Hunter Biden's phone had apparent cocaine, drug paraphernalia photos at time of gun purchase

Valletta · Feb 15, 2024

"Prior to October 12, 2018 (the date of the gun purchase), the defendant took photos of crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia on his phone," the Justice Department said in a court document released Tuesday.

Hunter Biden's phone had apparent cocaine, drug paraphernalia photos at time of gun purchase

Evidence presented in court shows that Hunter Biden took "multiple photographs" of "apparent cocaine, crack cocaine, and drug paraphernalia" in November and December 2018, per the document.

justthenews.com

JustOneWay · Feb 15, 2024

So? This is old news and everybody already knows he was an addict. What's next? Another thread on how he had naked pictures on the phone too?

A2SG · Feb 15, 2024

Valletta said:
"Prior to October 12, 2018 (the date of the gun purchase), the defendant took photos of crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia on his phone," the Justice Department said in a court document released Tuesday.

Hunter Biden's phone had apparent cocaine, drug paraphernalia photos at time of gun purchase

Evidence presented in court shows that Hunter Biden took "multiple photographs" of "apparent cocaine, crack cocaine, and drug paraphernalia" in November and December 2018, per the document.

justthenews.com

That does it. I'm not voting for him.

-- A2SG, oh, wait....

GoldenBoy89 · Feb 15, 2024

Impeach Hunter Biden NOW!

SMTA · Feb 15, 2024

Valletta said:
"Prior to October 12, 2018 (the date of the gun purchase), the defendant took photos of crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia on his phone," the Justice Department said in a court document released Tuesday.

Hunter Biden's phone had apparent cocaine, drug paraphernalia photos at time of gun purchase

Evidence presented in court shows that Hunter Biden took "multiple photographs" of "apparent cocaine, crack cocaine, and drug paraphernalia" in November and December 2018, per the document.

justthenews.com

So he had photos
So what?
It means nothing legally

essentialsaltes · Feb 15, 2024

No one's disputing his drug problem. He wrote a book about it.

RocksInMyHead · Feb 15, 2024

Does this mean that you believe anyone looking to purchase a gun should have the contents of their phone scanned by law enforcement?

Valletta · Feb 15, 2024

SMTA said:
So he had photos
So what?
It means nothing legally

Why do you claim that? Federal prosecutors have already indicted him on two counts of signing a form that said he was not using illegal drugs, and indicted him on a count that he possessed a gun at the time he was using a narcotic. The photos can't help.

Valletta · Feb 15, 2024

essentialsaltes said:
No one's disputing his drug problem. He wrote a book about it.

Prosecutors will be looking at evidence he used illegal drugs at the time he signed the form.

rambot · Feb 15, 2024

Valletta said:
Prosecutors will be looking at evidence he used illegal drugs at the time he signed the form.

No they won't. That's patently aburd. As though that could possibly be proven.

I can't believe people fall for lines like this.

BCP1928 · Feb 15, 2024

Valletta said:
Why do you claim that? Federal prosecutors have already indicted him on two counts of signing a form that said he was not using illegal drugs, and indicted him on a count that he possessed a gun at the time he was using a narcotic. The photos can't help.

That's the point. They really mean nothing to the prosecution. But maybe you guys should look a little closer at that phone. Maybe there are pictures of him naked that you can show to Congress and the rest of us like last time.

JustOneWay · Feb 15, 2024

Valletta said:
Prosecutors will be looking at evidence he used illegal drugs at the time he signed the form.

That is just stupid, and is not provable. They would need a blood sample at the exact time he signed the form

Hans Blaster · Feb 15, 2024

Is this the picture of lines of coarse brown cocaine on table saw?

RocksInMyHead · Feb 15, 2024

Valletta said:
Prosecutors will be looking at evidence he used illegal drugs at the time he signed the form.

If you're going to use a photograph of a white, powdery substance in order to prove that someone was using illegal drugs, you must first demonstrate that the person ingested said white, powdery substance. Since photos generally don't show motion, this would be rather difficult. Second, you must demonstrate that the white, powdery substance is an illegal narcotic and not, say, powdered sugar, baking soda, or baby powder. As no one has developed a way to chemically analyze objects appearing in photographs, this would also be rather difficult.

In short, this is not the slam dunk evidence that you seem to think it is.

Valletta · Feb 15, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
If you're going to use a photograph of a white, powdery substance in order to prove that someone was using illegal drugs, you must first demonstrate that the person ingested said white, powdery substance. Since photos generally don't show motion, this would be rather difficult. Second, you must demonstrate that the white, powdery substance is an illegal narcotic and not, say, powdered sugar, baking soda, or baby powder. As no one has developed a way to chemically analyze objects appearing in photographs, this would also be rather difficult.

In short, this is not the slam dunk evidence that you seem to think it is.

I took issue with the statement: "It means nothing legally." Now suddenly that means I'm claiming it was "slam dunk evidence." As was mentioned Hunter admitted he had a drug problem. But Hunter's attorney could claim those are not drugs in the photos. A judge or jury is to weigh the totality of evidence.

SMTA · Feb 15, 2024

Valletta said:
Why do you claim that? Federal prosecutors have already indicted him on two counts of signing a form that said he was not using illegal drugs, and indicted him on a count that he possessed a gun at the time he was using a narcotic. The photos can't help.

So what?
It's nobody's business but his.
Pictures of something does not equal guilt

SMTA · Feb 15, 2024

Valletta said:
I took issue with the statement: "It means nothing legally." Now suddenly that means I'm claiming it was "slam dunk evidence." As was mentioned Hunter admitted he had a drug problem. But Hunter's attorney could claim those are not drugs in the photos. A judge or jury is to weigh the totality of evidence.

So what.
Pictures of items alone mean nothing
Your desperation to convict Hunter severely clouds your judgement.

RocksInMyHead · Feb 15, 2024

Valletta said:
I took issue with the statement: "It means nothing legally." Now suddenly that means I'm claiming it was "slam dunk evidence." As was mentioned Hunter admitted he had a drug problem. But Hunter's attorney could claim those are not drugs in the photos. A judge or jury is to weigh the totality of evidence.

If you don't think it's significant, then I'm puzzled by the effort you went through to make a thread about it. What did you hope to discuss here?

durangodawood · Feb 15, 2024

People on coke just love to hear themselves talk and talk. They can really be insufferable sometimes.

Dont do the cocaine, kids.

Valletta · Feb 15, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
If you don't think it's significant, then I'm puzzled by the effort you went through to make a thread about it. What did you hope to discuss here?

LOL

Hunter Biden's phone had apparent cocaine, drug paraphernalia photos at time of gun purchase

Well-Known Member

:)

Gumby

We're Still Here

Active Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

:)

I march with Sherman

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

re Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads