68
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by someguy3@lemmy.ca to c/outoftheloop@lemmy.world

A couple months ago the findings against Hunter Biden were nothing, not even worth taking to court, only under GOP pressure did the Trump appointed prosecutor take it to court. Now it seems like a big deal and 17 years (max). What happened? Why the change? Was new evidence found?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 142 points 2 years ago

This is an incredibly important question to understand if you're American or are ever in the jurisdiction of America. America is not the land of the free or equality or civil rights. Almost everybody commits a handful of crimes every day. Sometimes bigger crimes. Sometimes felony huge crimes. I'm talking ordinary people like your grandma. You know like your grandma, not actual "criminals".

For example when Grandma drives 45mph on the highway, that's a misdemeanor in many places for going too slowly. Then when she fills up her big gulp and takes a few sips then tops it off, that's criminal theft. When she sees a letter addressed to you delivered to her and opens it so she can tell you what it is, that's a felony criminal offense with a 6 month federal prison sentence attached.

Now the police are just snitches. If they see you do something they can ticket and/or arrest you. If you're not doing something wrong, but don't agree to be arrested, congratulations now you've actually committed another crime!

But the end of all of this is the district attorney, the DA. The DA (the office with lots of staff and a main big head honcho) is tasked with looking at these charges, deeming what is really a crime they care about, and bringing forth charges. Of the DA got a report on your grandma committing a felony mail fraud by opening your mail, you'd hope in a sane world they'd laugh it off and ignore it. The problem is this relies on one person or a small group of people making the "right" decision which ironically is illegal itself, and choosing what charges to bring against who.

When things are high profile, they bring all charges because they have to. Not bringing charges is against the law itself, but again is handwaved higher up because that's the stupid system. Then it's up to the actual judicial system to decide the criminality and the punishment, then enforce. The import take away at this point is that in the USA, you can literally be charged and arrested at anytime for anything. That is not hyperbole. If you want an example on the other side of the spectrum, look at the lawyers talking about Trumps crap. Everyone knows he's guilty but getting a jury conviction, somewhat unlikely considering you need 12/12 in agreement. So the pundits correctly say, if we know he's guilty they can charge him with these other random crimes and get him. If he's in jail, who cares what for. This is done ALL THE TIME. Most famous high profile case being Al Capone. Everyone knows he was a mobster and killed people. But they couldn't make it stick. So what do they do? Charge him with tax evasion crimes and give him the maximum penalties for everything. If they want to get you, they can get you.

So back to Hunter. Nothing has changed as the alleged crimes. Everyone is in agreement he did it. His crimes are nothingburgers. Lying on the gun app is something most rednecks do all the time, it's a formality paper. And funny enough, they're happy with him losing his gun rights for drug use, the second amendment doesn't apply to him I guess. That lie on the application is the first crime. He's guilty. It is usually a slap on the wrist, no time, no fine. But it CAN be prison time. So for him, it is.

The other things are tax issues. He misreported and misfiled taxes for many years. Daddy paid the back taxes, he paid Daddy back. In most cases the IRS is happy with that, sometimes they assess a big fine. Everyone goes on their way. But the IRS charges can impose federal prison. And for him it is.

I understand it's a large wall of text. I understand it goes against most of what Americans believe. And most will never experience it. But it is there. And you need to know it.

[-] Fraylor@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Just to piggyback with my own anecdote: do you think this ends when you're finally in prison? NOPE. Same deal on the inside. Just change misdemeanor with "minor infraction" and felony with "major infraction."

Source: ex CO.

Minor infractions were at my discretion and unless you were being a dick about it summarily ignored my by me. Majors I had no choice, no matter how stupid. Fortunately though it's only on paper that I didn't have a choice.

[-] lastjunkieonearth@lemdro.id 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Fortunately though it's only on paper that I didn't have a choice

Thanks for sharing. What do you mean by this?

[-] Fraylor@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If I knew with confidence that what they were doing wasn't harming anyone, and wasn't gang related bullshit I'd just look the other way. The department can't fault you for "missing" things.

Example would be catching someone tattooing. This often ended up with time in solitary. But if it wasn't a gang tat, and the inmates weren't dicks about being caught/immediately flushing all the evidence I'd just kick the tattoo artist out of the cell and the half finished tattoo is enough punishment. They'll get it finished one way or another but it's more funny to me than sending them to the hole, and they appreciate it most of the time. If my supervisor happened to be with me, or watching me though, you were cooked. Most understood the fact that I would protect my income over them being as I wouldn't give a fuck literally any other time, but my hands have been tied more than once when shit should have slid by.

[-] lhx@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

One small nitpick: it’s completely legal for a DA decide to charge/not charge for most (all?) crimes. Look up “prosecutorial discretion”.

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 33 points 2 years ago

The Republicans needed something to justify their upcoming impeachment.

[-] ares35@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago
[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

What changed though? Why was it absolutely nothing a couple months ago and why is it now (seemingly) blowing up? Is it just squawking or did something actually change?

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Like many things in politics, it’s basically a minor crime blown up for political reasons. There’s also a lot of conspiracies around Hunter Biden (and some extend to Joe as well), some stemming from his work with Burisma.

That being said, in the midst of a shit ton of politically motivated investigations, it turns out they found that he did lie on his taxes and lied about owning a gun. He was convicted of drug charges and not legally allowed to own a gun. He could go to jail for that, but probably not the tax part. Tax cheats routinely negotiate out of court settlements, which almost happened with Hunter, before a judge decided to block it (maybe for political reasons)

Edit: sorry, he was not convicted of drug charges, but laws prohibit users of some drugs from owning guns and he lied about his drug use to buy a gun (something I’m sure is pretty common given the prevalence of gun use and the opiate epidemic)

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago

I love that this puts the Republicans in a position where they're rabidly gung-ho about enforcing restrictions on gun ownership.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

I highly recommend enthusiastically agreeing with anyone who says Hunter should be in jail, and congratulate them on their progressive stance on gun control.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

I mean, if he broke laws then he broke laws.

It always amazes me how openly amazed Republicans are about their opponents actually wanting the laws to be enforced against "their own side." Laws are, generally speaking, a description of how we want people to behave. Republicans (again, generally speaking) instead see them more like weapons to be used against people they don't like.

There are some laws that I think are just plain bad and should be resisted, but most of what I've heard about the Hunter Biden allegations suggest that they're just routine with no grand principle at stake.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

So the change is that a judge blocked the norm of a negotiated settlement?

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 24 points 2 years ago

There's no new evidence. Republicans are basically actively pursuing max level penalties for charges that are routinely just assessed with a fine or other punishment.

For example, the tax issues, normally the IRS just levy a fine for the unpaid tax crimes and a bit more to be paid, then they're fine with it. Since they're getting their money and then some.

There technically can be criminal charges and jail time assigned to said unpaid taxes, it's just the IRS normally doesn't care to pursue that. Since it doesn't get them their money, which is all that's really at issue.

But Republicans are pushing for the max level jail time charges for these crimes now, rather than how they are normally dealt with.

[-] CharlesMangione@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

very little

[-] REdOG@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

They're itching for new dick pics

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

What else is MTG gonna show people to get attention?

[-] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 2 points 2 years ago

Wasn't what she did illegal? Did anything happen with that?

[-] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 years ago

That's the thing about American politics, there doesn't need to be any evidence found. They just need to figure out a way to bring charges.

[-] aelwero@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Been practicing on poor people for decades now...

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Not sure. Did they find out why he got 2 billion dollars from the Saudis? Oh, wait....

[-] match@pawb.social 8 points 2 years ago

dude did some combination of drugs / owning a gun / tax evasion, so he should go to jail ig

[-] Echo5@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

From what I’ve seen by casually scraping news, evidence of massive corruption in the Biden family continues to be uncovered; I haven’t seen much in these comments about the juicy overseas dealings stuff, the other charges mentioned here are more small fry (but still worth prosecuting). I encourage you to look up the details of the situation yourself because you’re gonna get heavily biased answers from social media, especially since this is a political issue. I’ll probably catch flak just for saying that.

A post from a couple months ago was asking something similar about all the Trump business; one commenter mentioned that it was because one better get everything right before one guns for the king, and it feels like a similar thing here.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 years ago

I love it when "crime family" is said because it shows how you've fallen for confusing charges against Hunter to be something against a whole family. It's both lol worthy and cringe worthy.

[-] Echo5@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Maybe I misunderstood your question because I read it as referring to all charges made against him, and there’s definitely a corruption case building against both father and son here, which I assumed would fall under the scope of your question. But if you didn’t want to know that case was progressing then there’s been a miscommunication.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago

There it is again. Conspiracy theories have duped you into thinking one person is the family.

[-] Echo5@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I can see here that whatever I say is gonna be misconstrued and strawmanned. I was trying to provide a helpful answer but it seems that’s not what is wanted here.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You are literally trying to pin actions of one onto an entire family. You fell for conspiracy theories and logical fallacies.

[-] Sharpiemarker@feddit.de 14 points 2 years ago

If your answer uses the phrase "Biden Family" I'm not sure I'd expect an unbiased answer.

[-] Echo5@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

You’re correct, and I’m not going to say I don’t have a bias. But the result I wanted to produce is a more-informed perspective by encouraging people to do their own research, especially after asking a question in a forum where you’ll mainly get answers along the same line of thinking. The rest is just headlines.

[-] paradiso@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

It seems these posts follow the reddit method. If you aren't left leaning, you will be downvoted and shunned. No nuanced discussion. Only red v blue. I'm right, you are wrong.

[-] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 12 points 2 years ago

Link to anything you're shitting out?

[-] Echo5@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

What’s a credible source(s) you’re going to believe and not just say that it’s propaganda for XYZ agenda? Sounds like your mind is already made up on this matter

[-] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 11 points 2 years ago

So, no links?

[-] naught@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago

A credible source is one that isn't overly partisan. One that has a reliable history of reporting facts reinforced with evidence. One with journalistic integrity when they _ do_ get something wrong.

For example, Fox espoused election fraud lies and lost a lawsuit over it -- not credible nor reliable

NPR, while showing a slight bias particularly in their story selection, you can rely upon reporting facts and correcting articles and stories when inaccuracies present. Same with Associated Press, etc.

It's a shame media literacy isn't taught here.

[-] Echo5@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I use AP as one of my news sources. Admitting when used facts were incorrect is definitely respectable but there’s always an affected narrative in the stories they choose and how they pitch them. Not to mention the opinion articles and whatnot.

Anything that’s legitimately less biased is usually sharing a news story and labeling the bias (ex. the ImproveTheNews community here), and if it sources its own articles the organization is often niche enough that people don’t really lend credibility to them. Removal from events could also provide a form of credibility, like the BBC on America’s dealings, but BBC definitely has their own slant too. I agree it is a shame media literacy isn’t taught much because that’s what’s required more and more in an increasingly connected and fast-paced world.

[-] naught@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

A source can have a slant or "agenda" but can still provide useful information or facts. It's overly partisan, dishonest sources that have to be excluded -- ones that make claims without evidence.

That said, what sources do you have pointing to Biden running a "crime family" or otherwise being corrupt? I'll even accept dubious sources if they are in turn at least sourced. Other than Hunter's benefitting from having a powerful father (legally), I can't find reliable evidence of corruption, fraud, bribery, etc. Hunter has some personal charges against him, but the Bidens are open and cooperative.

[-] Echo5@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

So like I said in my original post I only casually scrape news most of the time, but the only way I heard about this issue being as progressed as it is was from right wing sources (which is why I try to keep partisan sources of multiple persuasions in my feed). I’m not super invested in this story, more stuck around in this thread because I was, while unsurprised, still a little baffled by some of the responses. A google search found a couple mainstream results, though not a lot, most of the Hunter Biden stuff is more about gun charges.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/dec/11/hunter-biden-tax-evasion-indictments-shields-presi/ This one is one of the most recent I found

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/11/politics/hunter-biden-investigations-what-matters/index.html This one’s a little older but provides some background

And then I had to do some more digging to find this:

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-direct-monthly-payments-to-joe-biden-from-hunter-bidens-business-entity%EF%BF%BC/ Here’s a press release from this month, and the link to the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUrYp8EFwXo

Tangent is that we can also assume we may not get the whole picture because of stuff like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countering_Foreign_Propaganda_and_Disinformation_Act But that’s just my hypothesis and I haven’t looked more into that. But definitely some unpleasant implications if it’s true that search results and news are being censored by the government.

Anyways I appreciate your response being so level, especially considering its peers. I would like to hear your thoughts on this if you feel inclined to comment but I am also a little tired of the discussion now, so no pressure.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Froyn@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

the juicy overseas dealings stuff

You're talking about the $2 Billion he got from the Saudis for selling Israel's Defense Dossier, right?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It's basically regular Rich person crime, but they did something wrong during the trial proceedings that would normally lead to a deal to lower the sentence.

[-] Celestial6370@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
68 points (100.0% liked)

Out of the loop

13042 readers
4 users here now

A community that helps people stay up to date with things going on.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS