No. of Recommendations: 6
Evidently, there may be some evidentiary issues with respect to the gun charges against Hunter Biden. Special Counsel David Weiss didn’t obtain a search warrant for firearms offenses until THREE MONTHS after the indictment was handed down. Dunno, maybe that's not legally a problem but jumping the gun like that might lend credence to Hunter Biden's claims of selective prosecution.
Also, that cocaine on the leather pouch? Turns out the FBI waited five years to test the pouch for cocaine residue. Kinda' sounds like Weiss didn't think to test the pouch until after representative Jim Jordan told him to do so. And I'm kinda' guessing they didn't test anything else in the trash bin where the gun and pouch were found. And I'm also guessin' that might be the same kind of a problem.
No. of Recommendations: 6
The gun charge reflects numerous problems with poor prosecutorial decision making if not abuse but I don't think the timing of a search warrant would be the biggest concern. There might be a "fruit from a poisoned tree" argument that evidence obtained from his laptop and iCloud account related to TAX charges could not be used to support a GUN charge but the core crimes related to the GUN are very simple. Those crimes are
a) possession of a firearm while being addicted to drugs
b) lying on a federal form on the gun ownership application saying you WEREN'T addicted to drugs
Hunter Biden's own public statements provide evidence of (a). He's SAID in public repeatedly that he was addicted to drugs over this timeframe. The ATF form he filled out at the time of purchase confirms purchase of the weapon, the DATE of the purchase, and his false statement on a federal form claiming he was NOT addicted to drugs at the time. That ATF form is already the government's property. Ergo, the prosecutor already has all the evidence needed to file an indictment.
Now, in a world where something like 95% of people facing such circumstances are NOT prosecuted as long as the government obtains plea deal terms that involve drug rehab, the idea that a federal prosecutor would first offer identical terms to this individual, then decide to INDICT this charge AFTER a plea deal blows up and one party screams about favoritism to a President's son looks highly suspicious.
In a world where the Supreme Court has already suggested that ANY restrictions on gun purchases are a violation of the 2nd Amendment, the federal statute involved here is already under fire by conservatives. As soon as conservative gun nuts can find or manufacture a case with the right "fact set" that the USSC can use to justify rejecting prior precedent, this law will be set aside. Most prosecutors see that writing on the wall and -- as part of their normal prosecutorial discretion regarding their available time and staffing -- are avoiding spending time pursuing additional indictments under this law. Yet this special prosecutor, already facing political backlash from Repulicans, decides to use this law to charge a prominant individual? Seems petty and vindictive, at a minimum.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 3
WTH: b) lying on a federal form on the gun ownership application saying you WEREN'T addicted to drugs
Didn't the Supremes boot that one, ruling restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," dontchaknow? Ain't no gun restrictions for drug users in the Second Amendment.
