Hunter Biden faces 17 years in prison after spending millions on lavish hard-partying lifestyle while dodging taxes: special counsel

[The IbanezerScrooge]

You could replace "republicans" with "democrats", "Biden" with "Bush", "stole an election" with "was in on a terrorist attack", "InfoWars" with "Fahrenheit 911", and "Hunter" with "Jenna", and we're basically back in 2005.

Um, to my recollection most if not all of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff you're trying to conflate with what the Reps\Right are doing to Biden came from the right, not "Democrats" or "The Left." That's not the same at all. There were no Democratic lawmakers holding hearings and press conferences claiming to have evidence that Bush orchestrated the attacks and then talking about Jenna Bush and demanding she come and testify before Congress. His daughter was a bit of schadenfreude, but no one was trying to say that her issues with DUI's or whatever it was (don't even remember) somehow proved that Bush was the mastermind of 9/11 for political reasons.

 

[Hans Blaster]

To pretend that's the only reason why they focused on his kids would be ignoring other scenarios... That just happened to be some of the low hanging fruit they could grasp for.

It's not the only reason, but we should take note that Trump's offspring were public people directly engaged in Trump's activities (politics, governing, business) and Biden's son is not a public person and not in engaged in his public activities (politics). Therefore a focus on Trump's kids ill behavior is more relevant than Biden's son.

That said, the things Hunter Biden is accused (by prosecutors) of are certainly worse than anything the Trump kids have been accused of. Hunter's crimes seem to be his own. (Trump's sons are sitting next to him at the civil fraud trial in NY as they are fully part of what Trump did with his business. They could have been criminally charged for at least some of it within the statute of limitations, but the NY AG chose the civil route.)

OK, onto reactions by partisanship...

It is clear that our partisans have become increasingly obsessed with the misdeeds of the other side. Making huge deals out of so many things. This has likely been escalating with every change of presidential power. The things said hyperbolicly about George Bush seem quaint even compared to those about his son.

The George W Bush presidency (and the responses to it) adequately demonstrated that neither party has a monopoly on civility.

I would liken the Democratic treatment of Bush to the Republican treatment of Biden.
(everything including going after family members, and entertaining wild conspiracy theories, and buying into the nonsensical "sources" supporting said theories)

The 9/11 truther nonsense was just that, and so was the Birther nonsense that followed. The "Bush inside" version of the 9/11 conspiracy and Birtherism were larger than one would like, but confined to the more fringe part of each opposition coalition. No prominent opposition politicians were involved. (Well, except for the TV business guy. What became of him?) In both cases the conspiracy wound up fairly early in the administrations so they cooked for a long time.

As another Clinton presidency seemed on the horizon, a new anti-Clinton conspiracy took root (Pizzagate) built on top of stolen documents from Clinton's campaign. When Trump eventually won something odd happened, the biggest conspiracy of the Trump era was one backed by his own supporters (QAnon). Unlike these ealier conspiracies, this one was much closer to power. Trump would even retweet Q-adjacent content (influencers, more subtle stuff). This (and the washing of COVID misinfo over the nation) disconnected so many from truth all lead to this:

"50% of republicans believe that Biden stole an election because of something they saw on InfoWars, and have no problem going after Hunter for substance problems"

If half of the republicans think Biden stole the election that's a bad thing. It actually inverts reality -- that Trump's team ginned up the "stolen election" to grab electoral votes in states he lost. And these things are now supported by a similar fraction of republican leaders. This isn't the early part of the century when democratic leaders wouldn't have tolerated the 9/11 nonsense nor republicans the birtherism. Now the nuts lead congressional committees.

You could replace "republicans" with "democrats", "Biden" with "Bush", "stole an election" with "was in on a terrorist attack", "InfoWars" with "Fahrenheit 911", and "Hunter" with "Jenna", and we're basically back in 2005.

Except you can't really. Was Jenna's DUI news? Of course. Was it the subject of a special counsel investigation, congressional hearings, endless TV coverage? No. It lasted for a few days or weeks (I don't recall) but then the next thing came along. The republicans have been going after Hunter for 5 years. They're working on their second Hunter Biden related impeachment.

(Let's do the Hunter/Jenna substitution thing: did a member of Congress show nude photos of Jenna in a public hearing about her substance problems? No, there were no such hearings.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Oh, right, I forgot, both sides. Got it.

"Let's get to the root of why someone pointing out that issues exist across the political spectrum bothers you"


I mean seriously...90% of the threads and posts on here are done with an overtly one-sided slant to them. I give a "both sides" treatment in 5% of them, and that's the aspect we're going to fixate on?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Um, to my recollection most if not all of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff you're trying to conflate with what the Reps\Right are doing to Biden came from the right, not "Democrats" or "The Left." That's not the same at all. There were no Democratic lawmakers holding hearings and press conferences claiming to have evidence that Bush orchestrated the attacks and then talking about Jenna Bush and demanding she come and testify before Congress. His daughter was a bit of schadenfreude, but no one was trying to say that her issues with DUI's or whatever it was (don't even remember) somehow proved that Bush was the mastermind of 9/11 for political reasons.

If you look at the Washington post link I provided...it was mostly from Democrats for that one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/10/false-toxic-sept-11-conspiracy-theories-are-still-widespread-today/

It didn't start to get "closer" in terms of the numbers until 2016 when Trump started his own fresh round of "Bush Bashing"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The 9/11 truther nonsense was just that, and so was the Birther nonsense that followed. The "Bush inside" version of the 9/11 conspiracy and Birtherism were larger than one would like, but confined to the more fringe part of each opposition coalition. No prominent opposition politicians were involved. (Well, except for the TV business guy. What became of him?) In both cases the conspiracy wound up fairly early in the administrations so they cooked for a long time.

If you look at the WaPo link I provided in my last reply to the other user, it wasn't just "the fringe"

It was something nearly 50% of democrats entertained in the early-mid 2000's.

And it wasn't just people, there were some politicians on the democratic side who got on board with it.

Either overtly (like Cynthia McKinney), or indirectly like when then-DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe and this list of prominent democrats attended a special screening of Fahrenheit 9/11 and praised the movie (it was a former Clinton WH secretary who organized the event)

In addition to McAuliffe, other Democrats at the Washington screening included Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, Montana Sen. Max Baucus, South Carolina Sen. Ernest Hollings, Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, New York Rep. Charles Rangel, Washington Rep. Jim McDermott, and others.

A Senate Minority leader attending conspiracy movie about 9/11 would be right on par with if Mitch McConnell attended a premier of an anti-Fauci conspiracy movie.


So there has been a pattern of escalation happening where it's become increasingly more "socially acceptable" to publicly embrace wild theories about the other team's quarterback, so to speak.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you look at the WaPo link I provided in my last reply to the other user, it wasn't just "the fringe"

It was something nearly 50% of democrats entertained in the early-mid 2000's.

I saw your plots earlier (thanks, I couldn't open the WaPo piece) and I'll comment on them directly a bit later.

And it wasn't just people, there were some politicians on the democratic side who got on board with it.

Either overtly (like Cynthia McKinney), or indirectly like when then-DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe and this list of prominent democrats attended a special screening of Fahrenheit 9/11 and praised the movie (it was a former Clinton WH secretary who organized the event)

In addition to McAuliffe, other Democrats at the Washington screening included Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, Montana Sen. Max Baucus, South Carolina Sen. Ernest Hollings, Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, New York Rep. Charles Rangel, Washington Rep. Jim McDermott, and others.

This is disturbing. How dumb were they?

A Senate Minority leader attending conspiracy movie about 9/11 would be right on par with if Mitch McConnell attended a premier of an anti-Fauci conspiracy movie.


So there has been a pattern of escalation happening where it's become increasingly more "socially acceptable" to publicly embrace wild theories about the other team's quarterback, so to speak.

I have a very simple rule about Michael Moore: If he's a guest, I ain't watching it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is disturbing. How dumb were they?

I would normally say it's evidence of a "dumbing down", but I think it's something else... I think is a willingness to embrace any old thing that allows one to claim the worst about their opponents.

I'm still not convinced that majority of people actually truly believe the conspiracy theories they espouse. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I don't think the majority of people can be that dumb.

To me, claiming that Bush was in on 9/11 and claiming Obama's a secret Kenyan socialist who wasn't really born in the US are equally ridiculous, and I don't think that most people actually believed any of those things were true.

To me, both of those scenarios exemplify what happens when "sour grapes because my guy lost" meets "grasping at straws"

 

[Ana the Ist]

Self-victimization but they are a better lot than the Muslims for they demand that we die for their beliefs.

Well I don't know if they're better or worse....the left may have decided that these characteristics are super important and moreover, there's a correct way of engaging with these various identity groups....depending on which group you're in yourself...which you can or cannot choose to be in...depending upon the group....

I wouldn't know.

I try my hardest not to judge people on these superficial characteristics which lack any objective significance.

As I said, no real internal framework exists for anyone to refer to. I suppose the organizing principle is a two step process wherein victim hood is claimed, and whichever group is believed the most in regards to that claim, they decide what sort of prizes they should get for playing the game. Then they find out that whatever prizes they want are typically not attainable because of "reality", or the US Constitution, or people unwilling to give up their prizes for anyone else.

But hey....that's just how it looks from the outside. Maybe once you're inside...it doesn't look as miserable as it does all the time.

I've come up with a plan to become the de facto moral authority/and most oppressed person ever....it's called "reincarnation" and "past lives" and I'll explain that although I may look like a straight white male....I can remember all of my thousands of past lives as extremely oppressed people, and hundreds of lifetimes of lived experiences, granting me unprecedented and unassailable moral authority in which I will decide on the goodness of my actions and beliefs and the badness of everyone else's. I have multiple past lives that were trans....so I'd appreciate everyone's affirmation (compliance/conformity) of my beliefs. My pronouns are Pharoah/Csar/Emperor/Great One.

Any doubts about the truth of my identity are genocide and should not be spoken.

At one point Magadonians were hyping Ivanka for president 2024 (predicated on her daddy having won 2020).

Magadonian is a good one. Did you come up with it or hear it somewhere?

Hunter Biden at that time was a drug addict at the nadir of his addiction. He never held any office.

And yet, some also believe he was able to perform legal services for a foreign energy company in an extremely corrupt nation.

Not an impossibility or anything...but certainly cause for investigation since there's various bits of evidence suggesting that Joe was paid off for certain policy decisions he admitted to pushing.

Now, I'm aware that the current rhetoric to excuse that abuse of office for profit...is that it was a part of some long term policy goal of reducing corruption in the Ukraine. Unfortunately, I still have a functioning brain...and I'm aware that the exact same guy (Biden) and his administration are demanding billions more in aid be given to the Ukraine right now, in spite of the fact that they believe the Ukraine is extremely corrupt and multiple officials are likely stealing that aid....

Leaked U.S. strategy on Ukraine sees corruption as the real threat

A report obtained by POLITICO details specific plans to reform Ukrainian institutions and warns Western support may hinge on cutting corruption.

www.politico.com

So the exact same guy who withheld billions in military aid for the Ukraine back when he was VP....wants funding for military aid in the Ukraine to the tune of billions more despite the fact that they're still extremely corrupt and likely stealing aid?

Taking the measure of corruption in Ukraine

The fact that corruption is a major topic right now is a bad sign for Ukraine’s supporters.

www.politico.com

I'm sure you and every other Biden supporter...or at the very least someone within the Party....has a totally believable explanation why the only person we have demanded the Ukraine fire or else we would withhold aid, is a prosecutor we thought was guilty of the crime of not prosecuting corruption fast enough...

Not that he was corrupt and suspected of stealing our taxpayers' dollars....but he just wasn't prosecuting enough corrupt people quickly.

Anything unique about Shokin that merits this unique demand and threat to withhold aid? I mean, there's the obvious reason that he was aggressively cutting into Hunter Biden's piggy bank that goes by the name Burisma....but I know you and many others reject that reason because you were promised that wasn't the reason....and if Moses was still around he would agree that God probably meant to include another amendment l that said "So what if thy officials are obviously corrupt? Deny Accuse Reverse Victim/Offender."

I'm equally sure that any day now....whomever on the left who knows the reason why Shokin was treated so vastly differently from every other official who failed to go after corruption at the speed that billions in aid requires.....any day now, that reason will be revealed to be something other than bribery.

 

[USincognito]

You are hoping Joe Biden pardon's his son for crimes?

You focused on the wrong part of that sentence, and probably the first sentence too.

 

[KCfromNC]

"Let's get to the root of why someone pointing out that issues exist across the political spectrum bothers you"

I've mentioned why several times before - mainly just laughing at how wacky the comparisons have to be to try and sell the story that the Democrats are just as bad as a party whose current leadership actively supported an attempt to violently overturn the results of a fair and legal election they lost.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I think 17 years in prison for what Hunter is accused of. Is extreme, If he wasn't the president son. He would have been offered a plea deal. And took it. Basically a slap on the hand.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I think 17 years in prison for what Hunter is accused of. Is extreme,

I understand the federal guidelines would call for much less in his case. The 17 is pretty theoretical.

 

[SimplyMe]

“First of all, my son has done nothing wrong,” Biden said when asked about his son in an interview with MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle that aired Friday night. "I trust him. I have faith in him.”

Biden defends son, Hunter Biden, in first interview since announcing his reelection bid

In his first one-on-one interview since announcing a 2024 reelection bid, President Joe Biden rejected concerns over his age.

www.usatoday.com

"Look, my son did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong," he said on stage. "I carried out the policy of the United States government in rooting out corruption in Ukraine. And that's what we should be focusing on. And what I wanted to make a point about -- and my son's statement speaks for itself. He spoke about it today. My son's statement speaks for itself."
After the federal investigation into Hunter Biden became public last December, President Biden said is "proud" of his son and "confident" he did nothing wrong.

What to know about Republican allegations, evidence in the Biden impeachment inquiry

A closer look at some of the specific allegations levied by House Republicans in their impeachment inquiry against President Biden.

abcnews.go.com

So you are using an article from May to make claims that Biden said it about the current charges? Not exactly honest. As for the quotes, it appears to be about the financial claims of Republicans specifically, and not about the tax or drug charges that Hunter is facing. We also know that Pres. Biden has talked about Hunter's issues with addictions and trying to get him help, so it doesn't make sense that the quote applies to Hunter's drug issues (or the tax issue).

 

[DaisyDay]

Well I don't know if they're better or worse....the left may have decided that these characteristics are super important and moreover, there's a correct way of engaging with these various identity groups....depending on which group you're in yourself...which you can or cannot choose to be in...depending upon the group....
I wouldn't know.

And yet ...

I try my hardest not to judge people on these superficial characteristics which lack any objective significance.

Are you successful at that?

As I said, no real internal framework exists for anyone to refer to. I suppose the organizing principle is a two step process wherein victim hood is claimed, and whichever group is believed the most in regards to that claim, they decide what sort of prizes they should get for playing the game. Then they find out that whatever prizes they want are typically not attainable because of "reality", or the US Constitution, or people unwilling to give up their prizes for anyone else.
But hey....that's just how it looks from the outside. Maybe once you're inside...it doesn't look as miserable as it does all the time.
I've come up with a plan to become the de facto moral authority/and most oppressed person ever....it's called "reincarnation" and "past lives" and I'll explain that although I may look like a straight white male....I can remember all of my thousands of past lives as extremely oppressed people, and hundreds of lifetimes of lived experiences, granting me unprecedented and unassailable moral authority in which I will decide on the goodness of my actions and beliefs and the badness of everyone else's. I have multiple past lives that were trans....so I'd appreciate everyone's affirmation (compliance/conformity) of my beliefs. My pronouns are Pharoah/Csar/Emperor/Great One.
Any doubts about the truth of my identity are genocide and should not be spoken.

Not very clever but extremely hackneyed.

Magadonian is a good one. Did you come up with it or hear it somewhere?

Neither, it is from Mr Magadonian himself:

Are you a Magadonian?

And yet, some also believe he was able to perform legal services for a foreign energy company in an extremely corrupt nation.

I don't know for sure, but I believe he may have had staff that could research. He was a lawyer at the time. What were the terms of his contract in that regards?

Not an impossibility or anything...but certainly cause for investigation since there's various bits of evidence suggesting that Joe was paid off for certain policy decisions he admitted to pushing.

Various bits...it would help if there was some better evidence than him lending money to family members and being repaid. And a C-Span clip of him bragging about his successful gambit in getting Shokin fired.

Now, I'm aware that the current rhetoric to excuse that abuse of office for profit

Oh look how you tried to slip in your opinion as fact! Removing Shokin from office was one of the policy goals - as you already well know.

...is that it was a part of some long term policy goal of reducing corruption in the Ukraine. Unfortunately, I still have a functioning brain...and I'm aware that the exact same guy (Biden) and his administration are demanding billions more in aid be given to the Ukraine right now, in spite of the fact that they believe the Ukraine is extremely corrupt and multiple officials are likely stealing that aid....

It is sophistry to pretend that circumstances have not drastically changed. It really is not honest.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/02/biden-admin-ukraine-strategy-corruption-00119237
So the exact same guy who withheld billions in military aid for the Ukraine back when he was VP....wants funding for military aid in the Ukraine to the tune of billions more despite the fact that they're still extremely corrupt and likely stealing aid?

Corruption is an ongoing problem which has been dwarfed by Russia's invasion and massive destruction of Ukraine.

https://www.politico.com/newsletter...the-measure-of-corruption-in-ukraine-00119488
I'm sure you and every other Biden supporter...or at the very least someone within the Party....has a totally believable explanation why the only person we have demanded the Ukraine fire or else we would withhold aid, is a prosecutor we thought was guilty of the crime of not prosecuting corruption fast enough...

I'm sure that you have evidence that Shokin was the only prosecutor in Ukraine that the US and all had fired for corruption or you wouldn't have made such a claim, right?

Not that he was corrupt and suspected of stealing our taxpayers' dollars....but he just wasn't prosecuting enough corrupt people quickly.

I believe it was more that he was protecting bad actors, but sure, show me that the policy was to fire those not prosecuting fast enough. That was part of the corruption.

Anything unique about Shokin that merits this unique demand and threat to withhold aid?

He was in charge, head of the prosecutors. You write as though Ukraine had only one guy working as the prosecutor for the whole office.

I mean, there's the obvious reason that he was aggressively cutting into Hunter Biden's piggy bank that goes by the name Burisma....but I know you and many others reject that reason because you were promised that wasn't the reason....and if Moses was still around he would agree that God probably meant to include another amendment l that said "So what if thy officials are obviously corrupt? Deny Accuse Reverse Victim/Offender."

What evidence do you have that Shokin was aggressively pursuing Burisma and what Hunter Biden had at stake? The timeline does not seem to pan out in your favor.

I'm equally sure that any day now....whomever on the left who knows the reason why Shokin was treated so vastly differently from every other official who failed to go after corruption at the speed that billions in aid requires.....any day now, that reason will be revealed to be something other than bribery.

Whoever, not whomever - hint: substitute "him" for "whom" and "he" for "who". "Him on the left knows..." or "He on the left knows.." I love how sure you always seem to be on what I know or think and the precise reasons why, all without ever asking.

You have not shown that Shokin was in fact treated vastly differently from every other corrupt official.

 

[stevil]

You focused on the wrong part of that sentence, and probably the first sentence too.

I expect that if Hunter gets sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence that Joe probably will pardon him.
This is a big thing that I don't like about USA political system, that the President has so much unilateral power. It is very open to being used in a corrupt way.

D Trump used his pardon power to pardon those elite powerful millionaire friends of his, those that either stone walled investigations into him, or those that could provide benefits to him in future. Or pardoned people that were important or related to some of his elite powerful millionaire buddies. Gross misuse of pardon powers. In the final days it was even reported that Trump and Giuliani had a Pardons for sale scheme going.

Bill Clinton pardoned his brother.

 

[USincognito]

I expect that if Hunter gets sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence that Joe probably will pardon him.

Assuming Hunter gets any meaningful period of incarceration, I suspect he might to save his life ot to help him maintain his sobriety.

That said, my point was more about the reaction of the American conservative angertainment complex that I collectively refer to as the Conservisphere losing their hive mind after a pardon.

This is a big thing that I don't like about USA political system,

Look this has annoyed me for a long time and I get that you're one of these non-Americans who simply cannot bring yourself to use the demonym of Americans as an adjective, but please use proper American grammar while refusing to use our proper demonym as an adjective

It's "the U.S. government" or "U.S. military policy" or "people from the U.S.".

Trust me. No one is going to be confused if you correctly use the correct demonym "American" as an adjective citizens of the U.S

(Sorry about the formatting. CF apparently hates my phone.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Neither, it is from Mr Magadonian himself:

Are you a Magadonian?

we look for things. Things that make us go. we are strong.

 

[stevil]

Assuming Hunter gets any meaningful period of incarceration, I suspect he might to save his life ot to help him maintain his sobriety.

That said, my point was more about the reaction of the American conservative angertainment complex that I collectively refer to as the Conservisphere losing their hive mind after a pardon.

Look this has annoyed me for a long time and I get that you're one of these non-Americans who simply cannot bring yourself to use the demonym of Americans as an adjective, but please use proper American grammar while refusing to use our proper demonym as an adjective

It's "the U.S. government" or "U.S. military policy" or "people from the U.S.".

Trust me. No one is going to be confused if you correctly use the correct demonym "American" as an adjective citizens of the U.S

(Sorry about the formatting. CF apparently hates my phone.)

Americans are from Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Bolivia, Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Paraguay, Uruguay, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Suriname, ... and the list goes on.

It would be awkward if England and Ireland and Wales had decided to call themselves the United States of Europe and decided to shorten that to just European and then complain that the French, the Germans, Finland, Denmark, Greece go around calling themselves Europeans.

 

[Tinker Grey]

we look for things. Things that make us go. we are strong.

We're allowing Pakleds on these boards now?

 

[DaisyDay]

Assuming Hunter gets any meaningful period of incarceration, I suspect he might to save his life ot to help him maintain his sobriety.

That said, my point was more about the reaction of the American conservative angertainment complex that I collectively refer to as the Conservisphere losing their hive mind after a pardon.

Look this has annoyed me for a long time and I get that you're one of these non-Americans who simply cannot bring yourself to use the demonym of Americans as an adjective, but please use proper American grammar while refusing to use our proper demonym as an adjective

It's "the U.S. government" or "U.S. military policy" or "people from the U.S.".

Trust me. No one is going to be confused if you correctly use the correct demonym "American" as an adjective citizens of the U.S

(Sorry about the formatting. CF apparently hates my phone.)

Not sure about your ill-formatted tirade, but "USA" is shorter to type, so....