No. of Recommendations: 7
https://watchingtheherd.blogspot.com/2023/08/despa...A few snippets...
But there are twists. Critics who thought the terms of the plea deal were too lenient on the tax issues fail to recognize the reality that jail terms are exceedingly rare and short in duration for most tax violations, even those involving flat-out failure to file. The IRS just wants its money in most cases. Having tax charges filed as misdemeanor charges is routine. What WASN'T routine about the Hunter Biden plea deal was the term that granted immunity from prosecution of any other tax-related crimes. It isn't clear WHO inserted that clause in the proposed deal. It also isn't clear if that immunity only involved other tax issues IN THE SAME time period or over some wider period of time dating farther back. Given Hunter Biden's well-documented drug and mental health issues, it appears this deal was primarily negotiated as an issue involving someone who was deemed "incompetent" due to extreme drug use -- a condition with which MANY American families are tragically familiar over the past twenty years of the opioid "epidemic."
In that light, providing immunity for other tax crimes during the same period as the alleged offenses makes sense for ALL involved. It reflects the fact that the IRS likely has a clear enough picture of his ACTUAL income during the period to know they now will have collected what was owed to them. If the IRS is comfortable they got their pound of (tax) flesh, then ensuring the entire situation isn't used in teh future as a political football to accuse Hunter Biden of MORE tax issues avoids a waste of DOJ resources. It obviously makes sense to Hunter Biden himself. If the tax immunity extended BACKWARD in time, then the origin of that plea term SHOULD be investigated for possible foul play. There's no reason to surrender the right to prosecute older crimes still within any applicable statute of limitations. If it is found there ARE earlier tax crimes AND someone KNEW about those crimes AND thus lobbied to add that immunity grant, that requires investigation and removal of any parties who participated.
The other twist involves the gun charge. Biden was charged under US Code Title 18, Section 922(g)(3) which states:
(g)It shall be unlawful for any person'- (3)who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
That language in that statute has been generating debate within the federal court system for years and in fact resulted in a Supreme Court decision on June 22, 2022 in the
Bruen case. In an opinion written by Clarence Thomas, the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to carry a weapon for self-defense outside the home, even if the person is a felon.
Given that recent judicial ruling, it seems likely the Justice Department decided the charge might get tossed or overturned at some point anyway and as long as the target participated in a "diversionary program", it didn't merit more prosecutorial time being spent. Any continued attempt by Republicans to make political hay out of a Biden escaping a weapons charge could and should backfire on them spectacularly by simply pointing out the entire charge was ruled an offense to their precious Second Amendment by their patron saint of judicial corruption, Clarence Thomas.
WTH
