‘Really Astonishing’: Jonathan Turley Says ‘All Of’ Hunter Biden’s Trial ‘Defenses’ Quickly ‘Collapsed’

Daily Caller ^ | June 06, 2024 | JASON COHEN

[kiryandil]

Not wrong based on the old paradigm, just the new one where only being a Democrat is legal.

The "rule of law" coyote versus the Democrat roadrunner.

Beep-beep!

Democrats understand that the "law" doesn't matter.

Only CONTROL of the "law" matters.

Meanwhile, "rule of law" Republicans and conservatives flail about helplessly, wondering what's going wrong.

[kiryandil]

DIY justice from here on out.  

[Ann Archy]

NO....The drug infested jury will vote NOT GUILTY!!

[Ann Archy]

I am SHOCKED by this........Hunter would give his drug dealers and hookers a 5 MINUTE WINDOW to WITHDRAW money from his BANK!! HOW DOES THIS WORK??

He also had no CHECKING ACOOUNT??? What kind of BANK was he dealing with??

[Ann Archy]

HAHAHAHHAHAH!!! One DEMOCRAT??? They are ALL DEMOCRATS!! Good grief!

[hecticskeptic]

“I’m actually hoping the jury acquits him.”
I think that’s the likely outcome.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From an election perspective, Bye-Done should be hoping that they convict young Hunter since it blunts any Trump argument about a two-tiered justice system. After that, he still has the option of pardoning (even though he said he wouldn’t) or coming up with some other scheme to let him skate free or at least nothing worse than a slap on the wrist with a wet noodle.

[Svartalfiar]

So every one of these defenses collapsed shortly after they were stated by the defense. And that leads to this question of why, why isn’t he just pleading guilty? This is an open and shut case,” Turley added.

So the defense is constantly putting up arguments that are getting directly refuted. Opposite of what they claim. Why aren't these lawyers being sanctioned for putting up nonstop obviously incorrect arguments?

[ClearCase_guy]

Seems like a good question.

Not precisely the same thing, but there is a cliche about lawyers — “Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer.” Well, if a defense attorney bases their defense on something like “He didn’t personally fill out that form” and then gets refuted by someone who says “I saw him fill out that form”. And if that happens over and over then it sure seems like the defense is just throwing out crap and hoping something sticks. I would think that the legal infrastructure would stop that and say “We don’t engage in such amateur tactics here”.

[Fledermaus]

Turley is a twit. A plant milking Fox for money.

[Fledermaus]

He lied on the forms

[popdonnelly]

Actually, Turley has been fairly accurate, it’s just that the actions of the Democratic players have been ridiculous.

[Celtic Conservative]

What defense? He lied on the 4473, and that was easily proven.

CC