267

Hunter Biden cites Trump ruling in seeking dismissal of gun and tax cases (www.cnbc.com)

submitted 3 months ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 103 points 3 months ago

"Your honor, I'd like to cite 'What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.' for my case."

[-] ceenote@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

But, the good of the scorpion is not the good of the frog, yes?

[-] DrownedRats@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Except any court would reject that outright because you haven't done it in Latin

[-] Restaldt@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

Quid pro.... goosius maximus

[-] ericatty@lemmy.ml 47 points 3 months ago

As he should.

[+] downpunxx@fedia.io 44 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] tetrachromacy@lemmy.world 76 points 3 months ago

Cannon's ruling was that the entire concept of the DoJ appointing a special prosecutor is unconstitutional. Following that same logic, anyone who has ever been the subject of a special prosecutor investigation that was later adjudicated guilty can and should have their convictions thrown out.

That's why Hunter is saying his case should be thrown out. He was investigated by a special prosecutor on behalf of the Department of Justice. That investigator ruled he broke the law when he had the temerity to own a firearm while he was using illegal drugs, and then the case went to court.

Under Cannon's ruling, Hunter has got every right to ask for this. So does Bill Clinton for Whitewater. And the ghost of Richard Nixon for Watergate. Anyone who was ever investigated by a special prosecutor appointed by the DoJ who then faced any sort of legal consequences for their actions can now ask to have their convictions overturned on these grounds.

Cannon's ruling is a pretty intense case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater with regards to judicial procedure, and it's likely to be reversed by the appeals court. On the other hand, her ruling was only meant to delay the trial, which worked flawlessly. When her peers in the appeals court reverse the ruling and remove her from the bench for it or any other reason, look forward to seeing her as a talking head on conservative news networks. She's certainly earned her place there.

[-] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

I may have a flawed understanding, but I think it’s worse than that. She’s actually trying to get the case dismissed completely because of a catch she put in the special counsel stuff. That catch being that the thing that illegal about the special counsel is not the special counsel itself, but rather that the person pursuing special counsel should be an elected official.

Now I think this still does a number on our legal system and I don’t know enough about Hunters counsel here to say if that applies, but this was suggested to her and it’s a way to target throwing out trumps specific case while retaining the right to use special counsel elsewhere.

I wish I were joking but the Supreme Court can and likely will make yet another carve out in the law so that the law can survive but is severely crippled in a way that massively benefits Trump.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Has a special counsel ever been elected before?

[-] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

It’s not that the special counsel themselves is elected, they’re all appointed. But rather that some of them haven’t been elected at any point which is different. Basically she said that the public never chose to give some of these people power at all so they shouldn’t hold any.

It doesn’t make any sense but it doesn’t need to. It just needs to cancel trumps case while keeping a way for special counsel to exist

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

Right? Like she's obviously not allowed to say "This Prosecutor doesn't count" That's... some ol' bullshit

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

You've got to be kidding me lol. Wtf.

[-] nickhammes@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

The best part is if the question goes up to SCOTUS, it might well get consolidated with Cannon's dismissal, and they're considering one legal question in cases against a Trump and a Biden.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago

“No, not like that!” 😆

[-] snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I hope this is just the first salvo the Biden's launch and start using all the ridiculous policies the GOP is setting against them.

I am middle of the road but registered democrat. I vote for who I think will do the best job in local and national elections.

I am partially paralyzed and it takes me 1/2 a day to vote. I will always vote because its all we have imo.

IMO The Electoral college stole the election from Hillary but you don't see her running around like Kari Lake who is acting this way on purpose so if Trump wins, she will get appointed to a good job in his cabinet.

Back to Hillary, She won the popular vote by millions and still lost!

This is what the electoral college did

Back then we had **249,372,406 people over the age of 18. About 80% of them were eligible to vote

That is roughly 200k people. 199,497,924. The point is the amount of popular votes should have been a solid win. Not a landslide but solid.

This makes me very sketched out along with all these new voting districts and restrictions on absentee ballots,

and some states banning giving people in line a bottle of water or food! Google line warming!

What if Biden wins by 2 million? Is that a solid win for Trump???

**Child and Adult Populations 2016

Age 18 and over

United States 249,372,462

[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

Yes, democrats have to win by a landslide in order to squeak out a victory. Meanwhile, republicans can lose over and over and over and still rise to power. No republican has ever entered the presidency by winning the popular vote in my entire lifetime.

[-] SparrowRanjitScaur@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

I'm not sure how old you are, but George Bush won the popular vote in 2004. That was the last time a Republican won the popular vote.

[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

He did not enter the presidency with that election.

[-] SparrowRanjitScaur@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Good point, I misread your original comment.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Culturally speaking we already won, politically speaking, the Right won't take a fucking hint and they don't have to because to Democrats unrigging the game would be as wrong as rigging it in the first place.

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

That is roughly 200k people. 199,497,924.

I think you may have meant 200M, or you have 3 extra numbers and a comma that don't belong lol.

[-] Sasquatch@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago

He meant a period instead of the 2nd comma. 0.924 extra people voted for Hillary

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

Literally Big Dick energy.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

In that Trump is a big dick. It works on multiple levels!

[-] 58008@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

I wonder how many people are doing time right now who should be free on this basis.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Oooh, the redhats aren't gonna like this one.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

This is something his dad should be doing

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 months ago

Hahahaha.

[-] xenspidey@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago

Wasn't that ruling only for POTUS? Like if Biden drone striked a caravan of terrorists and it took out a US civilian on accident he's not facing murder charges.

[-] blinks6517@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago

Now that Trump ruling. The other Trump ruling.

Where Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Mar-a-Lago documents case because the Special Prosecutor was “unlawfully appointed”.

[-] formergijoe@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

Judge Cannon in the classified documents case just threw out the case saying that the DOJ can't appoint special counsel and so Trump shouldn't have been indicted by Jack Smith. Hunter was indicated by a special counsel and so he's trying to say that he shouldn't have been indicted either.

[-] neidu2@feddit.nl 7 points 3 months ago

Not the newest one, it was dismissed on the basis of how the special counsel was appointed.

[-] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The Supreme Court has been upending a lot recently, it's giving me whiplash just keeping up with every decision. As others have pointed out, this is because of how the appointment of the special council was made, which is how Trump's stolen classified documents case was thrown out in court this week. It seems that in the judicial system bending over backwards for Trump, they failed to consider 25 years of precedence and the ramifications to people other than Trump.

[-] xenspidey@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months ago

Sweet, honest question == downvotes. Classic Lemmy

[-] Cadeillac@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Is it though?

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Lolololol.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

No wonder they call him Hunter, shots fucking fired.

this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024

267 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19089 readers

3949 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News