1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • Re: DoJ has a difficult time explaining

    From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Tue Jun 20 19:06:32 2023
    On 6/20/23 6:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
    They have a policy of no misdemeanor deals for drug related gun charges. None.

    Until Hunter.

    That's right. They usually don't bother with charges at all in similar circumstances.

    https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf

    For those denied purchases due to false information on the application
    form, the referral to prosecution rate is 13,000 to 12. (Fiscal year 2017)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 20 16:41:19 2023
    They have a policy of no misdemeanor deals for drug related gun charges.
    None.

    Until Hunter.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 20 17:32:22 2023
    On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 5:06:37 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/20/23 6:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
    They have a policy of no misdemeanor deals for drug related gun charges. None.

    Until Hunter.
    That's right. They usually don't bother with charges at all in similar circumstances.

    https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf

    For those denied purchases due to false information on the application
    form, the referral to prosecution rate is 13,000 to 12. (Fiscal year 2017)

    So let's examine the facts.
    First....Hunter was not denied purchase so he isn't even in that dataset. Second... he took posession of the gun...so his crime is far worse than being denied.
    Third....his drug use and sex trade activities while in possession of the gun is easily proven via the laptop photos.
    So his crime is beyond just lying on his application.
    How many crooks are that stupid?
    And finally, we're talking about a deferral of prosecution which is the Feds admitting they've got the goods.
    But if he's a good boy....we'll let him off. That is against their policy unless you're a Biden.

    But Stephen's all in on a rigged justice system for his party...cuz his party is his god.
    He worships them on bended knee.
    He'd sacrifice his children for them. He'd cut their penis and slash their tits.

    Meanwhile, Jesse was taking a poll....text me if you've been prosecuted on a drug enhanced gun charge and
    had to serve federal time.
    Their texts were blowing up.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 20 17:40:15 2023
    On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:06:37 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/20/23 6:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
    They have a policy of no misdemeanor deals for drug related gun charges. None.

    Until Hunter.
    That's right. They usually don't bother with charges at all in similar circumstances.

    https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf

    For those denied purchases due to false information on the application
    form, the referral to prosecution rate is 13,000 to 12. (Fiscal year 2017)

    Hunter was not denied the purchase.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 20 17:42:25 2023
    On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:06:37 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/20/23 6:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
    They have a policy of no misdemeanor deals for drug related gun charges. None.

    Until Hunter.
    That's right. They usually don't bother with charges at all in similar circumstances.

    https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf

    For those denied purchases due to false information on the application
    form, the referral to prosecution rate is 13,000 to 12. (Fiscal year 2017)

    If that stat is correct, we need better enforcement of the purchase laws we already have,
    not new laws piled on top of old laws, if we aren't even prosecuting the old laws.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Tue Jun 20 19:48:02 2023
    On 6/20/23 7:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 5:06:37 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/20/23 6:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
    They have a policy of no misdemeanor deals for drug related gun
    charges. None.

    Until Hunter.
    That's right. They usually don't bother with charges at all in
    similar circumstances.

    https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf

    For those denied purchases due to false information on the
    application form, the referral to prosecution rate is 13,000 to
    12. (Fiscal year 2017)

    So let's examine the facts. First....Hunter was not denied purchase
    so he isn't even in that dataset.

    True, but he is being prosecuted under the same statute for lying.

    Second... he took posession of the gun...so his crime is far worse
    than being denied.

    No, he had a permit.

    Third....his drug use and sex trade activities while in possession
    of the gun is easily proven via the laptop photos.

    He wasn't on drugs while he was filling out the application.

    So his crime is beyond just lying on his application. How many
    crooks are that stupid? And finally, we're talking about a deferral
    of prosecution which is the Feds admitting they've got the goods. But
    if he's a good boy....we'll let him off. That is against their
    policy unless you're a Biden.

    No, this crime is rarely charged at all.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/legal-experts-say-charges-hunter-biden-are-rarely-brought-rcna90191

    "The federal gun charge, which makes it unlawful for a drug addict to
    possess a weapon, is a rarely used statute that is facing legal
    challenges and has recently been used as a catch-all charge against
    white supremacists.

    Like the gun charge, the tax charges are rarely brought against
    first-time offenders and even more rarely result in jail time, Andrew Weissmann, a former FBI general counsel and NBC News contributor,
    tweeted Tuesday. "This is if anything harsh, not lenient," he wrote."

    Meanwhile, Jesse was taking a poll....text me if you've been
    prosecuted on a drug enhanced gun charge and had to serve federal
    time.

    Their texts were blowing up.

    "Jesse" sounds well-connected with white supremacists with add on
    charges.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 20 18:17:45 2023
    On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 5:48:05 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/20/23 7:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 5:06:37 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/20/23 6:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
    They have a policy of no misdemeanor deals for drug related gun
    charges. None.

    Until Hunter.
    That's right. They usually don't bother with charges at all in
    similar circumstances.

    https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf

    For those denied purchases due to false information on the
    application form, the referral to prosecution rate is 13,000 to
    12. (Fiscal year 2017)

    So let's examine the facts. First....Hunter was not denied purchase
    so he isn't even in that dataset.
    True, but he is being prosecuted under the same statute for lying.
    Second... he took posession of the gun...so his crime is far worse
    than being denied.
    No, he had a permit.

    Illegally obtained. His gun possession was illegal.
    And then he possessed it while engaging in criminal activity which wasn't charged.

    Here's the ATF bragging about their prosecution of cases like Hunters.

    https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/federal-prosecutors-aggressively-pursuing-those-who-lie-connection-firearm-transactions

    Third....his drug use and sex trade activities while in possession
    of the gun is easily proven via the laptop photos.
    He wasn't on drugs while he was filling out the application.

    OMFG....how dense are you? They had him by the balls on very serious charges
    and they didn't even bother with them.

    So his crime is beyond just lying on his application. How many
    crooks are that stupid? And finally, we're talking about a deferral
    of prosecution which is the Feds admitting they've got the goods. But
    if he's a good boy....we'll let him off. That is against their
    policy unless you're a Biden.
    No, this crime is rarely charged at all.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/legal-experts-say-charges-hunter-biden-are-rarely-brought-rcna90191

    Fucking lying ass media.

    https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/federal-prosecutors-aggressively-pursuing-those-who-lie-connection-firearm-transactions


    "The federal gun charge, which makes it unlawful for a drug addict to possess a weapon, is a rarely used statute that is facing legal
    challenges and has recently been used as a catch-all charge against
    white supremacists.

    LoL..... They'll let Hunter walk but gin up BS charges against "white supremacists".
    Wow....

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to ScottW on Tue Jun 20 21:56:20 2023
    On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 9:17:48 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 5:48:05 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/20/23 7:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 5:06:37 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/20/23 6:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
    They have a policy of no misdemeanor deals for drug related gun
    charges. None.

    Until Hunter.
    That's right. They usually don't bother with charges at all in
    similar circumstances.

    https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf

    For those denied purchases due to false information on the
    application form, the referral to prosecution rate is 13,000 to
    12. (Fiscal year 2017)

    So let's examine the facts. First....Hunter was not denied purchase
    so he isn't even in that dataset.
    True, but he is being prosecuted under the same statute for lying.
    Second... he took posession of the gun...so his crime is far worse
    than being denied.
    No, he had a permit.
    Illegally obtained. His gun possession was illegal.
    And then he possessed it while engaging in criminal activity which wasn't charged.

    Here's the ATF bragging about their prosecution of cases like Hunters.

    https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/federal-prosecutors-aggressively-pursuing-those-who-lie-connection-firearm-transactions
    Third....his drug use and sex trade activities while in possession
    of the gun is easily proven via the laptop photos.
    He wasn't on drugs while he was filling out the application.
    OMFG....how dense are you? They had him by the balls on very serious charges and they didn't even bother with them.
    So his crime is beyond just lying on his application. How many
    crooks are that stupid? And finally, we're talking about a deferral
    of prosecution which is the Feds admitting they've got the goods. But
    if he's a good boy....we'll let him off. That is against their
    policy unless you're a Biden.
    No, this crime is rarely charged at all.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/legal-experts-say-charges-hunter-biden-are-rarely-brought-rcna90191
    Fucking lying ass media.

    https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/federal-prosecutors-aggressively-pursuing-those-who-lie-connection-firearm-transactions

    "The federal gun charge, which makes it unlawful for a drug addict to possess a weapon, is a rarely used statute that is facing legal
    challenges and has recently been used as a catch-all charge against
    white supremacists.
    LoL..... They'll let Hunter walk but gin up BS charges against "white supremacists".
    Wow....

    ScottW

    How do we know that Hunter isn't a white supremacist?
    I never heard of him banging black strippers.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed Jun 21 09:22:55 2023
    On 6/20/23 8:17 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 5:48:05 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/20/23 7:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 5:06:37 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/20/23 6:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
    They have a policy of no misdemeanor deals for drug related
    gun charges. None.

    Until Hunter.
    That's right. They usually don't bother with charges at all in
    similar circumstances.

    https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf

    For those denied purchases due to false information on the
    application form, the referral to prosecution rate is 13,000 to
    12. (Fiscal year 2017)

    So let's examine the facts. First....Hunter was not denied
    purchase so he isn't even in that dataset.
    True, but he is being prosecuted under the same statute for lying.
    Second... he took posession of the gun...so his crime is far
    worse than being denied.
    No, he had a permit.

    Illegally obtained.

    It's legal to obtain a gun if you have a permit and he had permit.

    His gun possession was illegal. And then he possessed it while
    engaging in criminal activity which wasn't charged.

    Let me guess: "brandishing"? There's a non-starter. The only victims
    would be people who hacked his laptop to see the photos and the statute
    applies to drug-traffickers or violent criminals during a crime, not Hunter.

    Here's the ATF bragging about their prosecution of cases like
    Hunters.

    https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/federal-prosecutors-aggressively-pursuing-those-who-lie-connection-firearm-transactions

    What a difference the Biden administration makes.

    Third....his drug use and sex trade activities while in
    possession of the gun is easily proven via the laptop photos.
    He wasn't on drugs while he was filling out the application.

    OMFG....how dense are you? They had him by the balls on very
    serious charges and they didn't even bother with them.

    I'm being literal. Why do you suppose a special prosecutor with total independence and originally appointed as US attorney by Trump would
    overlook serious charges?

    So his crime is beyond just lying on his application. How many
    crooks are that stupid? And finally, we're talking about a
    deferral of prosecution which is the Feds admitting they've got
    the goods. But if he's a good boy....we'll let him off. That is
    against their policy unless you're a Biden.
    No, this crime is rarely charged at all.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/legal-experts-say-charges-hunter-biden-are-rarely-brought-rcna90191

    Fucking lying ass media.

    Okay, twitter instead:

    https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1671358113574793216

    "I spoke to multiple former federal prosecutors today. The only one who
    could recall charging the addict-in-possession statute was a prosecutor
    with decades of experience who remembered a lone case from many years ago.

    These charges are rarely brought. If anything, it looks like Hunter
    Biden received harsh treatment.

    Our system isn’t perfect, but it is a testament to the rule of law and
    the Administration’s non-interference in the Justice Department that the President’s son can be investigated, prosecuted, and convicted during
    his father’s term in office."

    https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/federal-prosecutors-aggressively-pursuing-those-who-lie-connection-firearm-transactions

    "The federal gun charge, which makes it unlawful for a drug addict
    to possess a weapon, is a rarely used statute that is facing legal
    challenges and has recently been used as a catch-all charge
    against white supremacists.

    LoL..... They'll let Hunter walk but gin up BS charges against
    "white supremacists". Wow...

    Fixed your ellipse...

    What happens when the statute is declared un-Constitutional? You'll
    throw out the Hunter with the bath water.

    It's quite likely "Jesse's" audience were charged under a different
    statute than Hunter is pleading under.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jun 21 07:57:24 2023
    On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 7:23:00 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    I'm being literal. Why do you suppose a special prosecutor with total independence and originally appointed as US attorney by Trump would
    overlook serious charges?

    Another canard. He was recommended by the State Senators as is norm.
    Two dems.

    Next term Trump will tell them all to f' off.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed Jun 21 10:24:09 2023
    On 6/21/23 9:57 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 7:23:00 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    I'm being literal. Why do you suppose a special prosecutor with total
    independence and originally appointed as US attorney by Trump would
    overlook serious charges?

    Another canard.

    How so? Was he not appointed by Trump? Since there's been no question of
    his independence or accusations of interference, why not answer the
    question?

    He was recommended by the State Senators as is norm. Two dems.

    Next term Trump will tell them all to f' off.

    Yes, Trump's solution to Democrats politicizing law enforcement is to politicize law enforcement.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fascist Flea@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jun 21 16:10:45 2023
    Anyone remember Thing on the Addams Family? It was a disembodied
    hand that seemed to operate as an intact, intelligent being. What we have
    here is a hand that is disconnected from a brain, apparently able to type
    words and sentences that do not originate in reality.

    Yes, Trump's solution to Democrats politicizing law enforcement is to politicize law enforcement.
    A solution that works and is better than no solution at all.

    What's a solution to a nonexistent problem? I'd accept waste of effort,
    mental masturbation, MAGA grievance train - any of those. What's yours?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jun 21 15:56:57 2023
    On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/21/23 9:57 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 7:23:00 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    I'm being literal. Why do you suppose a special prosecutor with total
    independence and originally appointed as US attorney by Trump would
    overlook serious charges?

    Another canard.
    How so? Was he not appointed by Trump? Since there's been no question of
    his independence or accusations of interference, why not answer the question?
    He was recommended by the State Senators as is norm. Two dems.

    Next term Trump will tell them all to f' off.
    Yes, Trump's solution to Democrats politicizing law enforcement is to politicize law enforcement.

    A solution that works and is better than no solution at all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to Art Sackman on Thu Jun 22 09:28:59 2023
    On 6/21/23 5:56 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/21/23 9:57 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 7:23:00 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    I'm being literal. Why do you suppose a special prosecutor with total
    independence and originally appointed as US attorney by Trump would
    overlook serious charges?

    Another canard.
    How so? Was he not appointed by Trump? Since there's been no question of
    his independence or accusations of interference, why not answer the
    question?
    He was recommended by the State Senators as is norm. Two dems.

    Next term Trump will tell them all to f' off.
    Yes, Trump's solution to Democrats politicizing law enforcement is to
    politicize law enforcement.

    A solution that works and is better than no solution at all.

    It's a good reason to vote against Trump. Funny how 'politicization' is
    the worry now that Trump and Barr's back-room dealings are coming to light.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 22 10:25:07 2023
    On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:29:01 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/21/23 5:56 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/21/23 9:57 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 7:23:00 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    I'm being literal. Why do you suppose a special prosecutor with total >>>> independence and originally appointed as US attorney by Trump would >>>> overlook serious charges?

    Another canard.
    How so? Was he not appointed by Trump? Since there's been no question of >> his independence or accusations of interference, why not answer the
    question?
    He was recommended by the State Senators as is norm. Two dems.

    Next term Trump will tell them all to f' off.
    Yes, Trump's solution to Democrats politicizing law enforcement is to
    politicize law enforcement.

    A solution that works and is better than no solution at all.
    It's a good reason to vote against Trump. Funny how 'politicization' is
    the worry now that Trump and Barr's back-room dealings are coming to light.


    It's a tripley good reason to vote against Biden, and almost any other Denocrat.
    I have hope for JFK Jr.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to Art Sackman on Thu Jun 22 12:58:51 2023
    On 6/22/23 12:25 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:29:01 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/21/23 5:56 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/21/23 9:57 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 7:23:00 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    I'm being literal. Why do you suppose a special prosecutor with total >>>>>> independence and originally appointed as US attorney by Trump would >>>>>> overlook serious charges?

    Another canard.
    How so? Was he not appointed by Trump? Since there's been no question of >>>> his independence or accusations of interference, why not answer the
    question?
    He was recommended by the State Senators as is norm. Two dems.

    Next term Trump will tell them all to f' off.
    Yes, Trump's solution to Democrats politicizing law enforcement is to
    politicize law enforcement.

    A solution that works and is better than no solution at all.
    It's a good reason to vote against Trump. Funny how 'politicization' is
    the worry now that Trump and Barr's back-room dealings are coming to light.

    It's a tripley good reason to vote against Biden, and almost any other Denocrat.

    The biggest complaint among Democrats at the moment is that Biden hasn't politicized the DoJ by pushing Garland.

    I have hope for JFK Jr.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/rfk-jr-vaccine-disinformation/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fascist Flea@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 22 11:57:41 2023
    mINE109 wrote:

    I have hope for JFK Jr.
    https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/rfk-jr-vaccine-disinformation/

    The MAGA-nuts believe that whenever a sane person mocks RFKJr,
    that means some "lib's" were "owned".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)