Hey folks, Preet here. Big news today. Midway through recording our podcast, a Delaware jury found Hunter Biden guilty of three gun-related charges. The verdict was reached after a week-long trial. In other news, there are new developments in former President Donald Trump's classified documents prosecution in Florida, with District Judge Eileen Cannon continuing to delay
the proceedings. Meanwhile, Trump has asked the Manhattan Judge who oversaw his trial to release him from the gag order now that a verdict has been reached, and a federal judge ordered former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon to report to prison on July 1st to serve a four-month sentence for his contempt of Congress conviction. Joyce Vance and I discuss all that and more on the CAFE Insider podcast. If you're a member of CAFE Insider, head over to the Insider feed or
click the link in the show notes of this podcast to listen to the full analysis. Stay tuned listeners, keep listening here for an excerpt from our discussion, and to become a member of CAFE Insider head to CAFE.com slash insider. You can try the membership for just one dollar for one month. That's CAFE.com slash insider. Now on to the show. For the second time in a few weeks, we are on verdict watch. It's really interesting the parallels
between the Trump case and Hunter Biden case. I think it helps us understand a lot about the justice system as an institution, but you're right. Here we are again waiting on a jury. So to timestamp this for the audience, we are recording this, having this conversation at about 10, 20 a.m. Eastern time on Tuesday, June 11th. And you know how I know that there will be a verdict later today? How do you know that? Because that's how the laws of the universe work that we
really, we record. There will be a verdict. Here in the episode will drop. I think it's inevitable. If we change the day or the time that we recorded, the universe would accommodate itself accordingly, right? Would adapt. Adapt. But I still think it's useful to talk about how the case wrapped up what the defense themes were if you thought they were compelling or not. You know, so putting
aside the Murphy's law aspect of it, I do think that the government had a very strong case. We can have a debate in an argument and a discussion about whether or not this was an appropriate case to bring, whether it was politicized. But given the elements that the government had to prove, I think it's pretty strong. And I do predict it relatively quick verdict. You never know. And there may be a notification aspect to this. But do you agree with that? What do you think? Yeah, I agree. And I
think that's the exact parallel to the Trump case in Manhattan, by the way. The government's evidence here is strong. You know, I seem your office did. My office prosecuted a lot of felon in possession cases, which are similar to this charge of addict in possession. We also charged a lot of the other violation, the A1 and A6 lying in buying cases. The government's evidence here is excellent. The question is whether one or more jurors may decide to nullify or to hold up and
just refuse to convict. And when you think about it in a case like this, and I think this is the debate that we had about whether or not the case should have been indicted, there are so many people who are addicts or users of illegal drugs who do possess guns. The government doesn't prosecute all of them. In fact, it extremely rarely prosecutes this charge. And so why have all people would Hunter Biden be prosecuted? I think is the question about the decision to prosecute.
Once that decision is made in the jury, which is not charged with second guessing that decision is simply evaluating the evidence, this is not a particularly difficult case. So just to remind folks, the central thing that the government has to prove for all three counts is that Hunter Biden was an addict addicted to narcotic substances and lied about that in connection with purchasing a firearm and then possess the firearm. Now the defense, the technical
defense is pretty narrow. And as far as I could tell, it seemed to be focused on the idea that on the day in question, the precise day in question when the firearm was purchased, October 12th of 2018, there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he was under the influence or he was addicted at the time. There is, however, lots of evidence that he was habitually using drugs. Some of that comes from his own book. Some of that comes from people who he had relationships with that
at some point after he bought the firearm, he was using drugs. And I guess part of the question hinges on whether or not the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with concrete evidence that on that day, he was using drugs. That's not what they have to prove, isn't? I don't think so. I mean, the way that the law is written, the way that the ATF formed that he had to sign to purchase the firearm is written. It's talking in terms of whether or not the individual
who's making the purchases addicted to or a user of illegal drugs. And I don't think that addiction is something that's parsed by the day. I think Hunter Biden's lawyers tried to argue that this is someone who believed he was in recovery so that when he said he was not an addict, he was technically
correct. And that is in many ways less a precise legal argument and more so one that really tries to evoke sympathy from jurors and this sense that it's unreasonable to single out Biden for prosecution. Yeah, I mean, it's sort of an interesting point and fairly subtle that to the extent that Hunter Biden said he was an addict in his book and talked about his addiction, that's sort of the language
and the rhetoric of therapy that you use in alcoholics anonymous or narcotics anonymous. I mean, people will say years after they have been dry, right? It's part of the method of treatment and rehabilitation. They'll say their name and say, I'm an alcoholic or I don't know what people say at narcotics anonymous meetings, but something like I am so and so when I'm an addict, that would not be sufficient
for purposes of a court of law, right? Right. And I think, you know, Hunter Biden's lawyer, Abby Lowell, who's a very accomplished defense lawyer makes that argument explicit in his closing argument, saying, you know, what he is talking about in his book is his psychology, his personal journey. That's very different from the elements of a crime that the government has to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt. So they do make that argument. The defense tries to make the related point that Hunter Biden was not necessarily conscious and aware of the law and of whether or not he was an addict to which the prosecution says, quote, maybe if he had never gone to rehab, he could argue he didn't know he was an addict. End quote. Is that a fair counter argument? Yeah, I think that's a pretty good argument
and maybe my understanding of the law is lacking here. But my sense is that what he has to know is that when he's making the statement on the form that he's not an addict that he's lying, he doesn't have to know the specifics of the law, you know, people aren't, aren't charged with knowing that they are violating a law, except in very rare circumstances where the law itself requires a special form of willfulness. Here, it's just knowledge that when he makes the statement on the form,
it's not truthful. There's also this compelling evidence, I think, how he Biden testified she found the remnants of crack cocaine when she went to Hunter Biden's car on October 23rd, 10 days after the gun was purchased. That in combination with his admissions and another evidence of his addiction, as we've said now a couple of times, pretty compelling whether you think the case should have been brought or not.
I don't know that I love this evidence about the cocaine on the pouch to be honest. You know, I think the defense did a good job of planting reasonable doubt about who that came from. Did it come from Hallibuyden? Who's the one who threw it away? It wasn't tested in the DEA lab until five years later. Something that we're all familiar with is, for instance, that the US money supply, especially at the height of issues with crack, the money supply, a lot of money. If you just
tested it randomly, I had traces of cocaine on it. It used to be popular to have a DEA chemist testify money found in a defendant's pocket and show that it had cocaine on it. That was all well and good until folks caught on to the fact that you could randomly test money in my wallet, and it would have traces of cocaine. I'm not sure that I find this evidence to be as persuasive as others do, but again, to be fair, I don't know that the defense really made that argument
in closing. They suggested that maybe it didn't come from Hunter Biden and they left it at that. Certainly, it could form part of a package of proof of guilt, but in and of itself, I'm not sure that I like it as much as some of the other evidence. To the extent that the defense persuades a jury that the prosecution must prove that on the day in question the day the purchase
of the firearm, Hunter Biden was incapacitated or a dictator using drugs. They take a shot and say that the gun seller himself, this guy named Gordon Cleveland, didn't think that Hunter Biden was on drugs when he bought the gun. Is that the worthwhile testimony? No, I just don't think that that's, you know, that's not the picture of what the government has to prove. They don't have to prove that he was using drugs when he purchased the gun. They have to prove that he was addicted to
or using at the time. And I think that's part of the issue here. You know, usually that notion of at the time, it doesn't have a lot of prominence in these cases because this statute is mostly used for people with a felony conviction. Either you have a felony conviction or you don't. There's no question of whether you had one on Tuesday, but not on Wednesday. And that's true for most of the other charges associated with this one of the three charges 18, USD 922G. You know, either you
have a dishonorable discharge from the military or you don't. Either you have legal immigration status or you don't. Either you're under a domestic violence restrained order or you aren't. And so this question about a drug user is sort of the unique one because it can be parsed more narrowly by time. So it sounds like you inadvertently have made something of a case for the statute being overbroad and unworkable. Yeah, I guess I sort of backed into that. Didn't I?
Well, those challenges are coming and those challenges have been made. And I've discussed with others on the podcast and mentioned last week on the podcast that we have this case. And you and I have talked about it. Rahimi in the Supreme Court that relates to being in possession of a firearm if you have a domestic violence issue, which is something that conservatives and those who those who advocate for very strong second amendment rights. So it depends on how that was adjudicated.
And here we made the point before that, you know, this case makes for strange bedfellows. It ordinarily, progressives are on the side of strict and harsh and tough and aggressive enforcement of all the gun laws and conservatives, on the other hand, strong second amendment supporters say you really shouldn't take away a fundamental constitutional right unless it's very specific concrete has a worthwhile reason and is super, super important in compelling. And here, I think they might
beg to differ, but for the fact that the defendant is a president's son. Yeah, I mean, what are those a couple of Supreme Court justices going to do when they protect second amendment rights at the expense of giving Hunter Biden a break? It's an interesting question. Look, there are cases percolating in the third and the fifth circuits in addition to Rahimi, which we're still waiting to
get a decision from the Supreme Court on this term. I think that there is, you know, I can already read Samuel Alito's opinion saying that there is no history and tradition of prohibiting people who use drugs from possessing or purchasing firearms in this country. If he is consistent with the trajectory that his jurisprudence has been on in this area, that is where he will come down. The question is where there will be, whether there will be five votes on the court for that.
And that, I sort of have a question about why Hunter Biden didn't come to a plea deal with the government on this case. And maybe it's because they believe the appeal is their ace in the hole here. I don't really know. Do you have a view on that? I don't, I think the plea was botched by both sides.
And folks were trying to be cute, not only in blame and anyone's feet, but it was a weird sort of dissolution of a plea agreement where obviously Hunter Biden is not going to accept a plea unless he and his lawyers are assured and believe that it ends all the cases against him. And when the judge some months ago inquired about that, the government was unwilling to say that Hunter was free and clear. And how they could not have had a meeting of the
minds about that remains unclear to me. Yeah, I've always wondered why they didn't go back to the table and try to work that out. But I, you know, who knows? Well, some people suggest, you know, and I'm not making the claim and because I don't know, and I can't get inside the head of David Weiss and his team, that there was such an outcry and there was so much criticism of what some people perceived as a soft and good deal, overly good deal for Hunter Biden, that they sort of
insisted on more aggressive charges. Hunter did not want to plead guilty too. Yeah, maybe, you know, they've still got the, I think, fairly good tax case in California to come after this one. So I would have always put my money on the stronger charges, but, but here we are with a jury deliberating. I've asked some other folks this question. Joe Biden has said preemptively that even if his son is convicted, he will not pardon Hunter. Hey, do you think he needed to say that and
be do you believe that? It's a really interesting question. I think he should have just let it alone. I think he should have said absolutely nothing about this case. And when asked, I think he should have just said that he was going to let the criminal justice take its course period. You know, he made the comment that he loved his son. And I just would have rather that he stayed out of it completely. You asked that more difficult question. Do I believe him? Look, I mean, you know, he said it
using his word as a Biden. So I guess I do believe him. Someone very smart I was talking to about this pointed out to me. I don't think this was deliberate language parsing, but Biden did say he wouldn't pardon him. He didn't say he wouldn't commute the sense. Yeah. That's absolutely right. So I guess I guess there's a legalistic wiggle room there. Well, and it is interesting because when
you think about it, there will be an appeal. If there's a conviction Hunter Biden will not, I don't think there's any chance that he'll go to prison before the next administration takes over. He'll get an appeal bond. This is precisely the kind of substantial issue that courts issue appeal bonds for. And so it could well be, you know, that there'll be a commutation to nothing, especially if Trump wins the next go round. You could see something that sort of distorted and
perverse about the outcome of Donald Trump wins reelection. There is zero evidence. In fact, there's evidence to the contrary that Joe Biden had anything to do with his prosecution of his son within his rights to fire the special prosecutor within his rights for Donald Trump, although it violated traditions and norms. And I think the the appropriate enforcement of the rule of law, but he could direct in the way we expect Trump to direct his attorney general
to abandon the prosecution of Hunter Biden didn't do any of those things, right? Donald Trump gets elected. In this case is winding its way. Maybe there's a hung jury and there's a retrial. Maybe there's an appeal. Don't you think likely it is high that Donald Trump will interject himself
into the prosecution of his rival's son? Yes, I mean, I think that there is. And you know, his attorney general, whoever that person might be, will probably focus on the case in a way that this is this is frankly a I don't want to say that any federal felony is a sort of a lesser charge,
but this is a lesser charge within the federal system. Something that normally would not come to the attention of an attorney general, but you can be certain that this one will, you know, attorney general Jeffrey Clark will maybe be sitting in the courtroom for sentencing or something. Do you have to have a valid law license to be the attorney general? I think you do. Is Jeff Clark out of luck? Well, I was in Giuliani, General Ellis, some of those other folks,
I guess they're off the list. So, preton joyous for you breaking news. There's a verdict in the Hunter Biden trial. Oh, you got to be kidding me. No, come on. Oh, me. I dare y'all to put that into the show pret going me. There you have it. Have a ladies and gentlemen. Of course it happened that way. But I guess timing wise is better than it happening in a few hours. So we do have we do have an opportunity to comment on it. So Joyce, I think that that our analysis
holds up. We expected a verdict fairly quickly. I didn't think it was going to come quite this quickly. I thought it might happen sometime later today. I do note that there were no jury notes. And that's often a sign that there is early unanimity. And that seems to have been the case here. Yeah, I think that that's right. I mean, the evidence here was strong. The jury clearly looked at it and made their decision based solely on the evidence and the law and convicted on all three counts.
Which means that the open question now is sentencing and what that will look like. Yeah, and I can say about this trial from what I saw of it or read about it that just like Donald Trump in Manhattan. He got a fair trial. You know, people should respect the verdict of the jury. And you're not going to be seeing. I don't think people who are supportive of Joe Biden and his family calling for violence against the judge, calling for new jurors to be docks and that sort of
thing. A jury decided case was fairly tried. And you know, that's that. And that's how it should be. I think that's absolutely right. Look, this is, I mean, no one's happy when somebody gets convicted or at least people shouldn't be. But justice gets done. And in this case, the jury looked at the evidence and thought this was the right verdict. And I'm on record as being somebody who trusts juries. I do in this case too. Yeah. I mean, look, I still do think it is a reasonable question to ask.
Was it appropriate for this case to have been brought? Given the infrequency with which it does and given the the origin story. And the plea that fell apart, we still know the answers to those questions. But on the charges brought, which were available under the statutes, it was brought, it was tried. And there was a conviction, which is I think what most people expected. Yeah. I mean, I think that that is fair. That this is, you know, a case where there was ample
evidence to support the jury's verdict. Something that defendants almost always argue on appeal is that the government's evidence was insufficient. And if they make that argument on this appeal, it won't go anywhere. The government had plenty of evidence to support this verdict. I think the longer term question for the viability of this conviction is the constitutional question
we were talking about. And, you know, the arguments that are generally made by people who are not supporters of the Biden family about how difficult it should be to punch someone for possessing a gun or prohibit someone that has certain characteristics or behaviors from possessing a gun. And we'll see how that plays out. I think that's right. We'll see the selective and the vindictive prosecution motions revisited on appeal. I would feel almost certain about that.
But the constitutional claim is really what this is about in it. It also raises an interesting question. That is a significant live dispute in the courts. Right now, I think it's more than sufficient to warrant hunter Biden getting an appeal bond, not going into custody immediately, because the way federal rules are written before trial, there's really an effort made, as long as a defendant is not a danger to the community or a flight risk, to secure pre-trial
release on a bond that will assure his presence at trial. But once you're convicted, the language and the statute changes. And it says that the defendant once convicted shall be taken into custody unless, and one of those unless is a substantial chance of success on appeal. I do think that that bell is run here. I mean, if Steve Bannon gets an appeal bond, hunter Biden should surely get one. I agree. So you want to explain how sentencing works here, Joyce?
So sentencing in the federal system, and we've talked about this a lot, there's always a statutory maximum in the law itself. But the sentence is based on a guidelines calculation. There are fortunately some pretty clear rules in place for calculating a sentence, at least for the primary charge here, the drug user and possession charge. It's interesting pre, it's always tough to predict the guidelines with certainty in advance. But I think this is a defendant with no prior criminal
history. He probably comes out at a number that won't mean a lot to our listeners who don't do this kind of work. But someplace around a 12 on the guidelines. And that's a sentence that in my district criminal history category of one offense conduct of 12, it would almost always be a probation sentence. So there's an interesting question of how the California tax case will play. And if he's convicted there, might that put him in a higher category for sentencing? And is hunter Biden someone
who will get a sentence of probation rather than a custodial sentence? You know what I say to open any questions like that. I know what you say. Stay tuned. Thanks for listening. To hear more of our conversation and never miss our weekly coverage of the Trump prosecutions, the Supreme Court and more, become a member of Cafe Insider by heading to cafe.com slash insider. You can try out the membership for just one dollar for one month. That's cafe.com slash insider.