BREAKING: Hunter Biden Found Guilty on All Charges

Hunter Biden outside the courthouse in Wilmington, Del. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Color us surprised. While the facts in the case against Hunter Biden were incontrovertible, prosecuting him in Delaware seemed to have tilted the tables in his favor. All it took was one juror in the President’s home state to decide they wouldn’t vote to convict. Or so we thought.

After three hours of deliberation, though, the jury has found him guilty on all charges, including lying on a 4473 background check form and possession of a firearm while an active drug user. Biden now faces penalties of up to 25 years behind bars.

From USA Today:

A federal jury convicted Hunter Biden of federal gun charges, a historic first for the offspring of a sitting president, after a trial featuring wrenching emotional testimony about his drug use from his ex-wife and sister-in-law.

President Joe Biden’s son faces up to 25 years in prison for three charges − lying on a federal screening form about his drug use, lying to a gun dealer and possessing the gun − although first-time, nonviolent offenders typically get shorter sentences. U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika will soon set Hunter Biden’s sentencing date.

And to think he was this close to a sweetheart plea deal last year that the Department of Justice had signed off on that would have let him escape any consequences for the laws he violated. But the deal was too sweet. It was so egregiously outside the bounds of anything even approaching reasonableness that it shocked Judge Noreika and she refused to sign off on it. That’s why the prosecution proceeded with the trial and why we’re where we are today.

19 Responses

  1. I’m shocked as well. I figured jury nullification for a Biden in any Delaware court was a lock.

    But I doubt he’s ever see the inside of Club Fed. Especially if SCOTUS does something with Rahimi (which could drop this Thursday or Friday), I suspect the verdict will be JNOV’d based on Bruen. I can live with that, especially as it then puts DoJ and the Dems in the pickle of either letting that aspect of the ’68 GCA go down, or else start an appeal process to get a conviction imposed.

    1. LKB, this may be out of your wheelhouse, but is it standard after a federal criminal trial to fingerprint the newly-convicted?

      1. My understanding is that you get processed upon arrest / arraignment. But as Hunter was in the military, his prints are already in the system.

    2. “… if SCOTUS does something with Rahimi (which could drop this Thursday or Friday),…”

      Do you think they may go as far as to declare non-violent felons get their 2A rights back?

      If that happens, holy cow, the gun industry will need to do some serious hiring and manufacturing build-outs to handle the tens of millions of new gun owners needing guns, and probably new ammo factories to meet the new demand.

      (If that happens, it will be real fun watching the Left lose their collective minds in rage… 😉 )

      1. SCOTUS cannot go that far. The lower court holding in Rahimi is that it was unconstitutional for Rahimi to have been convicted under a federal law that makes Someone subject to a domestic protection order a “prohibited person,” because that aspect of the law failed the Bruen test. All SCOTUS can do is to either affirm or reverse that specific holding, so on paper the only law at issue is the one making those subject to a DPO prohibited persons.

        The *reasoning* the court employs to decide this issue will, of course, probably control in any subsequent case that challenges the prohibitions placed on nonviolent felons. But even if SCOTUS gives a full throated, categorical affirmance of the lower court decision in Rahimi (and I am not holding my breath that they will) and says in dicta (more likely in a concurrence) that the same rule should apply to nonviolent felons, that alone will not invalidate the law on the books — that will require new lawsuits to declare that nonviolent felons cannot constitutionally be prohibited persons. That’s just how the system works.

        But like I said, I do not expect the Court to do so. I’m betting that they find some way to hold that an *individualized,* final judgment, finding that a particular person is dangerous is sufficient to support a law making him a prohibited person, and will thus remand for a determination of whether the DPO against Rahimi was in fact an individualized, final judgment finding of dangerousness (which the lower courts probably will find it was, given that Rahimi took no actions to challenge it). Such would avoid having the Court let Rahimi (who is a bad guy) off the hook — but would set the table for subsequent lawsuits that assert that categorical prohibitions of classes of people from touching guns based solely on convictions that don’t include dangerousness findings are unconstitutional.

        1. “All SCOTUS can do is to either affirm or reverse that specific holding, so on paper the only law at issue is the one making those subject to a DPO prohibited persons.”

          The ‘Rahimi’ ruling could effectively kill all ‘Red-Flag Order’ laws, (prohibited-person without full legal due process), nation-wide, in one fell swoop?

  2. This wouldn’t be happening if they weren’t setting up something in their favor. I’ll be looking to see what it is, because I’m sure it’ll be nefarious.

    1. “This wouldn’t be happening if they weren’t setting up something in their favor.”

      It may be more like they are happy throw Hunter ‘under the bus’ if it means they are convicting Trump.

      Then, they can say they treated Hunter like any other poor soul who broke the law…

  3. The left will somehow twist this in their favor. Joe Biden may brag about how even his family is not above the law and follow that with mumblings about his being honest and deserving of support come November. It should be clear to any dumb ass that Hunter lied on the federal form.

  4. Good. If he got off at this stage the illegal prohibitions would have been struck down for him and him alone. Only the court of appeals (and SCotUS) can strike these non-consentsual laws for everyone.

      1. “appeal coming quick. stay tuned!”

        And I’m perfectly cool with that, if it means non-violent felons get their 2A rights back. So, he might not want to appeal his conviction, just to spite us…

    1. “Send Hunter to prison.”

      First-time offender, slim chance…

  5. Win, lose, or kicked off the ticket Joe will pardon Hunter before the year is out.

Leave a Reply

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