Below is my column in the New York Post on discovery of cocaine on the pouch holding Hunter Biden’s gun. Biden’s team is likely to move to keep the tests out of the trial due to the breaks in custody (it was first thrown into a dumpster and then discovered by a man rummaging through the trash). However, the discovery is the latest setback for the defense team struggling to find a defense to the charges.
Here is the column:
Attorney Abbe Lowell has faced a series of legal blows in his defense of Hunter Biden, but not quite as literal or lethal as what came this week in his client’s gun prosecution.
After Lowell sought to dismiss the federal indictment as a trumped-up political prosecution, the Justice Department lowered the boom and revealed that Hunter’s gun was found in a pouch covered in cocaine. The disclosure is devastating for a defense that Lowell just rolled out late last year.
In October, Lowell argued that Hunter had not lied on ATF Form 4473 when he indicated he was not an unlawful user of, or addicted to, narcotics.
“At the time that he purchased this gun, I don’t think there’s evidence that that’s when he was suffering,” he said.
It was a curious shift, since Hunter, President Biden and the media have repeatedly used his addiction to forgive everything from corruption to influence-peddling. Hunter released a book that had laid the foundation of that defense, and “Beautiful Things” was heralded by many in the press.
Reviews gushed about “an astonishingly candid and brave book about loss, human frailty, wayward souls, and hard-fought redemption.”
The image of a clean, redemptive soul is strikingly out of sync with a gun pouch that was reportedly covered in coke. What is clear is that the sobriety defense now seems as risky as it is implausible.
In the special counsel’s filing, the court was informed that “an FBI chemist subsequently analyzed the residue and determined that it was cocaine. To be clear, investigators literally found drugs on the pouch where the defendant had kept his gun.”
Hunter bought and possessed the Colt Cobra 38SPL revolver for 11 days between Oct. 12 and Oct. 23, 2018.
That possession ended when his sister-in-law Hallie Biden tossed the firearm into a dumpster in Wilmington, Delaware.
Hallie, the widow of Hunter’s deceased brother, had begun a sexual relationship with him and she apparently became concerned about what he might do with the gun.
According to Hunter’s own memoir, that would make the window of sobriety a mere blink in time for a defense.
The defense will likely challenge the admissibility of police testing due to the gun being tossed into the dumpster.
Of course, Lowell can now argue that Wilmington dumpsters are so saturated with cocaine that any item would come out covered in coke.
It is more likely that they will cite the break in the chain of custody as making the test unreliable and prejudicial.
What is clear is that the sobriety defense now may be as risky as it is implausible.
The government could argue that it should be able to use the testing as circumstantial evidence to rebut the claim or even impeach Hunter if he takes the stand (which seems unlikely).
Hunter wrote about being a crack addict and alcoholic throughout this period, writing in his book that at some points he was “drinking a quart of vodka a day by yourself in a room is absolutely, completely debilitating” as was “smoking crack around the clock.”
The most pressing problem is not the government portraying Hunter as Tony Montana from “Scarface,” it’s Hunter himself. He’ll have a tough time changing that story now.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
Let’s get real, if that’s possible here.
*DOJ would not charge other people based on the same set of facts — and indeed had guidelines advising against it
*In response to political pressure, including but not limited to Republican Members of Congress and Trump, David Weiss reneged on a plea deal and decided to charge Hunter with three felonies rather than respect a diversion agreement
*Congress forced this issue by demanding Weiss prosecute more harshly.
The law in question is no doubt broken by tens of thousands of individuals in the Republican American West.
Heavy breathing for the utter normality of hypocrisy.
“NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW”, sayeth Anonymous, over and over.
A specious statement.
@Acromion,
BZZT
You can do a simple google search and you will find that there are people in prison for the same gun charges.
Weiss didn’t renege on anything. Read the court transcripts.
Hunter’s lawyers backed out because they found out that he could still be charged.
Not to mention the Judge’s comments in that she couldn’t agree to it anyway.
So please get your facts straight, or is that you Hunter… trying to sound intelligent?
-G
You’re completely delusional
Lets be honest
The defense told the judge to rip it all up. The “deal” that is. RIP IT ALL UP
Congress forced this issue by demanding Weiss prosecute more harshly.
Separation of powers. Congress has no power to “demand” anything from the Executive Branch.
That’s a pathetic defense.
What Hunter needs to do to get out of this mess, and us too at the same time, is to read my paper about The UNIVERSAL Get Out Of Jail For Free Card!, fire all of his maggot infested brain LIEyers, and then demand that the fake judge supplies him with a written guarantee that he will actually get a fair trial in a rigged up scam we call the legal system!! It will all go away if he does that! Then he will be able to go back to his crack pipes and booze all he wants to and be happy forever!
They found it on the gun case, but an army of Secret Service agents could find out who put the baggy in the cubby next to the Situation Room. Hmm.
@Anon, they found it *in* the gun case.
And they did get prints but tried to make it all go away.
-G
O T
The weather is terrible, but there is a ray of sunshine, and Joe Biden can be thanked. It appears that Democratic Party registration has reached a new low. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4404878-democratic-party-id-voters-new-low/
Sure. Cocaine on the gun. We are supposed to believe this privileged baby was ‘sober’. Spare us, dems. In my neighborhood that would be an instant trip to not just jail, but prison. The Biden admin can bite me. There is nothing that is ‘ok’ about any of this. Media to Senate, we are dealing with a regime, and this election year is going to be unreal. like nothing we’ve ever seen before. If you care about your freedom to live your life, you’d better stand up and be counted right the **** now. I do not accept the ‘new normal’. Bite me.
James,
Well said.
Were it anyone else, we’d be serving time by now.
But Hunter Biden? Oh, no. He is special. He almost gets sweetheart deals if it were not for a sharp judge who had the brains to question the deal. It was so outrageous, once exposed before all to see, Hunter’s own lawyers said to tear it up in an attempt to minimize the damage.
But we are all just supposed to accept the Biden privilege as the new normal while the rest of us would of been charged, convicted and serving time for the same federal crime.
@Upstate
Yes. The line between the elites and the rest of us hasn’t been more clear since the French Revolution. John Kerry, and his, ‘That is a stupid question.’, is all the evidence we need of that. Heaven help me, I voted for that tool, and Obama the first time, because I was opposed to W, and at the time I was not erudite enough to know better. You would think such words coming from the likes of us who have travailed those waters would have impact, but c’est la vie. In the social media age, we are very much asleep collectively.
We carry the torch of freedom and sense; let’s hope we can start or reignite the fires, and I mean inside minds, not the rampant destruction carried out by Antifa and their ilk babies that go home to mommy and daddy after they are done pillaging for the day. This is madness. It would not be possible in anything but a free country, and that is the point they miss, every time.
UpstateFarmer, Kudos to the judge, but The Hunter coverup is dying because both it and the lawfare against Trump are so blatant – people KNOW this is corrupt.
I suspect without the public attention – the Judge would have signed off on Hunters plea Deal.
Though I would note that had the deal actually been the incredible gift that was offered, Hunter would be infront of the house without the oportunity to plead the fifth.
Once you have immunity from further prosecution – you can not take the 5th except for something new.
@John Say …
You would be wrong in thinking the judge would have signed off.
The judge was a Trump nominee.
The issue is that they rolled the dice and caught this judge.
Any other judge would have probably signed it. And you’d be right.
She is the one that there was so much scrutiny.
-G
He will get a pardon.
Yes Anon, he will as his daddy leaves the WH.
Or maybe not.
If he’s not on the ticket… you can bet someone will actually start talking about the 25th Amendment, or if they do manage to impeach him and the public sees and the dots are connected.. he’ll have to hope Kamel Toe does unless she’s out too.
Not on the gun. On the pouch. Where there was no chain of custody.
@Anonymous
Yes, cocaine magically appears on a pouch, because it is such a common substance propagating everywhere; it just falls on stuff, just because. You are a flipping idiot. You are convincing no one of anything. 😛😛 We are all swiping left on your idiocy. And that is totally hilarious to me.
James,
Funny how they are now concerned about chain of custody when it is not about election fraud.
Recall that the gun — in the pouch — was tossed in a dumpster that had who knows what else in it. And, *again*, there was no chain of custody. So no matter how much is entertains you, it’s legally moot. It’s in there to embarrass HB, but all it does is point out that they were never planning to charge him on the gun until the Republicans put pressure on Weiss, or they would have discovered this residue long ago.
Odds are that there’s some cocaine residue on the $ in your wallet.
It’s everywhere – including in the storage cubbies at the WH. Of course, it’s a “mystery” whose THAT is, as well.
Absolutely any of the hookers and drug dealers in Hunter’s pad could have put the coke there.
BTW how is the “chain of custody” disrupted ?
The gun pouch was recovered from FBI agents at Hunter’s residence.
As a matter of law the burden to prove that illegal drugs found in your home are not yours rests with YOU.
While I think that is wrong, that is the state of the law, and it applies to Hunter and hundreds of thousands in prison.
“The gun pouch was recovered from FBI agents at Hunter’s residence.”
It wasn’t. It was found in a dumpster that Hallie Biden threw it into.
And it was just one of his (illegal) guns. The pistol he was waving around in the laptop videos and pictures was a different one.
OT
The World Economic Forum IS organized collusion and unconstitutional communist central planning, imposing the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” unconstitutionally effecting Karl Marx’s motto: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
Jonathan: Well, on to the ongoing trial this week before Judge Kaplan in E. Jean Carroll’s second defamation lawsuit. And to put it mildly it didn’t go well for Alina Habba who is the the attorney representing DJT. Ty Cobb, a former WH counsel for DJT, put it mildly when he characterized Habba’s performance as “embarrassing”.
There were at least 14 occasions when Habba got slapped down by Judge Kaplan. Among other things she made representations without putting on a witness. Slap down! Then on cross-examination of Carroll, Habba tried to Q Carroll about the “believability” of her claims of rape and defamation by DJT. Another slap down! DJT’s liability was already established in the first trial. Then Habba tried to introduce an exhibit that was already in evidence. Another slap down by Judge Kaplan who had to remind her: “Then you don’t have to introduce it. You have to show the exhibit’s that’s already in”.
Habbas’s lack of professionalism was on full display in court yesterday. She doesn’t understand the basic rules of trial practice and court protocols. She didn’t even bother to stand up when addressing the court and referred to Judge Kaplan as “Sir” instead of the required “Judge” or “Your Honor”. Alina is an amateur. Even actors who portray attorneys on “Law and Order” are taught how to address the judge and properly introduce evidence. Alina doesn’t know any of that.
Now if you want to discuss a “Legal Blow”, you should be discussing all the legal “blows” Habba took in court yesterday!
What does this have to do with Hunter Biden?
😂😂😂 You are ridiculous. Do not think for a second you are swaying anyone.
plugs – please stop posting here. Get your rest – you might need to stumble through reading a speech one of these days – if you’re not on “vacation.”
Huh?
What does this have to do with Hunter Biden?
Dennis McIntyre is paid by The Big Guy to come here and serve as Biden’s local version of Saddam Hussein’s Baghdad Bob: “Nothing to see here folks; most transparent presidency in history… move along now and don’t believe your lying eyes about that laptop belonging to The Bagman Formerly Known As The Crackhead Kid.
Dennis/Baghdad Bob is desperate to talk about a female lawyer, Habbas – in a civil case in front of a Trump hating Judge who finds crime where there was none.
Ask yourself why Dennis/Baghdad Bob didn’t want to talk about another female lawyer, Fani Willis, engaged in a massive criminal trial in front of a sympathetic judge, being ordered to appear and explain why she paid a million dollars to a lawyer to screw Trump – and screw her and take her on expensive trips as well.
You would think that Dennis/Baghdad Bob, if he ACTUALLY had standards and ACTUALLY had morals, would make some mention of his fellow Soviet Democrat, that slut Fani Willis, paying her chosen prosecutor a million dollars, much of went back into HER panties at the end of that prosecutor’s Johnson, as well as luxury meals and foreign luxury vacations.
But of course, Dennis/Baghdad Bob is a Soviet Democrat Apparatchik assigned here by Bribery Biden, The Big Guy: which, by definition, means he has no standards nor morals. Mostly, he’s an amateur liar that makes his co-conspirator, Cringe Jean-Pierre, look like a skillful liar.
Dennis you are clueless. The plaintiff goes first.
The defendant is not required to make a case.
You noted that Carrol Testified yesterday – that meant that Trump/Habba have had no oportunity to present Witnesses.
Separately I expect Habba to get slapped alot byu Kaplan – that is her goal. When Kaplan makes a mistake – he risks mistrial, or even a complete reversal. Further Whether you or Kaplan like it or not it is Habba’s job to confront the Judge on ever single even hint of an error.
Failure to do so is malpractice.
Further most of the country knows that Trump’s odds in this court are near Zero. The goal is NOT to win in front of Kaplan.
It is to build a case for appeal. Habba knows that, Kaplan knows that. I would expect relations between Habba and Kaplan to be tense.
Frankly Kaplan has already made a serious mistake. He can take judicial notice of the outcome of the prior case, but HE refused to join the cases originally, so this is a separate case. Kaplan can not preclude Trump from making an actual innocence claim. Yet Kaplan has already done so.
I would further note that it is highly likely that Kaplan is going to bar a great deal of Carrolls public statements on this from being admitted.
But they are absolutely admissible in a defamation case on the issue of Damages.
It is Fiction but there is a great book about a Defamation case in England that addresses this. In the UK – truth is not a defense.
But it is relevant to damages. The Book is QBVII The jury found for the plantiff in the amount of $1.
Carrolls own statements are relevant – because the value of her reputation is relevant. As is the fact that despite her claims to the contrary, she has made herself into more of a celebrity – as well as a public figure. It is trivially arguable that her spats with Trump have made her MORE not less wealthy.
I would further note that the funding of the case is not relevant in court, but it is relevant in the court of public oppinion.
We have a complete left wing nut – please actually read the complete insantiy that Carroll has published.
One who has aged badly and faded from relevance until she made this allegation against Trump.
Making this allegation – which she has offered no proof of, which he story contradicts itself with each telling.
Which she does not know what date, time, season or year the event occured.
This accusation has rejuvenated her carreer and made her a public figure – which significantly raises the bar on defamation claims – which Kaplan fails to grasp.
This is a huge loser case. it will eventually be flushed along with the first on appeal.
My best guess is that at some point the courts will find the opening of a window on the statute of limitations was unconstitutional – as that also takes out the Adams case and several other stupid cases that arose from this “get Trump” nonsense.
“Kaplan can not preclude Trump from making an actual innocence claim.”
He can. This is not a trial about Trump’s innocence or liability, and his liability has already been established. This trial is *solely* about damages.
First even in left wing nut world the case is about liability – do you know what the world means ?
Is Trump responsibple for actual damage to Carrols reputation ? That is liability.
If his remarks are FALSE, AND they have caused ACTUAL HARM, then Trump is obligated to make Carrol whole.
No Kaplan can not. He Chose to separate the cases. Therefore this is a new case – starting from scratch. Carrol is alloud to use the results of the last cas. Kaplan can take Judicial notice of it. But he erred when he refused to start the case from Square one.
As I said this is an independent case, it must start from scratch. Frequently in defamation cases we have cross complaints. Those are supposed to merge into a single Trial. Multiple claims of defamation are supposed to merge into a single Trial.
No Liability has not been established – Even Kaplan’s stupid process makes this about liability.
Regardless, this is an independent case. It is about a completely different set of remarks.
The proper means of dealing with this would have been to deal with it all in a single case. But Kaplan Erred in rufusing to join the cases. He is now compounding the error by pretending that even though he refused to join the cases he does not have to treat them as independent.
The reason for merging the cases is judicial efficiency. But neither Kaplan nor Carrol can throw judicial efficiency out the windows the first time, and then wrap themselves in it the 2nd. That constitutes a long list of legal problems, as well as makign double standards of those on the left clear.
I would further note that TRUTH is ALWAYS a defense against a defamation claim in the US – and even in the UK it is a defense related to liability.
Whether you like it or not this Jury gets to decide on its own the extent to which they beleive Carrols story.
Carrol’s own remarks both since the origianl trial and ones that have subsequently been uncovered undermine significantly her claims.
Kaplan screwed up the original case by barring carrols own statements regarding the events from the Jury. It is likely he will repeat that mistake again. Especially since he got a split verdict then.
Regardless, in addition to deciding if the Trump’s remarks were false – Kaplan chose to make this a new case. It must start from scratch. He can take judicial notice of the prior findings. He can not short circuit due process.
But that is what you left wing nuts have been doing repeatedly.
And you wonder why each indictment of Trump and even each victory you get in court makes Trump stronger and more popular – that is simple – Ordinary people DO NOT BELEIVE YOU.
We KNOW that you left wing nuts living in your bubble beleive that Trump raped Carrol Even though Carrol hereself has variously said it was rape, it was consentual, and there was no sex.
Regardless the criteria for Defamation are:
Is Carroll a public figure ? Arguably she was before this. She certainly made herself one by going public.
The standard for her will not be as high as an elected governemtn official, but she still made herself a public figure.
That means the standard of proof is higher and there is a requirement for malice.
The next issue is is the allegedly defamatory statement one of fact or opinion.
Statements of opinion are not defamatory.
I can say your a perve without defamining you – all insults are not defamation.
If I say “you diddled johnny Doe, in Bergdorfs on July 11, 2001” That would be defamation.
Defamation generally requires the person being accused to have started the exchange.
We tend to frown on bear bating as a means of making Defamation claims.
Carrol made the defamatory claim against Trump. As President he is just about the biggest public figure there is.
Trump is not going to be able to win a defamation case against Carrol – even if he could prove she was lying.
The next issues is the value of The defamed parties reputation.
You can publish encyclopedias of falsehoods against someone who has a reputation as a constant liar.
You can not damage a persons reputation unless they have a reputation.
This is also not a criminal trial where Carrol is merely a witness. It is a civil defamation trial and she is the plantif.
Nor is this a case where Trump sought her out and then defamed her. Carrol brought this before the Public – not Trump.
Everything about Carrols past – all public and private statements – both on this issue as well as even vaguely similar things are all admissible. That FACT that she has accused just about every man she knows as well as many she does not of rape is admissible.
False statements about unrelated matters are also admissible.
Next is the issue of actual harm – the first part of that is does Carrol have a reputation that can be harmed.
The 2nd is was she actually harmed ? Given that Carroll has taken a dead carreer and breathed new life into it – there is no actual harm.
She has profited from this.
And this is just the beginning.
Yet another word vomit that I just scrolled past, noticing the length while not reading any of it. I’m not going to wade through it to find the little bits that might be worth responding to. Ciao.
That sounds pretty normal for you. Ignore the tedious, annoying facts.
Facts can be stated concisely. I’m not ignoring facts; I’m ignoring the contents of his word vomits. The amount that he posts on this site is second only to JT, and on some articles, exceeds what JT has written.
I expect that Hunter Biden will get every single benefit of due process and every oportunity the law allows to thwart his prosecution, to compell due process. To an unbiased judge and an unbiased jury.
But with each revelation the Biden’s are deeper and deeper in a giant hole of their own making.
I am prepared to listen to Hunter claim he was high out of his gourd and not responsible, or that he had kicked Drugs prior sworn false statement in purchasing a gun.
I am prepared to listen to Hunter Challenge the chain of custody of the gun case, or the testing of the labs.
I am prepared to listen to Hunters claims that people are out to get him – in point of fact they absolutely are. But the people “out to get him” have so far given him more benefit of the doubt, more due process than in any case I have ever seen.
And those in DOJ whose actual job is to enforce the law are now under a spotlight and can not anymore get away with the massive improper benefit they have given Hunter.
There is Cocaine residue on the gun case of the gun that Hunter purchased after swearing he was not a drug user and then discarded in the trash. An ordinary person would have been in and out of jail years ago for that crime.
Regardless, none of this is he said, she said of events of 40 years ago.
This is all recent, and it all rests on direct and incredibly difficult to refute evidence that appears to be far beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ordinary people grasp that if Garland was not risking being the only AG in US history to be impeached, that Hunter Biden would be luxuriating on a beech in Maui now, with a Quart of Vodka, a handful of Russian hookers, a kilo of Cocaine, on the phone to russians and Chinese selling “the Big Guy” to the highest bidder.
Ordinary people grasp that if Trump has not offended the left by his existance – there would be no cases against him.
And that DeSantis, Halley, Cruz, Rubio, …. would all face the same insults and the same lawfare if they were the leading republican candidate for president.
I do not need to prove you or Kaplan or the left are wrong about anything – most people already know that.
John Say: I just hope nobody on this blog really believes you know something about the law. Because you don’t. To save space I will only point out your more erroneous misstatements:
1. “Kaplan cannot preclude Trump from making an actual innocence claim”. False. In the first trial a jury found DJT liable for sexual assault and defamation of E. Jean Carroll. Carroll was awarded 5$ million in damages. The second trial going on now is for damages alone. Since the facts are the same DJT cannot raise an “innocence claim” in the second trial. It’s called “collateral estoppel”. Ever heard of it? Probably not.
2. “In the UK–truth is not a defense”. False again. Under UK law (and US law) truth is a defense. See UK’s Defamation Law of 2013. Truth has always been a defense in defamation lawsuits.
I think you would be advised to add a cautionary note to all your comments such as: “I am not an attorney but I pretend to be one on this blog”. Otherwise, you might be charged with trying to practice law without a law license!
Dennis – before you make the categorical statement that “truth is and always has been been a defense to a defamation action in the UK and the USA,” you may want to check out the following link: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2009/04/federal-court-truth-is-not-a-complete-defense-for [privte libel lawsuits] In the case discussed in that article, an email correctly stated that an employee had been fired for padding his expense accounts. Despite the accuracy of that statement, the 1st Circuit apparently ruled that if a malicious motive could be discerned for the statement, a libel judgment could be entered. Based on my memory of torts from law school, formerly, in the UK, truth was not a defense to all libels. It used to be said that “the greater the truth of a statement, the greater the libel.” But English law has, I believe, moved toward out view that truth is almost, but not quite, a complete defense,
Dennis McIntyre aka Baghdad Bob arrived straight from taking a hit off Hunter Biden’s crack pipe to pronounce John Say: I just hope nobody on this blog really believes you know something about the law.
Baghdad Bob, why would anyone believe YOU know anything about the law? Where did you get this cut ‘n paste from? Same neighbor who sent you here to assure everyone that an AR-15 used to shoot a deer would completely destroy that deer, leaving no meat to eat. You got an Internet Law Degree from the same place you studied terminal ballistics?
Do you believe anybody other than a few of your fellow Soviet Democrat police state fascists believe ANYTHING you post? Do you believe nobody ever notices your desperate, sophomoric attempts to turn the focus away stories focused on Bribery Biden’s crime and corruption and that of the rest of the Biden Crime Inc. mob family?
I feel advised to add a cautionary note regarding everything you post: “Dennis McIntyre is a sycophant pathological liar in the service of The Big Guy, Bribery Biden.”
I was most amused by carroll admitting yesterday that she had destroyed evidence. kaplan didn’t care, of course – the sham trial goes on…
It is no uncommon or disrespectful to refer to a judge as “sir” or “ma’am”. They are people.
edwardmahl: It is uncommon and disrespectful to refer to a judge as “sir” or “ma’am”. The proper term is “judge” or “your Honor”. You have obviously not spent much time in a courtroom. Try it sometime. Go down to your local court house and see how attorneys address the judge. You will be surprised and informed. And maybe you won’t get on this blog and embarrass yourself–again!
Dennis – you either do not know what you are talking about, or the courtrooms where you reside (if you are a real person) are quite different from courtrooms in Michigan, and I have been in many of those.
edwardmahl: No, you don’t know what YOU are talking about! Under Michigan’s “Courtroom etiquette” it clearly states: “Address the judge as ‘Your Honor’ or ‘Judge'”…”Stand when addressing the court”. Alina Habba didn’t do either when she addressed Judge Kaplan. Proof positive she is both incompetent and unprofessional. Whether you are in Michigan or NY the same rules apply. I don’t know what courts you have been in but they certainly weren’t in Michigan!
It is interesting – you have jumped from attacking Trump to attacking his lawyers.
People are not stupid – whether it is Trump or Habba, or Thomas, or the next Republican to run for President, Senate or dog catcher,
The objective is to pillory them with insults, to make their life hell, and to send a clear message to all – Do not dare to stand up to those on the left, Because we will make your life H311.
Recently we learned that the FBI was demanding – without warrant of subpeona, records from Big banks of their customers transactions that had tags of Trump, MAGA, Cabella’s, Dick’s sporting goods, as well as terms that would identify catholices and evangelicals.
Nothing like this has ever happened in the US before – the FBI is conducting mass searches without any suspicion with respect to the individuals involved.
Aparently buying a MAGA hat or fishing gear at Cabella’s, or a Bible allows the FBI to investigate you as a potential domestic terrorist.
People are not stupid.
Your tactics are clear.
Your not even covert about it.
Extract a price – even for the private conduct and thoughts of those who disagree with you.
BTW a recent poll found that 25% of people think J6 was a “fedsurection”.
Not a majority but almost 100million people.
John Say: Gee, John, I thought you had a tougher skin. I have not “attacked” Alina Habba–just pointing out here lack of lawyerly professionalism and ineptness in the courtroom. Unlike DJT, I don’t call Alina names like “deranged”, “crooked”, “low-life” or some of the other names DJT uses to refer to Jack Smith, Fani Willis and the judges. I don’t use the adjective “pedophile” like the other Anonymous likes to use in reference to me.
But you seem to have no problem with all that and DJT’s personal attacks. You also have no problem when Prof. Turley calls Hunter Biden a “crack head”. It is DJT, not me, who attempts to “pillory”, to “make life hell and send a clear message to all” his supporters that swatting and death threats are perfectly OK. Seems you have a double standard problem!
Dennis – isn’t Hunter Biden as “crackhead”? It seems to be a fair description. How much coke do you need to ingest, and for how long, before you become a crackhead?
Whatever the amount Hunter has long since surpassed it.
Sec. of Defense Lloyd Austin abandoned his post.