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

Deadlines. He missed the deadline 2 years in a row. Did he file a request for extension both years?

 

Joe was 'sitting next to Hunter when he demanded payment from Chinese businessman': IRS whistleblower claims president's son used his father's name to threaten associate in damning WhatsApp message

• IRS whistleblower made damning claims about 2017 message sent by Hunter
• Was part of conversation president's son was having with associate Henry Zhao
• Hunter was staying in his father's Delaware guest house at the time, the whistleblower told the Ways and Means Committee https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Hunter-Bidens-WhatsApp-Chinese-associate.html

 

What actual evidence do you have to show that the President in any way interfered in Hunter Biden's recently adjudicated case, or that treatment was more lenient than in comparable cases? (Not hyper-partisan dogma, evidence.)

The announcement of the charges by United States Attorney for Delaware David Weiss, a Trump appointee, should have been cause for celebration for anyone who believes in the rule of law. After all, although our system is imperfect, the fact that the son of the sitting president was investigated, prosecuted and convicted by the Justice Department demonstrates that no one is above the law. But while we don’t know what else he might have done — and as Weiss noted, the “investigation is ongoing” — if this is the extent of Biden’s wrongdoing, he has been treated much more harshly than the typical defendant...
https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...t-special-treatment-especially-harsh-00103184​

 

Hunter is clearly guilty of these crimes and his lenient treatment is an example of the lack of equal justice that characterizes our corrupt criminal justice system.
That said, IMO, the attacks on Hunter Biden have always amounted to partisan attempts to influence elections, and I expect a great deal of hidden exculpatory evidence to come out if there is ever a thorough investigation.
Such an investigation is unlikely until after the next election unless the RP House is foolish enough to actually conduct one.

 

Apparently he missed the deadline, hence the charges. If he had filed for extension, there would be no charges. It should be obvious. Charges for missing deadlines are unusual, but not unheard of. Typically you'd just get a letter saying you missed the deadline and it would explain the penalty.

 

Well said.

 

As oson as Ronda Fascist gets elected.

 

Convicted? LOLOL... We've seen stiffer sentences for parking violations. The rapper gets years in jail... Lil' Hunter gets a pass... same criminal act.

 

Hunter failed to file his tax returns 2 years in a row. If he had filed for extensions he would not have been charged. So we know the answer to that question. So 2 years in a row Hunter did not file a tax return.

 

The charges were for not paying in time, so I think he filed, but missed the deadline for payments. Why do we have to go over this 3 times?

 

Because you THINK?

 

The charges are for failure to pay taxes for 2017 and 2018. What's the beef? He was charged and pled guilty to the tax related infractions. What's your complaint? He screwed up and was held accountable, as he should. Is there something you are unhappy about?

 

I am not qualified to speculate upon whether his treatment in this case was any more or less lenient than comparable cases, although experts in such adjudications state that it was harsher.

Why would Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika go easy on Hunter Biden?

... Legal experts said first-time offenders are rarely prosecuted for both the gun and tax charges Biden faces.

Justice Department data... underscores the rarity of the gun charge: In the 2019 fiscal year, federal prosecutors received 478 referrals for lying on the federal form required to purchase a gun, but filed just 298 prosecutions, out of approximately 27 million background checks in a 12-month period...

Michael Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor and chair of the White Collar Criminal Defense & Government Investigations Practice at Cole Schotz, predicted Biden is also “not going to prison” for the tax charges, he told Reuters, given his status as a first-time offender, his willingness to plead guilty and the amount of back taxes he owed, which reportedly totalled $1.2 million that he has since paid back.

NYU Law professor and former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann also described Biden’s penalties in both cases as “if anything harsh, not lenient,” noting prosecutions for first-time tax offenses and false applications for a gun purchase seldom lead to jail time or even prosecutions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarado...heres-what-legal-experts-say/?sh=7d39363a794b


​

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyp...hes-likely-not-going-to-jail/?sh=5c1f1bbbb5b4

Item 2; failure to file a return.

According to the letter, Biden has agreed to plead guilty to two charges of failure to pay under section 7203 of the Tax Code. That section covers a wide variety of offenses, including:

1. 
failure to pay estimated tax or tax;
2. failure to file a return;
3. failure to keep records; and
4. failure to supply information.

 

And he is facing the music for his infractions.

And your complaint is?

 

IMO, the pursuit of HB is all about pushing JRB out of the presidential race.

 

He would have missed the deadline for as long as he lived because it was brought up by investigators, not by Hunter. Hunter had no intention of ever paying those taxes.

The IRS generally hears about unreported income on a W-2. I doubt that the Chinese or Ukrainians sent the IRS a W-2.

 

Indeed. Their impotence in targeting the President drives them to mount their fatwa against a flawed family member.

The same scheme to smear Biden had been afoot in the 2020 campaign in their fizzled Ukraine caper.

Incarcerated, Incarcerated, Impeached & Indicted, Disbarred​

 

I find it.... unusual... That people who are generally opposed to gun ownership under any circumstances, or even those who want the BGC to be anally invasive to the point of requiring things like you suggest (which would possibly be a blatant HIPAA violation), are literally cheering the fact that Hunter managed to get away with lying on his 4473, a slam-dunk felony that you are guilty of the moment you submit it with anything fabricated.

HOWEVER, when it comes to the issue of being a 'drug user', the way the question is (or at least was the last time I filled one out) phrased is, "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."

Emphasis in the original.

I have always maintained that, unless you are literally standing at the counter of the store holding a burning joint (or other drug per the question), you can answer 'No', because they do not define "User", unless you have a physiological or psychological addiction to one of the substances listed, though they don't define that, either. Now, when I have said that, it's always somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because I don't think the ATF (or any other anti-drug and/or anti-gun person or organization) would buy my argument that, "If I'm not using when asked the question, then I'm not a user!"

HOWEVER, nowhere in the form or it's instructions, unless they've changed it since last I filled one out, does it say what time period must have passed since your last usage before you can legally say "no" to it. I think most sane people would say if it's been 20 years since you last did a bong hit, you are clear to say "no" without consequence, and many people, especially those looking for any excuse, no matter how flimsy, would say if the last time you did it was 20 hours ago, then you'd be breaking the law by answering "no".

BUT THEY DO NOT TELL YOU IN THE FORM, INSTRUCTIONS, OR TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IN THE STATUTE ITSELF, how much time must have elapsed. So my, again tongue-in-cheekish response is if you're not at least currently under the influence if not actually sitting there in the store getting high, then you are not using, and therefore not a user.

The fact they declined to prosecute Hunter in a very visible, highly sensitive and widely known case would actually tend to lend credence to my smartass position on it that I have taken in the past, and can be used the next time some regular John or Jane Doe manages to get jammed up because it turns out they are a medical MJ patient who hasn't used in hours, days, weeks, months, or indeed, ever. I've seen some people who take the position that merely having a medical card makes you ineligible even if you have never used it, ever, in your entire life. The latter opinion to the underlying question is undermined by the Hunter case.

After this case, I believe my position is actually legally tenable, and will be unless and until they define, via statute, and not just some ATF interpretation, how much time must have elapsed before you are allowed to answer "no" to this question. The reason is has to be via statute is due to the 'Major Questions' doctrine that the USSC clarified in a case involving the EPA that I think was announced the same day the Bruen decision came out, but I'm not 100% certain of that, nor do I remember the name of that case, but someone here will.

TL/DR: The hypocrisy of those left of center who are coming to the defense of Biden in this case because he's the President's son, and they are on the President's 'team', is very ironic, considering those very same people would be screaming for me to be strung up and/ prosecuted if I confessed in public that I used MJ 24-hours prior to filling out that form to purchase a firearm with. Even if I was using it with an MD's approval and prescription.

 

Sorry, you lost me there. What is it you think I am suggesting, or being opposed to? Cheering? No, saying that hardly anyone is prosecuted for lying about drug use is merely stating a fact, not cheering. I don't give a rats ass about what happens to Hunter, but he pled guilty and was sentenced by the courts. Sorry if you are unhappy about it.

I asked the obvious question: Should there be a drug screen for gun buyers?

How many drug users are going to admit being drug users knowing it will disqualify them? Probably none. If they really wanted to weed out drug users, they would ask for a drug test, but clearly the will is not there

 

You have not provided anything that refutes my comment.

Fail,

 

I think the only appropriate place for such debate incompetence is the ignore function. Clearly, I cannot take you seriously.

 

It seems the Bidens just tell the IRS lies about where the money come from.... just like Joe Biden did when the $10 million suddenly showed up in 2017 S Corp section while until then the most they made was $400K... Looks like the "IRS Mandatory Presidential Audit Policy" needs to be adhered to or revamped...

 

Obey now... stay in that kneeling position. Your masters in Wahington love it.

 

He is not being charged with a gun violation. so, the point is moot.

But, out of 27 million background checks, only 433 were referred to the ATF, and only a couple hundred cases were filed.

Of those, we do not know the convictions, but about half were not charged.

That demonstrates that Hunter Biden is in the half that didn't get charged, and therefore, is not getting special treatment on the gun charge.

However, he was charged on filing late for taxes, which most people who do file late on taxes are not charged.

So the only reason he is charged for that is Weiss didn't find anything in 5 years of investigation, and needs something to show for it.

Neither you nor I nor anyone else as private citizens would ever be assigned a special prosecutor to be investigated for 5 year, let alone be charged for filing late on taxes.

So, what has happened to Hunter Biden isn't a sweetheart deal at all, the opposite is true, he's been treated in a way that no other would be but for his name being Hunter Biden.

Ane this idea that Joe Biden corruptly influenced Weiss is nonsense. Weiss was appointed by the Trump DOJ, and Joe Biden allowed Weiss to stay on, when, in point of fact, most new administraions fire all the US Attorneys, but Joe alloed the investigation of his own son to continue

Why? Because Joe Biden is a man of integrity.

Would Trump have allowed Weiss to continue, if the shoe were on the other foot?

Well, we have proof that he wouldn't. He fired Us Attorney Preet Bharara because Preet wasn't doing Trump's bidding,