Hunter Biden will be found not guilty... Magats soil diapers!

QP!

QP!

Verified User
Place your bets, as i put the odds at 80% he is found not guilty based on a number of legal analysis i have heard thus far.

This one below is one of the best at summarizing why i think he will win but there are others,

TLDR:

- Hunter lawyer Abbe Lowell is just much better than the prosecution
- the key to this case will be the word 'Knowing' or 'intentional', as pushed by prosecution
- Hunter had just finished an 11 day rehab before getting the gun, and as such, even if delusional, can a jury believe beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did not believe (again even if deluded) that he had broke the addiction and thus legally could buy the gun as again, Hunter is the one who has to 'KNOW' and if you are in a delusional state, you cannot know. You can be mistaken.
- During jury voir dire, most of the jurors said they have had friends or family who have struggled with addiction, and as such it would be very easy, with their experience, to see druggies as 'delusional' and thus not 'knowing' they are committing the crime. Not forming the intent.
- The prosecution witness, an FBI agent, testified that in Hunters 5 years of drug abuse there were times when he believes he had stopped using and believed he was ok, before relapsing again.
- The prosecutor asserted in opening statement "addiction is not a choice but buying a gun is a choice " and "that we would not be here today if Hunter was not a drug addict'. This statement has all the elements of the prosecution loss, as it states an 'addict has no self control to not use', that they cannot control their decision making,.. 'but they do have the self control in other areas such as buying a gun', which goes to intent. A jury can easily find that with the loss of self control (prosecution argument) finding then they had formed an intent to buy the crime does not follow.




(special recognition to Jarad for stealing from his thread titles)
 
Does her best maga impression :"


:thing1:
Rigged! HUNTER IS GUILTY! HE SHOULD BE HUNG FOR TREASON! TRUMP IS INNOCENT AND IS THE NEW MESSIAH!!! YOU DEMONCRATS WILL PAY!
 
Yep, slap on the wrist at best.

White LIb privilege is the bestest kind of privilege.
 
Hunter Biden is a party member - above the law. Of course he will be acquitted. Laws aren't meant for democrats.
 
QP! said:
Place your bets, as i put the odds at 80% he is found not guilty based on a number of legal analysis i have heard thus far.

This one below is one of the best at summarizing why i think he will win but there are others,

TLDR:

- Hunter lawyer Abbe Lowell is just much better than the prosecution
- the key to this case will be the word 'Knowing' or 'intentional', as pushed by prosecution
- Hunter had just finished an 11 day rehab before getting the gun, and as such, even if delusional, can a jury believe beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did not believe (again even if deluded) that he had broke the addiction and thus legally could buy the gun as again, Hunter is the one who has to 'KNOW' and if you are in a delusional state, you cannot know. You can be mistaken.
- During jury voir dire, most of the jurors said they have had friends or family who have struggled with addiction, and as such it would be very easy, with their experience, to see druggies as 'delusional' and thus not 'knowing' they are committing the crime. Not forming the intent.
- The prosecution witness, an FBI agent, testified that in Hunters 5 years of drug abuse there were times when he believes he had stopped using and believed he was ok, before relapsing again.
- The prosecutor asserted in opening statement "addiction is not a choice but buying a gun is a choice " and "that we would not be here today if Hunter was not a drug addict'. This statement has all the elements of the prosecution loss, as it states an 'addict has no self control to not use', that they cannot control their decision making,.. 'but they do have the self control in other areas such as buying a gun', which goes to intent. A jury can easily find that with the loss of self control (prosecution argument) finding then they had formed an intent to buy the crime does not follow.




(special recognition to Jarad for stealing from his thread titles)
Click to expand...
You are right there is a good chance that Hunter Biden will be found not guilty. However the reasons you give are all pure bullshit.

Hunter Biden IS guilty as charged - it a slam-dunk case.

But the defence are using a "jury nullification strategy.

For example the jury is majority Black ( from Delaware, a state that worships the Biden family) and are unlikely to convict on a drug charge.

If if they understand that the legal case against Biden is water-tight, they will simply vote not-guilty because they don't like the law.

There are other props the defence has set up to encourage jury nullification, but you can read about them for yourself.


Dachshund - the WONDER HOUND

DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter
 
I think that it's already a travesty that Hunter Biden has to endure a trial over something that trivial.

Any court time not reserved for the pigfucking orangutan
should be saved for his trumpanzees.
 
NakedHunterBiden said:
YEAH NO DEMS HAVE EVER BEEN ARRESTED AND GONE TO JAIL! NONE!
Click to expand...

Above a certain rank?

Not since Clinton ended the rule of law.

Oh, they might indict Bob Menendez occasionally, but it's purely catch and release.

Laws don't apply to democrats. Everyone in America knows this.
 
Dachshund said:
You are right there is a good chance that Hunter Biden will be found not guilty. However the reasons you give are all pure bullshit.

Hunter Biden IS guilty as charged - it a slam-dunk case.

But the defence are using a "jury nullification strategy.

For example the jury is majority Black ( from Delaware, a state that worships the Biden family) and are unlikely to convict on a drug charge.

If if they understand that the legal case against Biden is water-tight, they will simply vote not-guilty because they don't like the law.

There are other props the defence has set up to encourage jury nullification, but you can read about them for yourself.


Dachshund - the WONDER HOUND

DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter
Click to expand...
It seems you have never sat on a jury. It gives you a feeling of awe and responsibility. That is why the verdict in Trump's trial was unanimous. The rightys voted according to the evidence too. If you actually have a degree of reading comprehension, you would understand the thread saying there are real solid reasons saying he will not be found guilty. There is no guarantee though. I do not think your bigotry is correct in saying because of color of the jurors, Hunter will be freed. I thought Hunter was white.
 
Dachshund said:
You are right there is a good chance that Hunter Biden will be found not guilty. However the reasons you give are all pure bullshit.

Hunter Biden IS guilty as charged - it a slam-dunk case.

But the defence are using a "jury nullification strategy.

For example the jury is majority Black ( from Delaware, a state that worships the Biden family) and are unlikely to convict on a drug charge.

If if they understand that the legal case against Biden is water-tight, they will simply vote not-guilty because they don't like the law.

There are other props the defence has set up to encourage jury nullification, but you can read about them for yourself.


Dachshund - the WONDER HOUND

DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter
Click to expand...
They understand that nobody has ever been imprisoned for owning a gun unless a crime was committed with said gun and it was determined that they were drug addicts.
 
QP! said:
Place your bets, as i put the odds at 80% he is found not guilty based on a number of legal analysis i have heard thus far.

This one below is one of the best at summarizing why i think he will win but there are others,

TLDR:

- Hunter lawyer Abbe Lowell is just much better than the prosecution
- the key to this case will be the word 'Knowing' or 'intentional', as pushed by prosecution
- Hunter had just finished an 11 day rehab before getting the gun, and as such, even if delusional, can a jury believe beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did not believe (again even if deluded) that he had broke the addiction and thus legally could buy the gun as again, Hunter is the one who has to 'KNOW' and if you are in a delusional state, you cannot know. You can be mistaken.
- During jury voir dire, most of the jurors said they have had friends or family who have struggled with addiction, and as such it would be very easy, with their experience, to see druggies as 'delusional' and thus not 'knowing' they are committing the crime. Not forming the intent.
- The prosecution witness, an FBI agent, testified that in Hunters 5 years of drug abuse there were times when he believes he had stopped using and believed he was ok, before relapsing again.
- The prosecutor asserted in opening statement "addiction is not a choice but buying a gun is a choice " and "that we would not be here today if Hunter was not a drug addict'. This statement has all the elements of the prosecution loss, as it states an 'addict has no self control to not use', that they cannot control their decision making,.. 'but they do have the self control in other areas such as buying a gun', which goes to intent. A jury can easily find that with the loss of self control (prosecution argument) finding then they had formed an intent to buy the crime does not follow.





(special recognition to Jarad for stealing from his thread titles)
Click to expand...

QPeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, derp,derp,derp, in your TDS filled world you blew this one also. Hunter gets off, precedent is set for removing pot from Federal law. Most gun owners hope he gets off. More guns for everybody.

Try real hard to be smarter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top