Hunter Biden's Multiplying Charges Exemplify a Profound Threat to Trial by Jury
Prosecutors have enormous power to coerce guilty pleas, which are the basis for nearly all convictions.

Under a plea deal that fell apart last July, Hunter Biden would have spent no time behind bars after admitting to illegally buying a gun and willfully failing to pay his income taxes. Now that Biden is forcing the government to prove its charges in court, he faces up to 42 years in federal prison.
The stark contrast between the punishment that Special Counsel David Weiss deemed appropriate in July and the punishment that Biden could receive after going to trial reinforces Republican complaints that the president's son initially benefited from political favoritism. But it also illustrates the enormous power that prosecutors wield to coerce guilty pleas, which is so daunting that the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury has become more theoretical than real.
In June, Weiss announced that Biden would plead guilty to two misdemeanors involving his 2017 and 2018 taxes. In exchange, prosecutors would recommend probation and drop a felony gun charge after Biden successfully completed a two-year pretrial diversion program.
That deal disintegrated after a federal judge questioned some of its provisions, including an ambiguous promise of immunity from future prosecution. It was replaced by two indictments that multiplied the charges against Biden.
Biden, who admits that he was a crack cocaine user when he bought a revolver from a Wilmington, Delaware, gun shop in 2018, initially was charged with violating a statute that makes it a felony for "an unlawful user" of "any controlled substance" to receive or possess a firearm. A September 14 indictment added two more felonies based on the same transaction, both of which Biden allegedly committed by falsely denying illegal drug use when he bought the gun.
In addition to the two original tax charges, a December 7 indictment includes four more misdemeanors involving late filing or late payment and three felonies: one count of tax evasion and two counts of filing a false return. The felonies are all related to Biden's 2018 taxes, which were also the basis for one of the original misdemeanor charges.
Weiss, in short, has not discovered new crimes so much as recharacterized conduct that he knew about when he backed the agreement that would have allowed Biden to avoid incarceration. And Weiss has done that only because Biden decided that he would exercise his constitutional right to trial.
If Biden is convicted, his sentences are apt to be substantially shorter than the statutory maximums. He nevertheless could pay a heavy penalty for declining to plead guilty, perhaps amounting to several years behind bars.
Biden is hardly unusual in that respect. According to a 2018 analysis by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), the average sentence for federal defendants who were convicted after trial was more than three times as long as the average sentence for defendants who pleaded guilty to similar crimes.
That "trial penalty" helps explain why, contrary to the impression left by movies and TV shows, criminal cases almost never go to trial. In the United States, nearly 98 percent of criminal convictions result from guilty pleas, which means the NACDL is not exaggerating when it says the Sixth Amendment right to trial is "on the verge of extinction."
The pressure to plead guilty is so powerful that it can sway even the innocent. "A study of DNA exonerations conducted by the Innocence Project found that 11% of exonerated individuals had pleaded guilty," an American Bar Association task force noted in a 2023 report.
You may have trouble sympathizing with Biden, who earned a fortune by trading on his father's name and, according to last week's indictment, "spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle rather than paying his tax bills." His case nevertheless exemplifies the broad prosecutorial discretion that has all but destroyed the venerable safeguard that Thomas Jefferson called "the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
© Copyright 2023 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
He should face the same process as everyone else.
If I were charged with what he's accused of, I would get no special treatment.
If it ends up being a win for liberty because some high level state actors finally realize that some of these laws are bullshit, that would be great. But, I suspect that they will keep the laws in place and we have an imbalanced justice system. I'm willing to be proved wrong. Hoping, even.
By rights Hunter Biden should be executed for treason, along with most of his family.
In a post apocalyptic libertarian state he would have done nothing wrong. But we aren't in that post apocalyptic libertarian state. We are in a Marxist wet dream and anytime the more equal animals suffer the penalties we common animals suffe a small amount of balance is achieved.
The overweening power of the prosecuting attorney to add charges for lack of cooperation, or take them away for cooperation, to "stack" charges whereby one act results in 142 counts [this hyperbolic number was chosen to give nit-pickers and budding fascists something to complain about and to try to devalue this comment with] of various charges, to choose charges which carry huge minimum terms of incarceration when such charges would be dropped for "cooperation", as add charges if defendants exercise their rights (trial by jury, prompt trials not unduly delayed) has long been noted by sentient observers - you don't have to be a lawyer to be aware of this. But they're after the other guy, not me. Who cares?
If you want to make the justice system
fair(whoever told you that life was fair?) just, judges should be empowered to review charges laid against the defendant at the first stages of trial (before jury selection begins), review these against what charges the defendant was offered the opportunity to plead guilty to, and dismiss with prejudice all charges being brought against the defendant at trial that were not included in the plea deal that was rejected by the defendant.This would not gut the justice system, though it would pretty well contort the current "justus" system. It would prevent the soft pedaling of the threat of charges for a guilty plea, and it would prevent the overcharging and stacking of charges against defendants who were "impudent" enough to reject the prosecutor's plea offers. But, really, who cares? They're after him, not me, not today!
That's not the argument being made. The argument being made is that we would expect it to happen to us, so it's good to see the problem getting wider notice.
"We", the readers of this blog and the readers of some others, as well at attorneys who know the system from the inside might expect or at least fear, that it could happen to us. But really, how many people know that a single illegal act can get you stuck with half-a-dozen different charges?
Unfortunately "we" constitute about 15% of the population. The abuse potential that prosecutors have at their disposal is not of concern to 60-70%. That leaves some 15-25% of the population that is not even aware what "prosecutorial discretion" is or that it may be a problem.
Actions such as I proposed of judges dismissing with prejudice offenses ignored/not charged in a plea bargain offer would greatly limit the damage "prosecutorial discretion" has the potential to cause to individuals who have become enmeshed in the system or fallen into the hands of an ambitious or vindictive prosecutor. And while my solution may not be the "the perfect solution", I'm satisfied with it until someone proposes a different solution that seems both (1) workable and (2) effective.
I'm curious. Just what, exactly, argument did you think was being made that did not center around the concept of "prosecutorial discretion"?
That "trial penalty" helps explain why, contrary to the impression left by movies and TV shows, criminal cases almost never go to trial. In the United States, nearly 98 percent of criminal convictions result from guilty pleas, which means the NACDL is not exaggerating when it says the Sixth Amendment right to trial is "on the verge of extinction."
Nonsense. The 6th Amendment is still free and ready for anyone who avails themselves to it. There's no such thing as a "trial penalty." The reason criminal cases rarely go to trial is because criminal defendants are often guilty as hell, know it, and know that they're not going to pull the wool over a prosecutor's and jury's eyes. Especially if the cops/DA have presented a sack full of damning evidence prior to the offer. And the reason the sentences are usually harsher is because the convicted criminal is because they're determined by sentencing guidelines, whereas plea deals have a LOT more leeway that a judge will usually rubber stamp in deference to the mutual agreement.
The reason "nearly 98 percent of criminal convictions result from guilty pleas" isn't because criminals think they won't get a fair shake at trial.
It's because they know they WILL.
Not true most people just can't afford to fight so they're forced to plea. Look at the case of Owen Shoyer.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/owen-shroyer-details-his-horrific-stay-prison-after/
The dirty rotten stinking corrupt federal justice system wins 99 per cent of its cases, 97 per cent without going to court. Kim Jong-Un's Attorney-General (assuming he has or needs one) can only marvel.
Mark Steyn
True. False, coerced confessions and innocent people pleading guilty are hallmarks of today's America.
The reason criminal cases rarely go to trial is because criminal defendants are often guilty as hell...
Why do we need a trial system at all? Like you said, they're probably guilty. Just lock 'em al up. We can trust the police and prosecutors to be fair with the facts and the legislature and judiciary to be fair with the punishments.
And the reason the sentences are usually harsher is because the convicted criminal is because they’re determined by sentencing guidelines, whereas plea deals have a LOT more leeway that a judge will usually rubber stamp in deference to the mutual agreement.
Are prosecutors just nice people trying to cut defendants a break? Odd though that jury cases are multiple stacked severe charges relative to pleas fewer lesser charges. But no blame on the prosecutors here. It's all the sentencing guidelines.
Why do we need a trial system at all? Like you said, they’re probably guilty. Just lock ’em al up. We can trust the police and prosecutors to be fair with the facts and the legislature and judiciary to be fair with the punishments.
Given that's not at all the implication of what you quoted and responded to we can write that off as just another weak-assed straw man argument.
I'd say it is more of a reductio ad absurdum. You're right though, this was not his actual argument. I pointed out exaggerated conclusions that follow from his "There’s no such thing as a “trial penalty.” The reason criminal cases rarely go to trial is because criminal defendants are often guilty as hell"
Happy first day on the internet.
I’d say it is more of a reductio ad absurdum.
No, it's a straw man. He wasn't proposing doing away with anything pertaining to rights, process, etc.
The reason criminal cases rarely go to trial is because criminal defendants are often guilty as hell”
And so you have plea bargaining to save everyone (including the taxpayer) a lot of time and money if the guilty party agrees to take the plea. That in no way does away with ANY rights or due process.
Happy first day on the internet
No, it’s a straw man. He wasn’t proposing doing away with anything pertaining to rights, process, etc.
He was arguing the rights and process are irrelevant because the defendants are guilty.
And so you have plea bargaining to save everyone (including the taxpayer) a lot of time and money if the guilty party agrees to take the plea.
Which is also abused to make innocent people take the plea.
Prosecutors careers are rewarded for finding people guilty, not finding the right people guilty. They are incentivized to overcharge and pile on extra charges so that defendants will plea down.
I’d recommend looking into the career of a certain cackling harpy currently serving as vice president to see how a career is made.
One of two ways a career is made.
Couldn't be bothered to actually read the article, could you.
"A study of DNA exonerations conducted by the Innocence Project found that 11% of exonerated individuals had pleaded guilty"
There is no possible way that study's findings are consistent with your polyanna-ish views on the justice system.
Wow. Only 11%? I really would expect that to be more.
So if they are guilty as hell, there's a stack of evidence, and legislative guidelines saying they should go to jail for a certain amount of time, why offer a plea for less time? Take it to trial and send them to jail for the amount of time they deserve.
My perception and (secondhand) experience tells me prosecutors offer pleas when they *don't* think they have enough evidence to secure a conviction at trial, so they try to railroad a plea. If they think they have a slam dunk case they never offer a plea deal in the first place.
It's one of the reasons police unions oppose decriminalization. When they bust someone on a primary charge of say possession with intent to distribute they like to have a half dozen lesser charges like possession of a firearm while next door to a drug deal or disrespecting an officer who is being an ass hat. In that way when the evidence for the primary charge is questionable or the police screwed up everything in the arrest they have those bull shit lesser charges to stick the guy with so their conviction rates stay high.
So if they are guilty as hell, there’s a stack of evidence, and legislative guidelines saying they should go to jail for a certain amount of time, why offer a plea for less time? Take it to trial and send them to jail for the amount of time they deserve.
Because then they wouldn't be "soft on crime" leftists? The same reason why shoplifting is no longer being prosecuted in many areas. Or, if your state hasn't passed recreational weed laws yet, but you're a proponent of decriminalization, the police still have to arrest, and instead of letting it go to court, you give the guilty party a deal with no drug charges.
There are plenty of ways in which the plea system is as much about fighting the system as it is about abusing the system.
My perception and (secondhand) experience tells me prosecutors offer pleas when they *don’t* think they have enough evidence to secure a conviction at trial, so they try to railroad a plea. If they think they have a slam dunk case they never offer a plea deal in the first place.
My perception is that pleas are mostly about laziness or sympathy for those poor, poor people who need to smash-and-grab 12 pairs of Nike shoes "in order to eat". Why make them go to trial when you can give them a sweet deal?
So if they are guilty as hell, there’s a stack of evidence, and legislative guidelines saying they should go to jail for a certain amount of time, why offer a plea for less time?
Because court dockets are already backed up and trials are time and resource-intensive expenditures for all involved (except for the lawyers), and if all that can be avoided while still meting out meaningful punishment then it's often worth the compromise. Why did you think plea bargaining existed in the first place?
"Where there's smoke, there's fire." So you believe that the police and prosecutors would never EVER try to put another notch on their resumes or EVER make a mistake, or EVER get caught up in "confirmation bias" like everyone else does. They would never EVER try to pin it on a convenient suspect or fail to provide the defense exculpatory evidence that might prevent a plea bargain. They would never EVER threaten to "investigate" family members to extort a confession from an exhausted suspect after denying him food, water or a bathroom break for eight hours straight. Can you really be that naive?
How the hell do you get that from what AT wrote??? /boggle
After what has been done to Trump, I hav eno regard for the right of any democrat. I’m fact, once power is taken from them, they should be rounded up, and jailed or executed at will.
This is what they want to do, so fuck them. Democrats should no one RH Ave rights. Let them burn.
John Law is never wrong. His motives are always pure and his attention is perfect. Mistakes are impossible and only the purest motivations are on his mind. Never would he abuse the powers we honest God fearing citizens have entrusted him with. He is the thin blue line between order and absolute chaos.
The above comment is one of two things. Either it is a blubbering defense by a willful idiot who is enjoying his 15 minutes on the stage or it is gaslighting at its very best, in service of ????
Or, perhaps you should check your sarcasm detector.
It's not sarcasm. AT defends obvious unconstitutional abuse by cops regularly.
If he was being sarcastic, I truthfully and humbly do apologize. Sarcasm can be difficult to detect in the written word, and I came upon his comment after reading several other comments that had my blood up.
I would also point out another point.
Unlike on TV, in reality prosecutors only charge cases they can win.
Additionally, defendants only fight cases that they think they can win.
The cases that make it to trial are only a small intersection of cases that are truly up in the air in addition to one side being completely delusional about their chances.
Unlike on TV, in reality prosecutors only charge cases they can win.
What do you mean? If you're saying they only take cases to juries they think they can win, yes. But they are certainly charging cases and stacking charges in cases they know they can't win in hopes of getting a plea. It happened to my nephew. Luckily his grandparents (he was with them at the time of the crime so they knew he was innocent) paid for a lawyer that insisted on a jury trial. Only then the charges were dropped. BTW, before he got a private lawyer the public defender's advice was to take a plea.
What are the corresponding figures in other countries?
These are times I hate being a libertarian. Tax, drug and gun laws are all immoral.
They are. During trial, Biden should be treated no differently than any other citizen. After a conviction of considerable consequences, perhaps the Big Buy can convince Congress to sunset the laws incongruent with 2A, end the drug war, and eliminate the income tax while also allowing for anyone convicted of crimes related to be set free.
Shit, the big guy was a big part of creating those laws.
Karma is a bitch.
Yup. And should those laws apply to Hunter the way they applied those to non-Bidens, perhaps it can shed light on the need to eliminate these restrictions on liberty and free those previously convicted of such.
Surely, you jest.
I think the elite recognize that losing a stray sheep once in a while is a reasonable price to pay to empower and enrich themselves. Besides what he's being charged with here is nothing compared to what he has very likely done with the big guy.
I am being serious. And stop calling me Shirley.
Roger, over.
Or he'll just pardon Hunter as he's walking out the door. Much easier and Dems in Congress will prefer that to relaxing gun laws.
Iirc, after Nixon got his pardon, some juries found it hard to convict people of similar non-violent crimes. CIA calls it blowback. Eastern Europe calls it the boomerang.
The establishment may not want juries issuing numerous pardons on tax cheats.
Brandon pardoning a convicted Hunter pre-election would not play well in the polls. This isn’t the same as say the Checkers incident with Nixon where folks rallied behind him.
He will pardon him after the election. News media will proclaim his love for his child. Jail will be delayed to this point.
News media that would collectively reason to a shared truth?
A sort of collective consensus.
Hahaha! That was funny.
After a conviction of considerable consequences, perhaps the Big Buy can
convince Congress to sunset the laws incongruent with 2A, end the drug war, and eliminate the income taxpardon Hunter.FTFY
There is a simple solution to this problem: judges should stop allowing plea deals. Completely. Forever. It does not require a Constitutional amendment or a ruling from the Supreme Court. It is within the authority of every criminal court judge in America to reject any and all plea deals, and all guilty pleas. If every prosecutor had to prove every charge in court beyond a reasonable (or in some cases beyond the shadow of) doubt, then they would be a lot more careful with their investigations and their charges. If judges threw out all evidence obtained by prosecutor abuse it would likewise limit prosecutor abuse. And there should be charges brought against all law enforcement officers and prosecutors who repeatedly have their evidence thrown out. Getting juries to stop automatically going along with the prosecutor is a different problem.
The edit button appears to have stopped working, at least for me ...
Me too, MWA. Oversight, incompetence, or design?
Yes, true, but it's not in the judges interest to do this. It would just cause them more work and back logs. It's not in the interest of the prosecutor or the defense attorney either. It's also not in the interest of guilty defendants because they can plea down. It's basically only in the interest of the wrongly accused to change the system.
Weird that you agree with MWA, but argue with AT, who said basically the same thing.
I didn't read them that way.
I read MWAocdoc's post as saying the plea system should be ended because it's abused and At's post as saying everything is fine as is because most defendants are guilty anyway.
Same.
If AT is correct and most defendants are guilty and there is plenty of evidence prosecutors should have no trouble securing convictions at trial, no pleas necessary. All they have to do is their job.
All they have to do is their job.
And there is the problem.
It would just cause them more work and back logs. It’s not in the interest of the prosecutor or the defense attorney either.
Maybe we use the backlogs to push Congress/states to repeal the more immoral laws and sentencing schemes.
Agreed, but guilty defendants should not be allowed to plead down either. They should be prosecuted for the strongest case an honest prosecutor can present. They don't have to present a defense at trial if they have none. It might be in the judge's interest if it reduces the number of charges filed. But the solution to backlogs and case loads is to reduce the number of crimes on the books and to have enough judges to handle the violent crimes that actually need to be prosecuted. And at least some criminal judges are honest and want to actually see justice done!
Agreed, but guilty defendants should not be allowed to plead down either.
Which defendants are guilty defendants?
They should be prosecuted for the strongest case an honest prosecutor can present.
Which prosecutor is an honest prosecutor? Will they have a special badge?
And at least some criminal judges are honest and want to actually see justice done!
Which ones?
Everyone is guilty until proven innocent I guess.
That's why I used the word "should" in this argument.
We have at least one case of a judge denying a plea deal in this article before us. My point was to suggest that judges are the key to ending prosecutorial abuse IF they choose to do so. If judges start denying plea bargains and punishing prosecutorial abuse, the honest prosecutors will reveal themselves by winning cases with actual evidence; and the dishonest prosecutors will be punished for prosecutorial abuse - or at least things will start trending that way. I suspect that police abuse will start to trend downwards now that police officers are finally being convicted for their crimes. A very long time coming ...
Fuck him.
Fuck Jacob Sullum
He should meet some horrific end. Like how Jeffy ought to be slowly tortured by illegal gangbangers, and Shreek by his victim’s families. The rights of leftists mean nothing to me.
By the way, concerning your handle: private companies are not allowed to commit crimes any more than government agents or private individuals are allowed to.
Fuck Hunter Biden
Pour pour Hunter.
*sniff*
“And Weiss has done that only because Biden decided that he would exercise his constitutional right to trial.”
Weiss got exposed. Humiliated. The Judge in DE smelled a rat within and while reading the plea agreement, which was a sweetheart pact for Biden.
Weiss had no choice thereafter but to flex some muscle; he had to prosecute on the CA and DE charges, if for no other reason than to appear balanced and avoid more scorn.
Even still, Weiss has limited prosecution to the tax charges, thus avoiding scrutiny of the Big Guy.
The whole thing is Garland’s corrupt DOJ hiding in plain sight.
No kidding. Sullum skipped right over the fact the politics lead to the bullshit plea deal. The IRS whistleblowers testified how everything was slow walked, charges lapsed, avenues of investigation denied, then the DoJ tried to give Hunter a political get out of jail free cars. This was intentional by Sullum.
Sullum once again exposes himself as a leftwing hack with his hypocrisy.
I don’t understand the point of spending time and energy writing an article, like this one, that attempts to define Weiss’s prosecutorial intent but then airbrushes Weiss’s real motives.
It’s just dumb.
Okay, we get it - the feds abuse the system to compel pleas. But in this particular instance, it was Hunter Biden's own attorneys who said, "just rip it up" when the judge objected to the extraordinary leniency of the terms of the agreement, which, as the prosecution acknowledged, were unprecedented.
There had to be a better case on this score for y'all to write about.
They always find the least sympathetic examples for these stories.
To the point that Sullum is complicit in the larger campaign. He can't not know his narrative is *the* pro-elitist, pro-white privilege, pro-patriarchy, pro-corruption, pro-native stance.
Agree but I wonder why.
This conundrum is what always happens when government abuses its authority and oversteps Constitutional limits. Once the abuse is established as precedent, anyone who tries to undo the damage by walking back the violations (e.g. Roe v Wade and overturning Roe v Wade) appears to be inconsistent either way they try to go. Hunter Biden is an unsympathetic victim of bad laws and prosecutorial abuse but he's still a victim. His case illustrates the problem for all to see and in a way that even the most partisan or clueless cannot evade. That's why.
No, no he’s not.
Bullshit. Now do Michael Brown.
I do agree, it was very selective, and this is another piece of evidence against plea deals, the ability to give the politically favored effectively no punishment.
However, just like prosecutorial discretion, I see no way to protect against it.
The complaint that the judge nixed sketchy provisions of the plea deal, which Biden's lawyers refused to go ahead with the plea deal without, so the prosecutors should be obligated to limit the charges to ones agreed to in the abandoned plea deal?
Does that actually make sense to anyone?
Not to me - see my comment just above.
And see my comment just above that for why Sullum presents it this way.
Does that actually make sense to anyone?
Yes. If the prosecutor thinks they can prove these charges in court they should have been included in the plea deal. Many (most?) of these injustices are due to the trial penalty being too severe. This one is magnified by the plea deal also being too political and lenient relative to other defendants. If the prosecutor cannot prove these charges in court, they should be dropped whether or not he chooses a jury trial, not used to coerce a guilty plea.
Oops wrong place. Meant to be a reply to Mickey.
Edit is not working for me now.
It should be pointed out that Hunter is still getting off lightly as Weiss refused to charge him with money laundering, despite even the banks thinking he was as payments jumped between his private and business accounts, fraud, 1M he spent in private expenditures while claiming to be a retainer for a criminal trial of a Chinese national despite no criminal legal experience, and FARA violations.
There are a lot more charges they have clear evidence for but are not charging as it would expose Joe.
Yes, this seems true to me.
That whole family should be executed for treason.
In the case of actual money laundering, the purpose is to disguise money given to someone else who should not be receiving the money (e.g. the President getting a "gift" from his son that is actually a bribe from a third party - in this case from an energy company in Ukraine) - in this example the prosecutors want to be able to charge the son with money laundering because they can't prove that the President was bribed.
Maybe not Ashley, she suffered enough seeing her dad naked.
"Money laundering" is another example of a crime that should not be a crime in the first place. If you receive money as part of committing a crime (e.g. cash you took during a burglary), the crime is stealing the money, not putting it in a bank and then giving it to someone else. The only reason that's a crime is to give the authorities an excuse to access your bank records before they can prove you committed the burglary. If you're a suspect under investigation for the burglary, they need probable cause to get a search warrant. They should not be allowed to search your bank records and use "money laundering" as the crime if they can't prove the burglary in the first place.
Money laundering is assisting in crime.
To compare, if I clean and repair weaponry, there is no crime in that. However, if my company uses those weapons to murder people, then I am still guilty of assisting in the murders.
Laundering is the same to money crimes as armoring is to physical ones.
The tenor between charges in articles about Hunter vs Trump by Sullum is very telling.
In the latter Sullum is filled with vitriol and justifying legal constructions created to go after Trump, splitting charges to fill one for each classified document, and overall justifying trumps novel legal construction. All the while DoJ is concurrently letting dems off on the same charges.
Now sullum is worried about over charging for Hunter on both gun and tax charges, even though both sets of charges are normal construction. There are no concurrent cases he can point to to show they are out of the norm, unlike the Trump trials.
It is amazing watching the switch of tenor back and forth at this site based on who the victim is.
The doj even let charges lapse for Hunter despite it being clear he failed to file. Not only that the Hunter charges show wilfully avoiding taxes and lying on tax returns. Even when he had the money to pay the owed taxes Hunter sought to spend his money on drugs and leisure. It wasn't a mistake but intentional. Something still not shown with Trump.
Sullum is just showing his biases openly and clearly.
Yeah, but sarc said he eventually paid the IRS, so no crime was committed.
He never paid back his taxes. Morris did. And emails show Morris was working a campaign event when the tax issue came up and Morris proposed he pay off Hunters taxes to stop it from being a political issue. Morris didn't know Hunter at the time, so it was done for Joe's campaign. A campaign donation essentially.
On top of that they reported the payoff as a loan from Morris to Hunter but Hunter has yet to pay a dime back, as they scrambled to make the loan documents after payments made so it wouldn't cause further tax issues.
Isn't the loaning of campaign funds to a family member a crime itself?
It wasn't a campaign fund as the amount was over campaign limits. But the entire impetus of the payoff per the posted emails was Morriss helping the campaign. He didn't know Hunter at the time. It was decided during a campaign party for Joe.
Since the motivation is known and it was done to help a campaign, it should be an illegal campaign donation.
Do you have any sources for your claims here?
Lol.
You would thunk jeff would know by now that Congress has been releasing their material. He just doesn't care.
Why the Dickens would you ask when you ignore them anyway?
You should be slowly tortured to death during a home invasion by gangbanger illegals. Maybe MS13. You can proclaim your solidarity with them as they cut out little parts of your blubber, piece by piece.
Sources? He don't need no stinking sources. It's up to you to prove his assertion wrong, and you can't because they will attack any source that says something they don't like.
No you stupid person. I said that the IRS (theirs) got paid, and that they often don't prosecute if they get their money. I didn't say no crime was committed. Unlike your TDS (Trumps Deranged Supporters) crowd that ironically claims that anyone who thinks Trump did anything wrong is mentally ill.
"The tenor between charges in articles about Hunter vs Trump by Sullum is very telling..."
Yep. Sullum is a TDS-addled pile of shit who needs to get fucked with a running rusty chain saw.
Let's do some fact-checking on Jesse here.
It seems as though Jesse is referring to Sullum's coverage of Trump's classified documents case, in these two articles:
Article 1:
https://reason.com/2023/06/12/trumps-federal-indictment-presents-new-evidence-of-deliberate-deceit-and-obstruction/
Article 2:
https://reason.com/2023/07/28/trumps-alleged-cover-up-of-his-cover-up-reinforces-the-obstruction-charges-against-him/
If Jesse wishes to share additional articles upon which his assessment is based, he is free to do so.
In the latter Sullum is filled with vitriol
That is a subjective statement. I suppose from Jesse's point of view, Sullum is "full of vitriol" towards Trump. Fact check: Fair enough, I guess.
and justifying legal constructions created to go after Trump, splitting charges to fill one for each classified document, and overall justifying trumps novel legal construction.
I could find nothing in either article in which Sullum explicitly tried to justify issuing a separate indictment for each document that Trump allegedly withheld. Fact check rating: False
All the while DoJ is concurrently letting dems off on the same charges.
I could find nothing in Sullum's articles mentioning this. Then again, Jesse is probably referring to some other case. So let's withhold judgment on this one.
Now sullum is worried about over charging for Hunter on both gun and tax charges, even though both sets of charges are normal construction. There are no concurrent cases he can point to to show they are out of the norm, unlike the Trump trials.
If I understand Sullum's point here in this article, it is that Hunter is being treated like a normal defendant in this case, and that is a problem precisely because normal defendants are routinely given the shaft under very similar circumstances. By contrast, there are very few prosecutions under the Espionage Act. So Jesse has a point here, in that Hunter's prosecution is commonplace but Trump's is rare, but I am not sure how relevant it is to the point that Sullum is trying to make here.
It is amazing watching the switch of tenor back and forth at this site based on who the victim is.
Jesse does have a point that there is a difference in tenor between the two Trump articles and this one. The two Trump articles are written from a very neutral, almost dry, perspective. This one has more of an advocacy slant, advocating against the 'trial penalty'. And it may be that the difference in tenor is due to the difference in the defendants. Other possible reasons are that the tenor changes depending on the nature of the crime, the circumstances of the case, the severity of the alleged transgression, and a whole host of other factors. Jesse hasn't clearly shown here that the 'tenor' change is solely due to the change in defendants. Fact check: logic fail
The doj even let charges lapse for Hunter despite it being clear he failed to file.
Has Jesse clearly shown that the DOJ "let" charges lapse for Hunter, rather than, say, being unaware of the alleged crime? This seems more like an assumption rather than a supported conclusion. But if Jesse has more information here let's have it.
Not only that the Hunter charges show wilfully avoiding taxes and lying on tax returns. Even when he had the money to pay the owed taxes Hunter sought to spend his money on drugs and leisure.
I think the record fairly demonstrates this to be true. Fact check: true
It wasn’t a mistake but intentional. Something still not shown with Trump.
Again if we are discussing the classified documents case, I think it is quite well established that Trump very intentionally intended to take those documents with him to Mar-a-Lago after his presidency ended. One of the disputes here is whether Trump had legal possession of those documents at the time. So Jesse is plainly wrong here. Fact check: amaze-balls false
Sullum is just showing his biases openly and clearly.
The biases that Sullum appears to be showing here is that he does not like the 'trial penalty' associated with plea bargaining. Since Trump hasn't yet been presented with any sort of plea deal assocated with the classified documents case, we don't know about Sullum's partisan biases associated with his thoughts on the 'trial penalty' as applied to a potential plea deal with Trump. Fact check: misleading
No one gives a shit about your lies Fatfuck.
Nobody cares that JesseAz is a piece of shit liar, because he's part of their tribe and lies about people who are not.
They care about people, not principles.
It’s not just Jesse’s “tribe” that can notice the tenor and tone of Jacob’s articles. Unless you’re basically saying that everyone who disagrees with you and Jeff is in his tribe…
Yes, everyone else besides them is in a tribe.
Wait, isn't being in a tribe culture for ethnic groups? So Sarc is just being racist too right?
So an advocate for political prosecutions and stacking charges there is against prosecuting actual crimes if they go against his team. Fuck off with this BS Jacob, you're running cover for a corrupt regime and their activities, nothing more.
The original plea deal was a sweetheart deal that a normal person would have never received. The Federal judge reviewing it smelled a rat, and voided it, as he should have.
Looking for the "sympathy" switch and not finding it.
Hey, TDS-addled pile of shit Sullum, there's a guy named Trump who's been dealing with a witch-hunt for 7 years now and you haven't yet noticed.
Get fucked with a running, rusty chain saw.
How rusty can a chain saw get and still run?
I'm sure the teeth could be rusty enough to carry tetanus (assuming one lives long enough for that to matter, which seems impossible if the running chainsaw was inserted as described), while the rivet joints between the links were lightly oiled and running freely.
I’m sure the teeth could be rusty enough to carry tetanus
It's always funny how "sure" some people are about things that are completely false. Rust has absolutely nothing to do with tetanus.
Oh he's noticed, being one of the top cheerleaders for it and all.
Cry more about how poor, poor Trump is a poor, poor victim, and how you too are a poor, poor victim because you voted for the poor, poor crybaby.
The trouble with the original plea deal is that it could be interpreted as shielding Hunter for _all_ other crimes he may have previously committed. It was a way for the prosecutor to agree that Hunter could never be prosecuted for acting as the bagman for Joe Biden's bribes, money laundering, and being an unregistered agent for a foreign government without admitting that he was doing so. This made it a _secret_ and extreme sweetheart deal - in effect, immunizing Hunter for anything that might affect his father, without admitting that there might be such issues.
Now, the phrasing wasn't explicit, and it would be possible for a future prosecutor to argue that it did not shield Hunter for those unmentioned crimes, but I expect that when a family member of a prominent Democratic politician is in the dock, the courts would suddenly rediscover the rule of lenity. (That is, that an ambiguity must be interpreted in favor of the defendant.)
When the judge rejected the shady phrasing and required the deal to be clearly spelled out, the prosecutor wasn't going to expose just how big of a favor he was doing for the Bidens. So the rephrased deal only covered the illegal gun buy and the specified instances of tax evasion. And Hunter refused to agree to a plea deal that left him clearly open to prosecution for everything else.
That was stupid of him, because, although it wasn't unprecedented, no jail time was a pretty light penalty just for the gun crime or for several years of not filing taxes while spending millions. (One year his ATM withdrawals alone totaled over $700,000. That's just what he bought with _cash_, not his house or car!) These crimes are proven beyond any doubt, just by the paperwork (Hunter's signature to a lie on the form to buy the gun), or lack thereof (tax returns for several years).
So now, instead of community service, Hunter is going to be in prison for the time recommended by the sentencing guidelines. It's just a few years, but its almost certain that by the time he gets out, Joe Biden will be dead and the Democratic establishment will be trying to see the name "Biden" forgotten.
I wonder if the Dem establishment would consider Hunter too much of a liability going into 2024. So, maybe Hunter gets Epsteined, removing a political vulnerability and earning the sympathy vote in one stroke. Its not like Joe has a problem standing on the grave of a dead son afterall.
Holy cow, Jacob. Really? Biden is your example? Weiss was caught providing political favors and a judge caught it. It was Biden’s last year who decided to “rip up the deal” and go to trial. Weiss is now bringing the appropriate charges minus the critical ones that have expired due to the statute of limitations. I don’t disagree with your concerns but seriously question your motives and judgement bringing the Biden situation in here.
F’ing Reason comment editor,,, last year = lawyer.
They've gone back to the old days of uneditable comments, but with an edit button.
They enabled the “Biden” feature.
Let's agree to disagree and move forward with the prosecution(s) of both Trump and Hunter Biden.
This abuse also goes in the other direction.
Law-abiding citizens are targeted, or the charged crimes are inflated and defense attorneys in this space have for many years routinely recommended their clients take a plea bargain for no other reason than the fact that the DOJ can and will bankrupt and ruin them because of the practically unlimited resources and power granted them. The weaponization of the DOJ has been going on for a lot longer than most people realize.
I saw this happen with a friend who had a business acquiring sea creatures for legal use such as public aquariums, zoos, and resorts. He was accused of obtaining and selling specimens that it is unlawful to procure, by someone who it turns out he didn't know and who died conveniently BEFORE the DOJ even arrested him. While there was no collaborating testimony and no way to face his accuser in court, the DOJ insisted on prosecuting him. The DOJ then leaked a story to the media, which effectively ruined his business--his only livelihood, and led to a plea deal that required him not to EVER enter this line of business, as well as involving some jail time, fines, and long probation.
Clearly, he was a target because environmentalists didn't like the legal business he was in and was part of a much larger effort during the Obama Administration to target people in businesses like this to prevent these legal (and highly regulated businesses) from existing.
The last time I looked, less than 5% of all indictments go to trial. The vast majority end up as plea deals.
Now Jacob explain how Hillary didn't commit a crime with her servers in a closet to get around the freedom of information act? Why wasn't that prosecuted as the Navy sailor was?
You can't see the bias of your team can you?
Seems like someone like Michael Flynn would be a much better object lesson about this than Hunter Biden.
It's hard not to wonder how hard the prosecutors are burning effort to make their cases and investigate the depths of these charges, or if they (like most of the people in the country who are even aware that he's been indicted) expect that he's got a pardon coming in mid-late January 2021 just before whoever beats his dad in the upcoming election (god help us all if it's trump again) gets sworn into office, or maybe a couple weeks earlier once the electoral vote is certified (will it be the 3rd or the 10th?) and there's no more chances to alter the outcome...
70/30 odds that the order has already been written (likely in "Dr. Jill"'s handwriting unless they could fit doing it into one of the President's few moments of lucidity) and is just waiting to be signed/dated
The prosecutor isn't just punishing Hunter for insisting on going to trial. He is punishing Hunter because the prosecutor got caught trying to make the sweetheart deal of all sweetheart deals in his case - a plea deal with language that would excuse Hunter for prosecution for ALL crimes up to that time, not only all instances of gun crimes or tax evasion, but all the other crimes Hunter may have committed in representing foreign governments, soliciting bribes for his father, laundering money, and generally acting as the crime family bagman. The prosecutor was not just giving Hunter a light sentence for the gun and tax crimes, but protecting Joe Biden by heading off any investigation of Hunter for other crimes that would touch on Joe or other Bidens.
So Hunter didn't get the deal he expected, and was so stupid as to pass up the remaining part of a deal that gave him community service instead of 5 to 10 years of prison for crimes that are proven beyond ALL doubt without even going beyond the documents. And an embarrassed prosecutor is going to hammer him - not that it will make any difference other than the length of the sentence for which Joe will pardon him after the election.
But it would be amusing if Joe happens to drop dead before signing that pardon, and Kamala Harris, who never understood the difference between prosecution and persecution, declines to pardon him.