54
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 133 points 1 year 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.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

That was excellent!

Question about the back taxes. Why in the world would it be illegal to let someone else pay them and then reimburse them later?

[-] Jaccident@lemm.ee 32 points 1 year ago

It isn’t. The point is that accruing back taxes requires payment and may, at the discretion of the IRS, mandate a criminal charge. He wasn’t charge at the time because he paid, but he could have been. So now they want him to have been.

However I think neither party really wants things to go this way, and Republicans are going to see lots of retaliatory investigation and charges brought over missed payments etc. should they pursue this.

A waste of time and money, doesn’t improve anything in the world, just creates more division. Basically the GOP motto.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Don't think missing payments is illegal, they just fine you to hell and back, but it's not criminal. From further reading I'm gathering there was some low-key fraud, and that they will nail you for.

[-] Jaccident@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Accruing back taxes can happen for a lot of reasons, one of which would be deliberate under reporting, which if a form of fraud. Hence why the IRS has the latitude to recommend charges if they feel the actions were significant and deliberate.

It’s important to remember that Trump’s current case he’s arguing he didn’t have the Mens Rea for deliberate fraud, so it’s weird to see GOP members discounting that argument as invalid with Biden.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

It's unconscionable certainly, but "weird" implies unusual or unexpected.

[-] Fraylor@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 1 year 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 28 points 1 year ago

The Republicans needed something to justify their upcoming impeachment.

[-] ares35@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago
[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 11 points 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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 2 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 22 points 1 year 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 17 points 1 year ago

very little

[-] REdOG@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

They're itching for new dick pics

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

What else is MTG gonna show people to get attention?

[-] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 2 points 1 year ago

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

[-] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year 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 3 points 1 year ago

Been practicing on poor people for decades now...

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

Nothing. As usual. Unless you read conservative propaganda, that is. In that case, he’s trying to dominate the world with a huge dong.

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

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

[-] match@pawb.social 5 points 1 year ago

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

[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 1 year ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
54 points (81.4% liked)

Out of the loop

11105 readers
1 users here now

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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS