A jury has found Hunter Biden guilty on all 3 federal felony gun charges and Glenn is shocked. Is this proof, as the media is immediately claiming, that our court system was right about Donald Trump too? Or is there still reason to be concerned? And will Hunter serve a prison sentence – up to 25 years – or will his father, President Biden, bail him out again? Joe has promised not to…but Glenn wonders if that will change after the election is over. Glenn and Stu also discuss whether this is just the beginning of Hunter’s legal troubles as rumors start to circulate about his art and possible money laundering…
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Well, it's quite a day! In Wilmington, Delaware, a federal jury has convicted Hunter Biden of federal gun charges.
Historic first for the offspring of a sitting president.
His trial had his ex-wife and his sister-in-law, talking about his drug use.
He faces now up to 25 years in prison. He's not been sentenced yet.
So that's what he faces. Up to 25 years, for three charges: Lying on a federal screening form, about his drug use. That is -- I mean, that is -- I think it even says on the form, this is a federal crime of like 25 years in prison.
You don't lie when you're buying a gun.
Don't do it!
Then lying to a gun dealer, and possessing the gun.
Although, first time non-violent offenders typically get shorter sentences. They'll give him his sentence here soon.
STU: Yeah. It's interesting -- about three weeks, they expect this. Three to four weeks.
Now, that sentence is, you know, one of those situations, that, you know, depends on how long it is.
You're right. First time non-violent offenders. The term is usually not too, too long.
If it's anything longer than let's say five or six months. You would assume despite his denials that Joe Biden will pardon him, the second the election is over. Is that your expectation?
GLENN: Yes. Of course he will. Of course he will.
STU: Yeah. I can't imagine he wouldn't. He's been getting his kid in and out of trouble, for the past 30 years.
GLENN: Yeah. Why would he change his -- you know, his parental habits?
STU: Yeah.
New York Times is reporting, that Hunter Biden's team was feeling, they say bullish about a non-guilty verdict before it was delivered.
So this was a surprise.
One of the interesting reactions to this, Glenn. I would love to get your take on this.
Now the left saying, well, I guess we won't be seeing anything about a rigged jury system, anymore. Today.
Will we?
Obviously, referring to the Trump case, when people were saying the -- the system was rigged.
Although, I don't know -- was that your take on that?
Do you think the system was rigged against -- with the Donald Trump verdict?
GLENN: No. First of all. First of all. I would have said, the system is rigged.
When the Justice Department, you know, colluded with the White House.
And came up with some bogus, you know -- bogus plea deal, that nobody in the world, would have ever gotten.
This is -- now, there's no sentence. It says up to 25 years.
There's no sentence, so we don't know.
You know, but it's -- it -- this is normal.
This is the way it works!
Usually, just usually happens to people, much, much faster than this.
And when -- when Donald Trump was at trial, we weren't saying the system was corrupt. We were saying the system in New York City and Washington, DC, is corrupt.
Because just -- because of the voter base. You can't get a fair trial.
If you're Donald Trump.
But that doesn't mean the whole thing is corrupt.
You know, my point is, you have to play ball, the people in power, in New York, want you to play ball.
That's corrupt.
You know, I -- I think generally, we get it right.
STU: Yeah. I think often that happens.
I still think we have the best system out there.
Even though, there are massive problems with it. Specifically, in this case, when it comes to Donald Trump.
In that, I actually have legitimate hope, that the system. The legal system gets the Trump verdict right. Eventually.
Right?
I don't. I think there's a good chance it gets overturned on appeal. The problem with that, though.
Is that the time line of the legal system in our political system, are not -- are not working together.
GLENN: Yes. Yes.
STU: Very well. Unless you happen to be a Democrat.
And of course that is intentional. But I do think that eventually, the court system will probably suss this out.
And I'm not at all surprised that Hunter Biden is guilty in this case. It's pretty blatant. That's overlooking what you just brought up.
They tried to completely brush this under the rug.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: The political system tried to get involved in this. Multiple times.
To make sure this didn't occur.
This he got caught. And so now, we have a jury, who actually does come to the right conclusion here.
Obviously, he was guilty of this. So --
GLENN: Yeah. There's no. You know, they weren't saying, you can't bring up this person, to prove that he was innocent.
This was his gun. That is his signature on the paper, where he lied. That is a huge penalty.
Then when his sister-in-law, lover was found that, you know, that his gun was in the glove box. She went and took it.
In a bag, that had cocaine powder in it.
Threw it into a garbage can, behind a supermarket. She should have been charged, quite honestly, as well.
But she took the gun and threw it into a garbage can. Because she was afraid their kids might find it. Well, so you will let somebody else's kids find the gun?
What are you -- you know, there's no --
STU: Not great.
GLENN: There's no question, that this is exactly what happened.
And you didn't have to make up laws, to say, or -- or skirt around whole sections of the law. To get this.
You're just enforcing the law. What's ironic about this, is dad is such the big anti-gun. You know, throw the book at them forever. You know, if they've ever had a cap gun, in their life. And he's going to end up. I truly believe, he will end up pardoning him.
STU: I think he will as well.
Of course, you know, these penalties are for thee, not for me.
And so all of these hard-core, I'm Mr. Tough anti gun guy. This is the exact type of stuff that happen Joe Biden was pushing for.
Larger penalties for these types of actions. I think the best defense for Hunter Biden. Which they didn't really get into on this trial. Probably will come up on appeal. Is a Second Amendment defense.
I don't think it's a winning defense. But I think it's a good argument. The question itself is not properly represented in our histories and traditions.
GLENN: Whether you're an alcoholic and drug addict, and you can't have a gun if you are.
STU: Right.
Like, if you go back and look at the early machinations of that, there's very much, in our histories and traditions. For example, you go into a bar. They take your gun as you go into your bar, and they give it back to you when you leave.
That type of stuff was common. Going back to the -- you know, when guns were first being buried.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: Typically it was not one of those things where they would do the same thing if you were an alcoholic. You would never get a gun if you were even sober.
GLENN: Yeah. I think you could even make a really strong case for that.
In saying that, you know, I'm -- I'm a recovering alcoholic. Should I own a gun?
You know, it's -- it's the practicing. Are you using drugs, are you using alcoholic.
We could argue about that. And there might be a case to do it.
However the left would not be for that. The left would be for -- for all alcoholics. No matter in recovery or not. Should own a gun.
STU: And all teetotalers as well.
GLENN: Yeah. And all teetotalers, yeah. But that is not what this case is built on.
This case is built on, you lied. On this federal form.
You cannot lie.
Everybody knows that. Everybody knows that.
STU: And it's true. And it's one of those things that I find this case to be the least interesting part of the Hunter Biden saga.
GLENN: Oh, this is -- yeah.
STU: It might not even be a constitutional question. I don't think there's -- he didn't shoot anybody.
Like, there's a lot -- he should have -- he should be -- the law should apply to him. Like they apply to everybody else. Much more interesting is the tax stuff. The financial stuff. And the stuff that ties into international business dealings that seemingly involve many of his family members. Including maybe his dad. Certainly his dad in my view.
Legally, we don't have that approved yet.
But can I ask one other question. This came up when you were gone, Glenn.
And I've been meaning to ask you about this, every second.
Since we talked about this story.
GLENN: I've never had sex with Hunter Biden.
STU: Oh, okay. You cleared it up.
No. This is the story that came out. And I was -- Pat and I talked about it last week.
And we both said on the air. The only person that we know, that can possibly answer this question is Glenn Beck.
The story is from the New York Times. And it's painted as this like, sob story about how we're so mean to Hunter Biden.
Right?
That's the tone of the story.
The headline is Hunter Biden's paintings, not quite the refuge he sought. The president's son started selling his artwork years ago. Drawing potential ethics concerns that were discussed in congressional testimony this year.
And it goes through a very long, you know, feature about his credible painting.
But it gets into details on the finances that I've never seen. Before.
And if you remember, they were talking about these paintings going for $500,000 a pop.
GLENN: Correct.
STU: In testimony, it came out. They found that actually, the most money he made was 85,000 for any of these paintings.
Okay. Which they -- they -- they hilariously say, is not common for a novice painter.
Really?
It's not common for a novice painter to make 500 or $80,000 on a painting.
GLENN: Right.
STU: But they go through the details here, right?
And they say, all in all, the gallery sold about $1.5 million worth of his art. Okay?
Just thrown in there, with no crinkled eyebrows at all from the New York Times. Is Mr. Biden's earnings proved more modest than the early hype had suggested.
He reported $130,984 in gross income from art sales, during the first two tax years, that he was represented by the gallery.
Then they go on, as if it's nothing. But is this the normal arrangement?
$1.5 million in art sales. Only nets 130,000 to the artist.
He's getting eight percent of the sales. Is that even possible?
GLENN: No. No. No. No.
If you are -- if you are bringing something to the table, which he is. He's bringing fame. He's bringing -- people will come to the art show, just to see him.
STU: Right.
GLENN: You can negotiate for a better rate.
Because I was a new artist. I negotiated with my gallery. 50 percent.
They take 50. I take 50.
Because they're doing work. I'm doing work.
Whatever.
And if you're a new artist, you would do that.
He's a new artist, and this guy is bringing a lot to the table. Hunter is. He's bringing not only the art.
But he's bringing I'm the president's son and I'm in the newspaper. All the time.
So people are coming into this guy's gallery.
However, you know, it might be shady. You know, you -- you're -- I don't -- you know, I don't know. If this was somebody who knew Hunter Biden, who he did. And knew that he was on the up and up.
And everything else. He should not get 8 percent. It would be more likely that he would get hmm.
45, 55 percent.
STU: Yeah. Like I can see, you getting a really good deal with the gallery. Because you also are bringing like some level of notoriety.
Right? And he would have a similar deal. But even if he got half of what you got, it would be much, much more than -- than what's reported here in the New York Times.
GLENN: 8 percent. No. That's ridiculous.
That's ridiculous.
STU: Ridiculous.
GLENN: 8 percent is ridiculous.
He obviously -- if that's the real deal. He obviously made it while smoking crack.
(laughter)
That's -- I mean, honestly, that's ridiculous.
