IRS Whistleblowers and Devon Archer - House Oversight

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OK, what does any of this have to do with Joe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:THE CHARGES ARE IN!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.40.0.pdf


(they are all gun related and lying about drug use)

IOW, no one actually gets charged with this unless they are the president's son.

BS.
He lied. And, got the gun. People are prosecuted for this. It is against the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:THE CHARGES ARE IN!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.40.0.pdf


(they are all gun related and lying about drug use)

IOW, no one actually gets charged with this unless they are the president's son.

BS.
He lied. And, got the gun. People are prosecuted for this. It is against the law.

The Second Amendment folks will likely argue on Hunter's behalf on this one, based on the recent SCOTUS ruling.

[Anonymous]

So lame.

I wonder if every red-blooded Republican can swear that they have never fudged anything on any government form? Are they willing to submit themselves and their children to the same standard of justice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:THE CHARGES ARE IN!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.40.0.pdf


(they are all gun related and lying about drug use)

IOW, no one actually gets charged with this unless they are the president's son.

BS.
He lied. And, got the gun. People are prosecuted for this. It is against the law.

People aren't prosecuted for this. Only someone related Sleepy Joe.

[Anonymous]

"I think it's reasonable to presume we have not heard the last of charges," NBC reports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:THE CHARGES ARE IN!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.40.0.pdf


(they are all gun related and lying about drug use)

IOW, no one actually gets charged with this unless they are the president's son.

BS.
He lied. And, got the gun. People are prosecuted for this. It is against the law.

The Second Amendment folks will likely argue on Hunter's behalf on this one, based on the recent SCOTUS ruling.

For lying about being under the influence of narcotics? LOL

[Anonymous]

FWIW, I don't think there are many, if any, Democrats who would disagree with Jamie Raskin:


“We shouldn't take delight in other people's misfortunes. But we have to have a rule of law and when people commit crimes then the consequences follow.”


IOW, you won't see fire breathing circling of the cult wagons to defend Hunter here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:THE CHARGES ARE IN!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.40.0.pdf


(they are all gun related and lying about drug use)

IOW, no one actually gets charged with this unless they are the president's son.

BS.
He lied. And, got the gun. People are prosecuted for this. It is against the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:THE CHARGES ARE IN!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.40.0.pdf


(they are all gun related and lying about drug use)

IOW, no one actually gets charged with this unless they are the president's son.

BS.
He lied. And, got the gun. People are prosecuted for this. It is against the law.

It’s bull sh#t. The form is checked against criminal records. He was never caught with drugs. So there is no evidence. Zero evidence that can be used in a court of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I don't think there are many, if any, Democrats who would disagree with Jamie Raskin:


“We shouldn't take delight in other people's misfortunes. But we have to have a rule of law and when people commit crimes then the consequences follow.”


IOW, you won't see fire breathing circling of the cult wagons to defend Hunter here.

This is the weaponization of the criminal justice system. What was Garland thinking appointing this prosecutor as a special counsel? Why not appoint Rudy? Rudy would have more credibility vs Weiss. Weiss was instructed by Jim Jordan to charge Hunter Biden with something and Weiss did.

[Anonymous]

How quaint

So ya, let's exchange hundreds of counts related to a coup attempt and mishandling of classified materials for some piddly gun charges for someone who isn't even a government official.

No thanks. Hunter can serve time if convicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How quaint

So ya, let's exchange hundreds of counts related to a coup attempt and mishandling of classified materials for some piddly gun charges for someone who isn't even a government official.

No thanks. Hunter can serve time if convicted.

So can anyone who has been charged with a crime just declare as a candidate for office and their case would be dismissed? Or is the exemption from prosecution only for professional politicians? This suggestion is coming from the anti-establishment populists?

[Anonymous]

Exactly.

When Trump was president, the right said he couldn't be criminally charged while in office, it was a political matter that impeachment would handle. But then they didn't remove him from office.

Then, when he is a private citizen, they don't want him charged because he is a candidate for office.

So...when exactly in the GOP's minds, can Trump be charged and prosecuted for his crimes?