Will Biden's DOJ Prosecute Hunter?

[Bud_Spencer]

Hunter Biden seems to have violated federal firearms laws in perjuring himself on a Form 4473 back in 2018 when he bought a pistol. He answered "no" to a question about using illegal drugs as well as another regarding being dishonorably discharged from the military.

Interestingly, the Secret Service inserted itself into this situation in an apparently attempt to cover up the fact that Hunter Biden was in possession of firearms when he was ineligible to do so.

So will the DoJ simply overlook perjury and illicit possession by the politically connected? Or will they enforce the laws - laws that Dementia Joe and his cohort are panting to tighten - against one of their own?

I know what I'm predicting.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

The DoJ doesn't deal with "seems to have..."

 

[phrodeau]

Lock up everyone who lies on their Form 4473. Because gun violence is an enforcement issue.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The DoJ doesn't deal with "seems to have..."

Of course they do, it's called "probable cause." And there is no doubt that Hunter Biden purchased a firearm from an FFL, that this requires a 4473 completion and that to pass the background check he would have to lie about at least one question. That's probable cause.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Lock up everyone who lies on their Form 4473. Because gun violence is an enforcement issue.

Biden wants to make background checks universal. Will it be okay if people lie on their applications?

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Of course they do, it's called "probable cause." And there is no doubt that Hunter Biden purchased a firearm from an FFL, that this requires a 4473 completion and that to pass the background check he would have to lie about at least one question. That's probable cause.

If it was a slam dunk then why couldn't 45's staff find enough evidence to prosecute?

 

[Gamine67]

BTW: He was administratively discharged not ‘dishonorably’ discharged as the draft dodging flag humper claimed.

It’s a disproved outright lie, don’t be an ignorant douchebag.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Oh, and WTF was the Secret Service doing going to the gun shop to confiscate the 4473? Are they Joe Biden's political fixers now?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Hunter and Donald are both free men and there is no indication that situation will change under this DOJ.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

BTW: He was administratively discharged not ‘dishonorably’ discharged as the draft dodging flag humper claimed.

It’s a disproved outright lie, don’t be an ignorant douchebag.

Thanks, that makes sense. Crackhead scions of political insiders - at least Democrats - are quietly shuffled off. Everyone else gets a DD.

And why did a 43 year old crackhead get an officer's commission, anywat?

 

[LukSkyFokker]

And why did a 43 year old crackhead get an officer's commission, anywat?

When did you switch the topic to George W. Bush?

You really don't think before you type.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The gun was thrown away by Hallie Biden at a food store, across from a school. Why isn't she being prosecuted for possession of a gun within 1000' of a school?

We know Dementia Joe supports that law, seeing as how he wrote it.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

And where is our somnolent media, asking Joe about this? Can you imagine the volcanic uproar if Don, Jr. Got caught lying on a 4473 and ditching guns near schools?

 

[LukSkyFokker]

You're a speculating histrionic spaz.

 

[KeithD]

The DOJ isn't Biden's. Both he and the Attorney General have made that clear. You must have been thinking about the Trump administration.

I presume the DOJ will pursue need to investigate Hunter Biden as the need arises--unlike Trump's Attorney General who prevented the investigation of a whole pile of corruption and criminality by Trump and his associates (including the Attorney General).

 

[phrodeau]

And where is our somnolent media, asking Joe about this? Can you imagine the volcanic uproar if Don, Jr. Got caught lying on a 4473 and ditching guns near schools?

Do you believe that Don Jr. is not a cocaine user?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The DOJ isn't Biden's. Both he and the Attorney General have made that clear. You must have been thinking about the Trump administration.
).

Biden appointed Garland. Biden can fire Garland if he wants. That’s how it works. I presume your point is that Biden has no idea who he appointed or what the appointee does, and on that point we’re in full agreement.

 

[Comshaw]

Hunter Biden seems to have violated federal firearms laws in perjuring himself on a Form 4473 back in 2018 when he bought a pistol. He answered "no" to a question about using illegal drugs as well as another regarding being dishonorably discharged from the military.

Interestingly, the Secret Service inserted itself into this situation in an apparently attempt to cover up the fact that Hunter Biden was in possession of firearms when he was ineligible to do so.

So will the DoJ simply overlook perjury and illicit possession by the politically connected? Or will they enforce the laws - laws that Dementia Joe and his cohort are panting to tighten - against one of their own?

I know what I'm predicting.

The actual question on the 4473 form is this (copied directly from a pdf of the form on ATF's web site):

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

Did he lie on the form? Is there proof he was an addict AT THE TIME HE ANSWERED THE QUESTION? His status as an addict before or after the purchase is moot for the question is only about his status at the time of purchase. If there is no proof he was an addict and he swore he wasn't when he signed the form, he didn't lie. Or more precisely, there is no way to prove he did lie.

As far as the Secret Service getting involved, I'll have to do more research on that before I comment.

Comshaw

 

[KeithD]

Biden appointed Garland. Biden can fire Garland if he wants. That’s how it works. I presume your point is that Biden has no idea who he appointed or what the appointee does, and on that point we’re in full agreement.

I'm not the least bit surprised that your thinking of the relationship between the president and the Attorney General accords with that of Nixon and Trump rather than any other president. Enough posted on that.

 

[Liar]

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

That is a pretty vague question open for interpretation.

I'm not high right now and I have not been diagnosed by a medical professional as having an addiction. So...no?

 

[Lazaran]

The actual question on the 4473 form is this (copied directly from a pdf of the form on ATF's web site):


Did he lie on the form? Is there proof he was an addict AT THE TIME HE ANSWERED THE QUESTION? His status as an addict before or after the purchase is moot for the question is only about his status at the time of purchase. If there is no proof he was an addict and he swore he wasn't when he signed the form, he didn't lie. Or more precisely, there is no way to prove he did lie.

As far as the Secret Service getting involved, I'll have to do more research on that before I comment.

Comshaw

I thought the same thing about proving an individual's status at the time of signing.

As for the Secret Service involvement, well, the White House is denying their involvement, the Secret Service is denying their involvement, and the gun shop owner cited as claiming the Secret Service was involved is not commenting on whether it's true or not. Also, there is apparently no video or documented proof that the Secret Service was ever at the gun shop.

So basically: There's zero evidence that Hunter Biden lied on the form, and there's zero evidence that the Secret Service attempted to intervene or interfere with the investigation of the incident.

*yawn*

 

[icanhelp1]

The actual question on the 4473 form is this (copied directly from a pdf of the form on ATF's web site):


Did he lie on the form? Is there proof he was an addict AT THE TIME HE ANSWERED THE QUESTION? His status as an addict before or after the purchase is moot for the question is only about his status at the time of purchase. If there is no proof he was an addict and he swore he wasn't when he signed the form, he didn't lie. Or more precisely, there is no way to prove he did lie.

As far as the Secret Service getting involved, I'll have to do more research on that before I comment.

Comshaw

You eliminated *unlawful user* from your argument.

 

[Lazaran]

.
ineedhelp1 obviously struggles with understanding present tense in the English language.

"Are you an unlawful USER of" indicates the form is asking whether the signee is CURRENTLY USING at the time of signing.

What a "dumbass*

ineedhelp1 should just apologize and take the L.

*nods*

 

[icanhelp1]

.
ineedhelp1 obviously struggles with understanding present tense in the English language.

"Are you an unlawful USER of" indicates the form is asking whether the signee is CURRENTLY USING at the time of signing.

What a "dumbass*

ineedhelp1 should just apologize and take the L.

*nods*

Hey dumbass!! FORM 4473 SECTION 21 QUESTION E

.21. Answer the following questions by checking or marking either the “yes” or “no” box to the right of the questions: Yes No
a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)?
Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are
not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. Exception: If you are only picking up a repaired
firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 21.a. and may proceed to question 21.b.
b. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more
than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice and whose charge(s) have been referred to a general court-martial?
c. Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have
imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?
d. Are you a fugitive from justice?


e. 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

e IS A TWO PART QUESTION unlawful user is not indicative of being an addict. Being an addict is admission of drug use, unlawful user covers everything else.

Unlawful user doesn't necessarily denote present tense, in the case of marijuana it could mean regular usage for an unspecified period of time. Test positive while in possession of a firearm and see how that goes for you. A person can test positive for a month or longer.

 

[Lazaran]

.
ineedhelp1 is an ignorant slut.

It must not occur to the "dumbass" that if they had wanted to identify and exclude anyone who HAD ever USED or BEEN ADDICTED to certain classes of drugs they could and would have worded the question that way.

It must also be difficult for the "dumbass" to grasp the concept of someone who TRIED certain classes of drugs in the past or felt they BEAT an addiction, and thus could, in their mind, answer the question the way it IS worded truthfully at the time when they checked "no".

ineedhelp1 should just apologize and take the L.

*nods*