Legal scholar Jonathan Turley pointed out how Hunter Biden’s latest interview pokes holes in one of his legal defense arguments.
Axios on Monday Interview published The eldest son connected the fight for sobriety to the future of American democracy and helping his father, President Joe Biden, defeat Donald Trump.
“The most important thing is that you have to believe that you’re worth the work. If you don’t, you’ll never get out of sobriety. But I’m here to explain the serious consequences of failure. I think about the consequences a lot,” Hunter said of his sober state. “I have something much bigger than myself at stake. We are in a battle for the future of our democracy.”
According to Axios, Hunter identified May 17, 2019 as his “first sobriety date.”
But this comes as Hunter’s lawyers prepare to keep him out of prison after he was charged with felonious use of a firearm for allegedly falsely identifying himself as a drug user on federal documents. This is a problem for the defense of
Thali explained:
But this admission reaffirms what has long been known. Hunter’s recovery came long after he signed his application. The Firearms Transaction Record, ATF Form 4473, specifically asks if you are an illegal user or addict of meth, narcotics, or other controlled substances. He replied that it wasn’t. The date was October 12, 2018.
Previously, Hunter’s advisor was [Abbe] Lowell argued for the defense that this statement was true because Hunter may have been sober at the time. “I don’t think there’s any evidence that he was suffering at the time he bought this gun,” Rowell said. Lowell said Biden was already out of rehab when he signed the papers.
To make matters worse for Hunter, Mr. Turley predicted that special prosecutor David Weiss might use Mr. Hunter’s interview and confession against him.
“It would not be surprising to see this interview included in the government’s filing as the court considers the defense’s pretrial motions,” Turley wrote.
Hunter has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Hunter’s attorney, Abby Rowell, twice asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit. are discussing His client is the victim of politically tainted “selective prosecution.” Furthermore, Mr. Lowell claimed The prosecution is unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment.
But Weiss rejected Lowell’s claims about selective prosecution as a “conspiracy theory.”
“While leaving behind an inconvenient truth that attempts to explain why something like this could happen under the Biden administration, the defendants suggest that sinister motives lurk deep within the Department of Justice,” Weiss said. he said. I have written In a court filing last month. “This theory is fiction created for Hollywood scripts.”
“The charges in this case were not trumped up or the fault of former President Trump, but rather the result of the defendant’s own choices, and were brought in spite of, rather than due to, outside noise from politicians. Yes,” he added.
Do you like Blaze News? Avoid censorship and sign up for our newsletter to get articles like this delivered straight to your inbox. Register here!
