel.

.

 

Hunter was an addict, he needed rehab, grace. Not incarceration for drugs.

the only folks I know of wanting to get rid of the police are Republicans who are trying to undo the FBI, which is a law enforcement agency, as well.

 

He wasn't incarcerated for drugs. His drug problems have been known for a long time, if he was going to rehab willingly he'd have done so a long time ago. His crime is making a false official statement.

. Yeah, as usual, when you get backed into a court - blame it on Republicans.

 

You never heard all the hullabaloo about efunding police by BLM and Antifa? Really? You never heard all the libs wanting to replace cops with social workers? Have you been overseas?

 

26 USC 6651 is the code section for failure to pay timely or file timely. This only has a penalty involved and that's it. But other than that, good legal blog.

 

No one is defending Hunter, just stating that hunter did not get unfair treatment AND that he was amicable and cooperative with the DOJ when the did investigate him. Something Trump should take into serious consideration with all of his legal troubles.