First let me say I think this case is kind of petty considering everything else he and his family look to have been involved in but the law is the law. With the overwhelming evidence against Hunter it should be a easy guilty verdict but when it comes to Democrats being held accountable for their law breaking it doesn't ever seem to happen.
Does A Delaware Jury Acquit Hunter?
- Thread starter 2012Bearcat
- Start date
Unless there are 12 conservatives on the jury, the best you’ll get is a mistrial due to impasse. If you have a mix of democrooks and RINOs, with no actual conservatives, acquittal is a certainty.
Or maybe "unusual."
Or do you not want to use that word because the defendant in this case happens to be a Democrat?
I think Hunter Biden will be found guilty. However, I don't believe this case is the slam dunk you think it is Bearcat. I wouldn't be absolutely shocked if Hunter Biden was found not guilty or there is a hung jury.
And it has nothing to do with the jurors being Republican or Democrat.
What's not a "slam dunk" in this case if it were Don Jr on trial?
I would make the same claim if it was Don Jr. too.
I think it's petty because it's a meaningless BS crime compared to the crimes the DOJ allowed the SOL to expire.
Again it's pretty much open and shut, Hunter has been proven to be doing and addicted to drugs at the time he purchased the gun, he signed the form and checked off he wasn't. That is the crime and it has been proven in court All that remains is the jury going to convict based on the evidence or acquit based on politics or other factors.
Most people in Dim Delaware said when asked if they knew what the trial was about they said Cocaine.
Another Dim gets a slap on the wrist. Book it.
Another Dim gets a slap on the wrist. Book it.
So not unusual?
There just aren't too many "slam dunk" jury trial cases, not too many "open and shut" jury trial cases. There is usually some valid reasons why a case even reaches the jury stage and those reasons usually keep the case from being declared an open and shut case. And this isn't even taking into account the nature of jury verdicts.
Also, if this jury does acquit, it doesn't automatically mean the jury did so based solely on politics or other factors. I know this is what you want to believe because of your political partisanship, but it just isn't true.
Last edited:
Did Hunter break the law or not? I know you lawyers like to play your games but the law is clear and the evidence is overwhelming.
We don't know yet. The jury hasn't reached their verdict.
LMAO. No 2 Cents we know Hunter broke the law, the jury in this situation is there to decide if he is held accountable for it or not.
Wrong. The jury is there to determine guilt. The jury is there to determine if Hunter Biden broke the law.
You either have serious misunderstandings of our legal system or you desire to destroy certain legal principles we cherish in this country.
LMAO, not if they don't convict him. Hunter is guilty as hell no matter how you want to spin it.
The rule of law is a fundamental principle of the United States Constitution and American society. It's a bedrock concept that's evident throughout the Constitution and is considered the first principle on which the American legal and political system was built. That is unless you are a Democrat, then that principle is out the window.
Last edited:
I checked with my lawyer buddies. Bearcat nails it. my_20mils provides good laughs for my buddies. Law buddies would like to know if 2cents is a Cowboy. They hope he ain't no Sooner.
I'm not spinning anything. I am simply saying that a citizen of this country is not guilty until a jury finds him/her guilty. It is that simple.
I've stated that I think Hunter Biden will be found guilty but until he does, he isn't guilty.
You are the one throwing the principle of the rule of law out the window, not Democrats. You are the one attacking a fundamental principle found in the United States Constitution, not Democrats. You are attacking and questioning the jury system. I am not.
I fully support our legal process and the jury system. I believe it the jury that decides guilt. I accept jury verdicts, even if I may disagree. You don't. If a jury doesn't do what you want, especially concerning Republicans and Democrats, you attack the jury, attack the system, attack the rule of law.
You are the one throwing constitutional principles out the window. And this is evident with every post you make concerning our legal system.
Honestly surprised the jury came back with a guilty verdict.
Me too. My guess, the people of Delaware have become fed up with the Bidens, much like the people of Louisiana eventually had enough of Edwin Edwards. Never thought he’d get convicted in Louisiana, not even in federal court.
Not me . . .
No man is above the law in this country. Including a former President and the son of the current President.
What a great country we live in!
Or perhaps the jurors just set aside their political opinions and did their job. Just as the jurors did in New York City.
The jurors were not being asked to politically vote for Hunter Biden or even Donald Trump. They were asked to determine legal guilt, which they did in both instances.
Yeah, his brother's widow's testimony was kind of damning, plus the physical evidence.
It is truly sad where politics have ended up. Everywhere you look there is a new cesspool.
LOL NYC that was convicted before the trial, that will so get over turned.
That's debatable and only because the judge was such a political hack. That case will be overturned eventually. Once it is I wonder if Trump can sue New York for wrongful prosecution.
Politics is politics and really, not much has changed with our politics over the years.
And yes, there are some cesspools. But those aren't just found in politics.
See, you just can't admit that both men are guilty and that no man is above the law, can you? Have to defend Trump and act like he really isn't guilty lol! Trump was no more convicted before the trial than was Hunter Biden.
What is the legal grounds for why you believe Trump's conviction will be overturned?
No, it's not debatable. It is only debatable when you are a political hack like yourself.
I've been telling you for sometime now that no man is above the law in this country, and you now see that. Both a former President and the son of a current President have been found guilty of breaking the law. Neither were above the law. Our legal system and process works.
No it won't.
But I'll ask you again another question you have yet to answer. What is the legal grounds for why you believe Trump's conviction will be overturned?
I have not defended trump one bit. I simply said it will be overturned. Nice try of putting words in my mouth.
Yes, you did . . .
Your own words.
What is the legal grounds for why you believe Trump's conviction will be overturned?
CNN just interviewed juror #10 in the Biden trial. Good stuff in it.
Politics was never brought during the deliberation.
First vote was 6-6, Then 11-1 and finally 12-0
One juror thought the trial was a waste of money and time.
I will link the audio when it is up.
Politics was never brought during the deliberation.
First vote was 6-6, Then 11-1 and finally 12-0
One juror thought the trial was a waste of money and time.
I will link the audio when it is up.
Sure it's debatable. From reports the Judge's jury instructions were at best misleading and lacking. If that is true how could the jury do their job with BS jury instructions?
Example: instructed them that it is unlawful for a person to “willfully” make or cause the making of contributions that exceed FECA limits. (Jury Instructions at pp. 31, 44.) But he hasn’t instructed them on what “willfully” means.
For someone insistently determined to point out the legal definitions of words are often misunderstood I would think this would be a glaring issue for you. Strange how it's not now.
Plenty of legitimate legal experts out there disagree with you and say the verdict will be overturned. What exactly those grounds are I'll leave up to those experts.
But I will remember you said this case will not get overturned.
That's interesting.
And that juror was able to set aside this opinion and make a ruling on the law. This juror was still able to find Hunter Biden guilty. Imagine that?!
An undeniable truth: Trump is not a plantation cracker. Under Trump, more funding went to historically all black schools than any other president. Hillary backing BET CEO said thanks are in order to President Trump. Under Trump all time low unemployment numbers were recorded for minorities.
Trump contribution servers crashed after found guilty in Dimm-run NY. Any questions?
Trump contribution servers crashed after found guilty in Dimm-run NY. Any questions?
By saying he raised 40 mil in 6 hours post conviction. An observation is fawning. Yeah your a Dem. Trying to make something out of nothing. Smoke a bowl
I liked my $1.74 gasoline under Trump and my 20 cent lower priced Planters Redskin legumes.
If cared I would list them. Never voted trump but I will this time.
What reports? Where are you getting this information? Provide some links please.
I haven't seen any legitimate evidence that the jury instructions were "BS." The jury instructions looked rather standard, with some special additions given who the defendant was.
I will say that sometimes, jury instructions can be somewhat confusing for some jurors. That is not all that uncommon.
Why do you cut and paste from sources without citing that source? This quoted portion of your last post came from an opinion piece in the National Review.
But one answer to why this is legally permissible is found in the same article, right after this statement. The author makes light of it (because he is trying to defend Trump), but nevertheless, that legal answer remains.
I have not seen hardly any "legitimate" legal expert claim this verdict will be overturn. In fact, I've seen the complete opposite. Yes, I'm sure there are some right-wing lawyers who have claimed in your right-wing news sources that it will be overturned, but they are just misleading you as usual.
And I'm not shocked, btw, that you can't articulate why you believe the verdict will be overturned. You confidently claim it will be overturned, but can't give us the legal reasons for why you believe this? That says a lot about how you formulate your opinions and why they are so often flawed and wrong.
Last edited:
So all you have is a dodge huh? Can't articulate a legitimate legal ground, just like @2012Bearcat.
Not shocking at all.
Well I'm a libertarian and voted that way for the last 3 elections. I'm not dodging crap. I do not want trump as pres but I would rather have him and his baggage rather than 4 more years of Biden.
Jury instructions issue
Several rightwing pundits, including a Fox News anchor, have incorrectly reported that Merchan told jurors they did not need to be unanimous in finding Trump guilty in order to convict him, NBC News reported.
“Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict,” Fox News anchor John Roberts posted to X on Wednesday. “4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict.”
Roberts’s post has been viewed almost 6m times
Similar threads
