Defense: Hunter is Innocent Because He Didn’t Think of Himself as an Addict When He Bought the Gun

Hunter Biden at the Delaware courthouse. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Jurors heard earlier in the week from Hunter Biden’s ex-wife and a former girlfriend who testified about his habitual crack use and their failed efforts to help him get clean. They saw images of the president’s son bare-chested and disheveled in a filthy room, and half-naked holding crack pipes. And they watched video of his crack cocaine weighed on a scale.

Prosecutors say the evidence is necessary to prove that Hunter, 54, was in the throes of addiction when he bought the gun and therefore lied when he checked “no” on the form that asked whether he was “an unlawful user of, or addicted to” drugs.

Lowell has argued Hunter did not think of himself as an “addict” when he bought the gun and did not intend to deceive anyone. …

It’s unclear yet whether Hunter Biden will testify. But jurors have already heard his voice. Prosecutors played lengthy audio excerpts in court of his 2021 memoir “Beautiful Things,” in which he wrote about his lifelong addiction issues and spiraling descent after the death of his brother Beau in 2015. The book, written after he got sober, covers the period he had the gun but doesn’t mention it specifically.

Lowell has said Hunter Biden’s state of mind was different when he wrote the book than when he purchased the gun, when he didn’t believe he had an addiction. He pointed out to jurors that some of the questions on the firearms transaction record are in the present tense, such as “are you an unlawful user of or addicted to” drugs.

And he’s suggested Hunter Biden might have felt he had a drinking problem at the time, but not a drug problem. Alcohol abuse doesn’t preclude a gun purchase.

— Randall Chase Michael Kunzelman, Colleen Long and Claudia Lauer in Hunter Biden’s daughter Naomi testifies about her father in his federal gun trial, ending 1st week



27 Responses

  1. It is my understanding that those addicted to drugs do not get over or recover overnight or in a short lapse of time.
    Since the defense is arguing tense then their argument is that Hunter merely understood the question to mean are you “at this moment” an addict.
    How about the “are you an unlawful user” part of the question.

    At the time of purchase who knows what Hunter was thinking as he answered questions on the 4473; but even those lacking in education relative to tense know what the question means and keeping the question in context does not require advanced degrees. Even a recovering addict is still an addict even though they may not be using at this moment/present time. The defense is grasping at straws and the time frame of “present” is not an arguable point relative to an addict or ex addict.

    If Hunter is acquitted based on the “present tense” argument, gun sales to addicts will multiply. Of course the entire idea of a 4473 is unconstitutional and Hunter’s case may prove to be a win for “we the people”. If present means right now at this point in time, then anyone could answer NO.

    1. i love the idea that hunter biden will unwind the statues allowing questions about drugs on the 4473. this will go to the supreme court and the law will be struck down. thanks hunt!

    1. That would be a good argument if crack was the only drug in question and assuming that it was a legal drug.
      The question on the 4473 ends with the word “drugs” plural and there in would be the problem.

    2. Yeah sure, but they didn’t specify the exact minute of the day. Like brother James says, plausible deniability. It’s the Biden family motto.

      1. “plausible deniability. It’s the Biden family motto“

        Nope, the Republicans on that one.

        The expression “plausibly deniable” was first used publicly by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Allen Dulles, a conservative Republican deputy Director of the CIA later fired by JFK.

        1. “‘How are you guys doing this? It makes no sense to me. Why would you take this risk to yourself, to your family’s brand that Hunter screams about, and all that stuff?’, he asked.

          “And he looks at me and sort of chuckles and says, ‘Plausible deniability’,” Bobulinski recounted, according to the transcript.

          What service was the Biden family providing in order to receive those millions?

          1. “Bobulinski recounted… “

            Do you mean Bobulinski, the Russian asset?

            “Texts Reveal More Russia Ties for Key Anti-Biden Witness
            ‘SEE U IN MOSCOW’
            Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of Hunter Biden, is expected to testify publicly on Wednesday.
            Roger Sollenberger
            Senior Political ReporterPublished Mar. , :AM EDT”

            “GOP’s Star Witness in Hunter Biden Probe Has Ties to Russian Oligarch
            William Bredderman
            Senior Researcher
            Roger Sollenberger
            Senior Political Reporter
            Published Feb. 13, 2024 5:07AM EST“


          2. “Do you mean Bobulinski, the Russian asset?”

            You’re still trying to run the disinformation campaign from 2020? You’re such a pathetic simp. Your Russia Russia Russia narrative has been blown up a million times over. If an international businesses man doing business in Russia makes him a Russian asset, then the Bidens are both Russian and Chinese assets. They must be Ukrainian assets as well! You’re such a clown.

    3. it’s a vague question. if you snort coke a few times a year are you an unlawful user all year? how about if you are an addict in recovery? it’s ambiguous and therefore will be struck down.

  2. “Defense: Hunter is Innocent Because He Didn’t Think of Himself as an Addict When He Bought the Gun”

    If Hunter does takes the stand, then this will be one reason for his testimony. His defense team will attempt to add credibility to the statement. However, his testimony should fall on deaf ears due to speculation on his attorney’s part in that the prosecutor can argue that there is no way of knowing what Hunter was thinking when he made the purchase or “when” he thought he was not a addict. Did Hunter suggest this to his attorney or did his attorney suggest it to Hunter? Is it possible that Hunter did not think he was addicted in “past” tense at the time of purchase or “future” tense when his attorney perhaps made the suggestion of “present” tense.

    Going to be interesting if Hunter does testify especially the prosecutor’s response.

  3. That he is or isn’t, isn’t the point.

    He lied on a federal form with his signature, that’s perjury…

    1. Former Federal Prosecutor and Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy:

      “I did gun prosecutions for six years. I went after convicted felons, I went after people who were fugitives from justice. I went after lots of different people who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. But, I bet you there weren’t ten cases prosecuted nationwide of addicts or unlawful drug users who possessed firearms or lied on applications. I bet there weren’t a dozen. Which makes you wonder, of all the cases you could be pursuing in Delaware, why are you pursuing this one?“

      Maybe because he’s a Democrat and the son of the Democratic president?

      Naw, that can’t be it…

      1. So you do admit that people can be persecuted/prosecuted because of their politics. You’ve also admitted that election fraud exists. Your only problem is that you’re too dense to realize that corruption exists whether you’re a D or an R. Or maybe you’re just too dishonest to admit. You’re only against corruption when it’s convenient for your silly partisan politics. You aren’t against corruption. You’re only against Republicans. You live to serve Democrats, even though they don’t care that you exist. That will never stop your constant simping though.

  4. I’ve never met an ‘Addict” that considers themselves an addict and I’ve known a lot of addicts in my time. Just like everyone in prison doesn’t consider themselves to be criminals.

    1. Actually a Hollywood entertainment lawyer by the name of Kevin Morris is footing the bill for Hunter’s legal issues.

    1. It’s funny how unintended consequences play out sometimes. And yes easy trade letting that one walk if it gets rid of the paper trail.

    2. it will be struck down. it’s a poorly worded question and an unconstitutional infringement on the fundamental right to bear arms.

      1. In thousands of successful prosecutions and unsuccessful appeals it has never been struck down as poorly worded or unconstitutional and this time will be no different.

        1. meh. i can’t many prosecutions exclusively on this issue. it’s usually tacked on to some larger case.

          now i can’t guarantee hunter will agree to raise a constitutional challenge but if he does it will prevail because there is no history or tradition of permanently banning someone from guns for using intoxicants.

        2. it’s already been struck down at least once in the 5th circuit as applied. we don’t pass laws saying alcoholics can’t own cars, we simply say no one can drive intoxicated. same thing is coming for guns and it’s long overdue.

  5. The “defense” is laughable. The question is not “do you *consider* yourself an addict,” it’s “are you a user of illegal drugs”?

    The real play is that, just as a DC jury would never convict any of those indicted by Durham, regardless of the overwhelming evidence, the Bidens are banking that a Delaware jury will buy any excuse they offer them, and thus nullify the charges.

    And it may well work.

      1. To be clear, I suspect that aspect of the law can’t survive a Bruen challenge.

        But it would drive the Biden DoJ nuts to have to defend it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *