Why isn’t anybody surprised that a federal judge would approve the cover up of Hunter Biden’s alleged handgun “infractions.” His “privacy interests” are stronger than a blogger’s right to public information under FOIA.
Hunter’s trashed handgun
Back in 2018, when Hunter Biden was sleeping with his brother’s widow, she got mad at him and tossed a handgun he wasn’t supposed to have in a trash can. Allegedly.
On Thursday, September 8, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras decided that “the public interest in the handling of any investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives into the episode was ‘significant,’ but that the importance of Hunter Biden’s privacy as a private citizen outweighed the value of releasing any such records to the public.”
In a way, conservatives can’t scream too much. The laws were designed that if the court makes an error, it’s better to be on the safe side. It’s a victory for personal privacy on one hand while trampling on government transparency on the other. Nobody expected any crimes related to Hunter Biden to see the light of day. He could have killed someone with that handgun and the FBI would still cover it up.
“The Court is not aware of any caselaw holding that a private citizen like Hunter Biden loses a sense of personal privacy for purposes of [a Freedom of Information Act exemption] merely by being related to a prominent public official.”
Not only that, “the privacy interest here is remarkably strong,” wrote Contreras. Politico points out that he’s an appointee of Barack Obama. He took a full 24 pages to explain his shaky reasoning.
In it, he “makes numerous references to an article POLITICO published in March 2021 detailing the bizarre episode in which Biden’s late brother’s wife, Hallie Biden, allegedly found his .38-caliber handgun in his truck, disposed of it in a trash can behind a store and later returned to retrieve it, only to find it missing.” So said the police report.
Returned by a dumpster diver
The biggest concern to the Delaware State Police at the time was that the free handgun somebody found would be used in a robbery or murder. Luckily for Hunter, “a man who regularly rummaged in the trash returned the weapon to authorities a few days later.”
That’s when the men in black decided to pay a visit to Hunter’s favorite arms dealer to shake him down. It didn’t work because he knew his rights. He whipped out his handy dandy pocket constitution, looked the agents square in the shades and explained it to them in terms even alcoholics can understand.
The way politico puts it, “Secret Service agents allegedly visited the gun store where Hunter Biden bought the weapon and asked for the purchase records, but the owner declined to provide them, saying the matter was under the ATF’s jurisdiction.”
When the ATF showed up later, he cooperated with them. Politico got their hands on a copy of the purchase form. It shows he lied to get the handgun. That’s a crime.
“Hunter Biden checked a box saying he was not at the time a user of, or addicted to, narcotics, despite the fact that he and his family members have said he has struggled with drug addiction for years.” Like all the money laundering and influence peddling, “no charges were ever brought in connection with the episode.” Even Hunter’s candid admission of being a crack addict in his memoir didn’t sway the judge.
“Disclosure would reveal whether Hunter Biden was criminally investigated by ATF.” and that wouldn’t be good for Democrats in the midterms. “An individual’s public disclosure of information that could be potentially incriminating in a general sense does not reduce his privacy interest in whether he was the subject of a particular federal criminal investigation by a particular agency.” Especially when it comes to Hunter Biden’s handgun.
