Hunter Biden throws drug question back at Matt Gaetz in heated exchange Hunter Biden zinged Matt Gaetz yesterday during the House Oversight Committee's closed-door session when he told the alleged coke party connoisseur to "look me in the eye." An even better phrase would have been, "Look at yourself in a mirror." The heated exchange began when the Congress performer asked about Biden's former drug use. "Were you on drugs when you were on the Burisma board?" he asked, via The Daily Beast. At first, Biden's lawyer tried to intervene. "One of the things that I spoke to staff that you just asked about as to whether it's outside the bounds. If you want to spend the next part of the last hour you have asking about his drug use, go at it," said Attorney Abbe Lowell. "It's outside the scope. It certainly has no relevance to an impeachment inquiry nor does it have anything to do with oversight of ethics legislation that may address family members of Presidents or Vice Presidents. So go at it, but it's outside the scope and you're wasting your time." Unfazed, Gaetz repeated the question: "Were you on drugs when you were on the Burisma board?" That's when Biden turned the tables on the federally investigated Florida man. "Mr. Gaetz, look me in the eye. You really think that's appropriate to ask me?" "Absolutely…" Gaetz replied, before Biden emphasized his point: "Of all people sitting around this table, do you think that's appropriate to ask me?" According to previous reports by ABC, CBS, and The Daily Beast, among many other news organizations, the unsavory lawmaker has an alleged rich history himself of enjoying coke-fueled parties with escorts and underaged girls. Probably best to stay away from that topic, sir.
gaetz will have to be even more careful around any question re: sex... I am sure hunter will ask him about diddling young girls...
Why aren't the typical dipshits @Os Trigonum @Salvy @El_Conquistador spinning their impeachment conspiracies no more?? What happened? Losers
I doubt any of that will stop Gaetz or many others in Congress. It is clear there is no sense of shame or self reflection with that crowd.
Wait wut... now they are complaining that hunter biden is getting prosecuted? Choose an outrage lane and stay in it, will ya?
So looking into this case today more than I have, and I think there's a few things here that are likely to happen. -I think he's got a pretty good case to create reasonable doubt that the form was incorrect, and that he technically was not using drugs at that very time. The form's intent is to show that you aren't impaired AT THE TIME of purchasing the gun. Meaning you understand what you are buying, and have put some thought into it that isn't blurred by drugs. I think it will be really hard to prove that at that time, he was impaired. You'd need some evidence, or witness testimony. Something like video evidence showing him stumbling in the door at the gun store, or someone willing to testify that he was slurring his words before, during, or shortly after the transaction. -I do think it's possible that the prosecutors don't really care that much about getting a conviction, and not sure how vigorously they are willing to go to put Hunter Biden in prison. -If he's found guilty based on the jury concluding that they are abiding by technicality and reasonable suspicion... or a witness is called that proves he was impaired, he will not have had a record of witness tampering, jury intimidation, contempt, etc. AND he will certainly show contrition. His story to the jury that he was struggling with depression and addiction following the death of his brother is almost surely going to play well for grace by the judge to only get a sentence of probation, and fines. Plus there is the fact that, as even Trey Gowdy admits here, this is a crime that is never prosecuted, and there is a long history of records to show that the team that started this prosecution had political motive. The Judge here is likely to run a very fair trial. The jury will decide based on the evidence if he's guilty, and if he's guilty I think it's highly unlikely Hunter Biden goes to jail at all. If he gets an insane sentence because the judge is also politically motivated (only time he can really have that affect is in a harsh sentence), then Hunter Biden can then appeal that decision, and the higher courts are likely to be like.... uhhh... WTF is this gun charge even doing in our court??
If you needed proof right here that all Trumpers want is a whataboutism with Hunter Biden so they can excuse themselves for voting for a Convicted felon, twice impeached, liable for sexual assault, etc. etc. etc. fraudster, here it is. Unlike you though I say that if Hunter Biden is found guilty then he should have to pay a price like every other American. Because nobody is above the law. I'm just stating the facts of the case, and why MAGA cultists like yourself are again setting yourself up for outrage and whoa is me/its rigged response. Because Hunter Biden is very likely (IMO) to either be found not guilty or get a very light sentence... for which you'll moan and whine and complain about. ... -To your points though - I actually think Bragg decided to prosecute the Trump document fraud case because the evidence was clear that it was a crime, and yes... he would be seen as political IN TRUMPS FAVOR if he declined to prosecute just because Trump is Trump, and his cultists are nutso, and capable of violence. The DA's in America are all political appointees. So if you have a problem with Bragg having any political motive, then I guess you just simply have a problem with the United States judicial system. Political appointed attorneys do have checks and balances though. Many of them despite the propaganda you believe to serve your fantastical victimhood narrative. -As to your point about the novel nature of the Trump prosecution/conviction.... yeah... it was novel. But nothing Trump does is like anything anyone else has ever done in American history. So every prosecution in regards to Trump I bet you 100 bucks you'll say the same BS in order to excuse and blame Democrats like you always do. The fact is ... what does the law say, and is there evidence Trump committed the crime with intent??? The DA's case is clear that he's guilty, and the jury (THAT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY'S SELECTED) agree to that. Deal with is, and be a man about it. In Hunter Biden's case... what does the law say (can't buy guns while being under the influence), and did Hunter Biden do it with intent??? .... we'll see what the jury says, but this case is NOTHING like the Trump case like you would like to believe just so you can sleep better at night thinking you are excused for voting for Trump because Democrats are just sooo sooo bad.
Just remember whenever a right winger opens their mouth just know 99% of the time it's a lie cuz they're full of **** 24/7. Trumps charges were nothing strange and the DA has filed the same charges for numerous other folks. While the USDA has never filed similar charges to those they filed on hunter. The only thing right wingers have is to lie and and confuse everyone.
again, as discussed at length previously in this thread, the form 4473 question reads: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, mar1juana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” not, "Are you impaired right now?" Here's the form Biden signed:
No. I believe that form states language like "is a user" or "addicted to illegal drugs" etc. etc. The implication is not that you have ever in your life ever taken drugs, or been an addict. Its clearly to protect the state, and the gun dealer from being liable for selling to someone who was, was recently, or soon to be impaired. You are attempting to go in the weeds to argue semantics obviously. The fact is I really don't give a sh$t. Only thing I wanted to point out is you guys are setting yourselves up here for yet another b**** and moan fest in a couple weeks most likely. Even if he's convicted, I don't think this is the YES!!! Both Sides Sucks so... GO TRUMP!! dunk that you think it's going to be to feel better about yourself.
Thank you for making my point for me. Clearly this is implying regular usage... meaning you are likely to be high shortly before, during, or after the purchase. The purpose here is not to withhold the sale of a firearm to anyone who has ever smoked a joint. Still... very possible he WAS high before, during, or shortly after the purchase. We'll see what the witness testimony, or video evidence shows to the jury. If he was high and bought a gun... hell yeah he should be found guilty.
maybe the rest of your post is worthwhile, but frankly, I stopped reading when you called me a MAGA cultist. cheers.
Are you a crack addict? yes or no I thought both sides had agreed Hunter was at the time. Guess it made the person sound more "rounded and reasonable" with lower stakes when jailtime wasnt involved.
I'm okay with the prosecution of Hunter Biden. If he's found guilty, I will be okay with the verdict. Unlike with Trump's case this won't help Biden. I don't think it would hurt him either.
