today was a BIG day in the Nobody Cares About Hunter Biden business Extensive Hunter Biden laptop archive with nearly 10,000 photos published on new website https://nypost.com/2023/06/01/hunter-biden-laptop-photo-archive-published-on-new-website/
your morning update Delaware ‘laptop from hell’ repairman John Paul Mac Isaac deposed by Hunter Biden lawyers for 7 hours https://nypost.com/2023/06/01/delaw...-deposed-by-hunter-biden-lawyers-for-7-hours/ excerpt: Hunter Biden’s legal team has deposed John Paul Mac Isaac, the former Delaware computer repair shop owner who came into possession of the disgraced first son’s “laptop from hell,” The Post has learned. Mac Isaac, who owned The Mac Shop in Wilmington, was interviewed for approximately seven hours Wednesday by Hunter attorney Abbe Lowell as part of a countersuit filed against Mac Isaac by the first son’s legal team. Mac Isaac had sued Biden, CNN and others for defamation last year, seeking $1.5 million in damages from the president’s son. Mac Isaac’s suit alleges that Hunter Biden left the store owner to twist in the wind for years while repeatedly and falsely insisting that the laptop either was not his, that it had been stolen or that his information had been hacked. Lowell, a well-known Washington attorney with ties to prominent Democrats, was hired by Hunter Biden in December and tasked with coordinating the 52-year-old’s defense against congressional probes. Unlike Biden’s previous legal representation, Lowell has taken aggressive action in defense of the first son. Aside from counter-suing Mac Isaac, Lowell has also demanded that criminal investigations be opened against the former repair shop owner for allegedly disseminating and “weaponizing” the contents of the infamous laptop. Lowell also called for probes to be opened against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Trump White House strategist Steve Bannon, and others in letters sent this past February to the Delaware Office of the Attorney General, the Justice Department’s National Security Division and the IRS. more at the link
YEAH BABY!!!! it just can't get any more fun than this https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/...portedly-planning-a-second-amendment-defense/ “This . . . Should Deeply Trouble Us All”: Hunter Biden Reportedly Planning a Second Amendment Defense by jonathanturley June 2, 2023 “This . . . should deeply trouble us all.” Those words from President Joe Biden was his response to the Supreme Court reaffirming the individual rights under the Second Amendment in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022. Now, according to the New York Times, Hunter Biden is preparing a possible Second Amendment defense to gun charges under that very case. The idea of the Bidens going Bruen is only the latest glaring contradiction for the First Family as it struggles to contain the scandals surrounding the son of the President. It appears that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a [Second Amendment claim] is a good guy with a [Second Amendment claim].” When the Supreme Court handed down Bruen, it was heralded as a great civil liberties victory for gun owners and a great tragedy by gun control advocates. One of the loudest critics was President Biden who expressed his “deep disappointment” and denounced a ruling that he insisted “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution.” Those nonexistent rights, however, may now benefit his son who is facing clearly false statements contained on a gun form. Form 4473 is required for gun purchases like the one of Hunter in 2018. It asks: Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, mar1juana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of mar1juana 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. Hunter reportedly lied and said “no.” The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms maintains this ban applies to people who have admitted to using illegal drugs in the 12 months before buying a gun. Hunter Biden was using drugs before, during, and after that period. We previously discussed the issue which became even greater news when it was learned that the gun was tossed into a trash bin in Wilmington by Hallie Biden, widow of the deceased brother of Hunter. After the death of his brother Beau, Hunter began a sexual relationship with Hallie and she apparently became concerned about what he might do with the gun. President Biden has demanded “red flag” enforcement that would also appear to target the conduct of his own son. Now, Hunter Biden could be arguing against some of these laws as unconstitutional under a more expansive view of the Second Amendment. While most courts have upheld the ban on drug users, Hunter’s lawyers reportedly told the Justice Department that they will challenge the law under Bruen where a six-justice majority declared that such limitations must be consistent with the practices during the founding period. This is not the first glaring contradiction to arise under the Hunter Biden scandals. President Biden has long campaigned against “deadbeat Dads,” but did not utter a word of concern when his son spent years resisting recognizing or supporting his daughter until a settlement was raised with the help of a court. He is now trying to reduce those payments. The President and First Lady continue to refuse to acknowledge their granddaughter, Navy, as Hunter opposes her use of the family name. Biden’s arguments in Arkansas, to paraphrase his new found allegiance, appears to be that Navy “I’ll give you my [more child support] when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands.” Given his father’s call for greater enforcement of red flag laws and gun controls (including permitting requirement), it will be interesting to see how the Justice Department deals with what appears an knowing violation of the federal gun laws. While this is not the charge that most concerns the White House, it is still a charge that can come with a sentence of up to 15 years in prison. Ironically, when he committed the alleged violation, the penalty was 10 years. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act raised the maximum penalty for that offense to 15 years. The president who enthusiastically signed that law was Joe Biden. we live in interesting times
and if you're not a Jonathan Turley fan (and I find that hard to believe), here is some coverage from Politico: Could Hunter Biden be the next poster child for Second Amendment rights? The president’s son is under investigation for potentially breaking the law banning drug users from owning guns – but the law’s constitutionality faces growing challenges. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/01/hunter-biden-supreme-court-second-amendment-00099544 excerpt: The president’s son is the target of a Justice Department investigation scrutinizing his purchase of a gun in 2018 — a time when he has said he was regularly using crack cocaine. Federal law bans drug users from owning guns. But the constitutionality of that law — like many other provisions restricting gun ownership — is newly in question after a precedent-rocking decision the Supreme Court handed down almost a year ago. His lawyers have already told Justice Department officials that, if their client is charged with the gun crime, they will challenge the law under the Second Amendment, according to a person familiar with the private discussions granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. That could turn a case that is already fraught with political consequences into a high-profile showdown over the right to bear arms. The dispute would come as the White House fights to tighten gun laws. And it could put conservative gun-rights enthusiasts, who typically criticize the Biden family, in unusual alignment with the president’s son. lol. more at the link
Hunter Biden, Second Amendment Warrior? https://reason.com/2023/06/02/hunter-biden-second-amendment-warrior/
related Fox News: Human source behind allegation about Biden is 'highly credible' and has been used by the FBI in previous investigations https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2023/06...by-the-fbi-in-previous-investigations-n555280 excerpt: This afternoon, Fox News has another update on the story. This report claims the source behind the allegation is considered credible and has been used by the FBI in multiple previous investigations. Boy, this is really giving me a Christopher Steele flashback. A source familiar told Fox News Digital on Friday that the confidential human source who provided the Biden information to the FBI was a “pre-existing” FBI source who has been used in multiple investigative matters separate from the Biden information. The source told Fox News Digital that the confidential human source was used by the FBI for “at least several years” before the generation of the June 2020 FD-1023 form detailing the Biden allegations. The source also told Fox News Digital that the confidential human source has been “consistently reviewed by the FBI” and has been “found to be highly credible.” According to the whistleblower who told Fox News about the existence of this FD-1023 form containing this allegation, it’s a “precise description of how the alleged criminal scheme was employed.” It definitely sounds like something that should be investigated but I think we’ve all learned by now that the FBI’s judgment often leaves something to be desired. They had worked with Christopher Steele before the dossier and considered him credible as well, at least until it became clear he was doing his best to spread the story in the media at the behest of his partisan paymasters. In fact, the FBI realized pretty quickly that the dossier was unverified junk, certainly quicker than the media did. Steele’s sub-sources were just passing along hearsay that wasn’t corroborated by anything and in some cases was contradicted by facts. And yet the Russia collusion story dragged on for years. So far the way this is being hyped is reminding me a lot of the Steele dossier only this time it’s the right playing it up in advance of the facts. Who knows, maybe there’s something to this. I don’t think anyone knows at this point, not based on the very little information that has been made public so far. Until we know a lot more about the source and the specifics of the allegation there’s no reason to get excited about it. If it’s true it should be possible to verify some of the claims. If not, it doesn’t deserve anyone’s attention. So let’s wait for some proof before kicking off another partisan circus based on fake claims. more at the link
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter...mes-comer-940cabfc?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s Hunter’s Laptop All Over Again The House Oversight Committee seeks an FBI document alleging Joe Biden took a bribe, and the effort to discredit the claim is already under way. By William McGurn June 5, 2023 at 6:21 pm ET House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer subpoenaed a Federal Bureau of Investigation form he says outlines details of a $5 million bribe allegedly paid to Joe Biden while he was vice president. Until last week, the FBI wouldn’t even concede the document existed. Nevertheless this Monday morning an FBI team dispatched by Director Christopher Wray made its way up to Capitol Hill in hopes that Rep. Comer would be satisfied with a look-see. He wasn’t. After the meeting, he said the FBI told him there is a continuing investigation but reiterated that he still plans to hold Mr. Wray in contempt unless he turns over the document. The response is telling. Mr. Comer, a Kentucky Republican, has been painted as a partisan rube chasing conspiracies. Nobody seems to care that a sitting vice president was accused by a trusted FBI source of taking a bribe. For those who lived through the Hunter Biden laptop saga, it is, as Yogi Berra would say, déjà vu all over again. But after Mr. Comer and Sen. Chuck Grassley told Mr. Wray in a phone call last Wednesday that they’d already seen the document, pretending it doesn’t exist was no longer an option. Now that the FBI says there’s an investigation, there is a campaign to discredit the charges before the public can see them. The first salvo came from CNN last Wednesday. Quoting “people briefed on the matter,” the network said the document had its “origins in a tranche of documents that Rudy Giuliani provided to the Justice Department in 2020.” This is what Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee, is relying on to say the charges have been looked into and there’s nothing there. Remember when the New York Post on Oct. 14, 2020, first published some of the incriminating emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop? The paper’s reporting was not only ignored but also suppressed—with the active assistance of the FBI. In its original story, the Post reported that “Hunter Biden’s lawyer refused to comment on the specifics but instead attacked Giuliani.” Some things never change. The laptop deniers had another key assist from 51 former intelligence officials who, days after the Post story appeared, released a letter claiming that the appearance of the Hunter Biden emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” But the disinformation turned out to be the letter, not the laptop. The document at issue now is a Form FD-1023, which the FBI uses to record information from a confidential human source. Critics are right that any allegations are just that—allegations. But given the seriousness of the charge, such an allegation would go up the chain to the FBI director himself, and then to the attorney general. If this one didn’t, the question is: Why not? Whatever happened, various FBI or Justice officials were making decisions along the way, and they could also be called to testify under oath before too long. After Monday’s meeting with the FBI, Mr. Raskin emerged to say that Trump-appointed officials including Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney Scott Brady assessed the allegations against Mr. Biden and agreed not to take the investigation any further. But he didn’t say precisely which allegations were assessed—and especially if they were based on the specific information on that FD-1023 from that trusted source. Mr. Comer said the FBI told him the information in the FD-1023 is being used in an ongoing investigation and hasn’t been disproved. That’s why Messrs. Comer and Grassley don’t only want the document. They want to know who did what and why—and to let the public know. If the FBI did its job, it would help itself by clearing up the confusion now. The question now is whether the FBI’s resistance is about protecting sources from exposure, as it claims, or about protecting itself from accountability. Also, whether we have two standards of justice: one for people named Biden or Clinton and one for everyone else. Special counsel John Durham’s report suggests there certainly were two standards at the FBI under Mr. Wray’s predecessor, James Comey. Mr. Wray has said the abuses were all “the actions of a few who are no longer part of the organization.” That is a tough sell. For one thing, Americans still wake up to headlines about the FBI labeling Latin Mass Catholics as possible terrorists and others about the bureau working with Twitter and Facebook to censor speech. Mr. Wray’s cavalier treatment of Congress’s legitimate oversight responsibilities is doing nothing to restore trust. Sen. Grassley has been doing oversight a long time, and isn’t known for going out on a limb. Rep. Comer heads a House committee with subpoena power. They aren’t happy with the FBI. Judging by the contradictory information coming out of Monday’s meeting on Capitol Hill, the FBI hasn’t helped itself with a briefing that raised more questions than it answered. Appeared in the June 6, 2023, print edition as 'Hunter’s Laptop All Over Again'.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/06/please-let-hunter-biden-help-overturn-our-unjust-and-unconstitutional-gun-laws/ Please Let Hunter Biden Help Overturn Our Unjust And Unconstitutional Gun Laws BY: DAVID HARSANYI JUNE 06, 2023 Imagine if the federal government demanded to know if you were a pot smoker before allowing you to register to vote. Then imagine that admitting you were — even in a state with legalized mar1juana — meant being denied the right to vote. And, if you lie about it, you could face up to 15 years in jail. Fifty-three years ago, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, creating a classification system for narcotics. The more fun the drug, the higher it was perched on the government’s “schedule.” Under federal law, for instance, pot was designated a Schedule I narcotic, allegedly among the most dangerous drugs with the highest potential for abuse and no medical use. Other drugs in this category are heroin and meth, and so on. They are all illegal. Wherever you stand on pot laws, the fact is that states where mar1juana has been legalized — either for medicinal or recreational purposes — are technically ignoring federal law. A law that should never have existed. There is no enumerated power that authorizes the feds to ban the sale of a plant or narcotics in states. 2004’s Gonzales v. Raich, which upheld the Controlled Substances Act on the flimsy grounds that pot falls under interstate commerce, was a travesty. The problem here, however, is that the federal government only ignores the parts of the law it finds inconvenient, which is just another form of lawlessness. Last week, after Minnesota officially legalized pot, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) sent out a clarification warning that people who smoke weed or take edibles are “still federally defined as an ‘unlawful user’ of a controlled substance” under the Controlled Substances Act and therefore “prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition” under the Gun Control Act of 1968. So, while every other agency in the Biden administration simply disregards the still-illegal actions of tens of thousands of businesses and millions of users openly sell, buy, and use pot, the Justice Department simultaneously uses Schedule I as a justification to strip Americans without any criminal record of their guns rights. One of the driving purposes of the ATF, of course, is to inhibit legal gun ownership and to enact policies Democrats have been unable to pass via legislation. It’s why Biden nominated an authoritarian like David Chipman to run the subagency not long ago. But the ATF knows well that several courts have already ruled that banning pot users from owning guns is unconstitutional. In a recent Oklahoma case in which an employee of a mar1juana dispensary was pulled over on his way to work with pot and a handgun in his car, U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick ruled that prosecuting someone for having a gun and pot wasn’t consistent with traditional firearm regulation — a reading of the law that has been reaffirmed by New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision. During Bruen, the Biden administration unearthed a handful of local regulations from the 17th and 18th centuries banning violently intoxicated men from owning guns in a weak attempt to argue that traditional firearm laws comport with Gun Control Act’s ban for drug users. But as Wyrick correctly noted, “History and tradition support disarming persons who have demonstrated their dangerousness through past violent, forceful, or threatening conduct. There is no historical tradition of disarming a person solely based on that person having engaged in felonious conduct.” Then, there was the recent case heard by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, which involved a woman who had a gun and mar1juana. The drugs, she claimed, were used to help her sleep at night. Judge Kathleen Cardone ruled that the right to a handgun for self-defense “belongs to all Americans” — “the people” — not just the ones the government picks. To be completely upfront, I don’t believe any non-violent drug users, especially ones who’ve never been convicted of any crime, should be denied their right to own a firearm, even if drugs haven’t been legalized in their state. Demanding people incriminate themselves to practice their rights — and then threatening to convict them if they fail to do so — is an attack on both the Second and Fifth Amendments. This is really just a long way of saying that I have my fingers crossed that Hunter Biden, the president’s son, will be indicted on gun charges in Delaware. Among many other potential crimes, Hunter is now reportedly being investigated for allegedly lying on a 4473 federal background check form dating back to 2018. The form asks: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, mar1juana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” Hunter, who admitted to “smoking crack every 15 minutes” at the time in his touching memoir Beautiful Things, claimed he was not. The New York Times reports that Hunter’s lawyers are invoking Bruen to “stave off” charges. I’m skeptical Hunter will be charged with a gun crime. Proving that someone knowingly misled the feds on a federal background check is difficult to prove, but the very thought of the president’s shady son using Bruen, which his father claimed “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution,” to blow up more useless and unfair gun regulation, would be some delicious irony.
WSJ opinion strikes again!!!!!!!!!! Somehow the writer forgot that the WSJ news section refused to publish the Hunter Biden story when it first came out..... Classic WSJ opinion section! Apparently Trump's own people looked at the "document" and passed on it..... YULE C!
