treated unfairly by asking him to resolve it criminally. normally when somebody pays back the back taxes there is no reason to proceed criminally, but in this case out of an effort to demonstrate that hunter biden is not receiving preferential treatment, he s being dealt with it criminally, and it sends an important message to the public for those who may want to willfully not pay taxes. the gun count, it s a crime to possess a gun while addicted to drugs, and it s hard to prove somebody is addicted to drugs, and he admitted to it himself in his book. it s a charge that gets used from time to time but is quite rare. giving him this deferred prosecution agreement to somebody who is a nonviolent
somebody for paying their taxes, albeit filing it late, and handling it as a criminal matter, but that s what they re doing here. with the gun count, that s irony. that particular provision has been as violation of the second amendment, so he may have a second amendment case here on the 922-g the gun case. as always you re up on everything. i mentioned the gun rights because it is a striking thing. there are gun offenses that are far more legally serious, anything regarding a firearm and a separate crime or attempted violence. a paper work issue within our second amendment jurisprudence is as you say kevin mccarthy said as a factual matter, a normal person wouldn t get this good a deal on these charges. how do you respond in terms of legal precedent to that
lukashenko always said that nato alliance was not a problem and he had approached ukrainian statement. in the kremlin, and mr putin are really playing with them and the of mr lukashenko as his fears as the so called leader of this country. at the same time in the country, the people of belarus do not support this work. it is not the same as what we have in russia where 87% support the invasion. he understands that he is not cannot politically states or russia that he would support or more than just provided them with hospital roses and territories for the russian armed forces. that can also have quite a significant opposition with the gun country. significant opposition with the gun count . ., , significant opposition with the gun count . ., v ., significant opposition with the gun count . . , ., ,
accountable for something. but under the facts in the law, it wasn t there. i know that a lot of people went crazy when the gun count was dismissed. we fought that from the beginning from the first appearance. the law is pretty clear. i mean, you can argue by tommy thompson modified it that way. he was governor at that time back in the 90s. but the law is the law. i don t know why the judge left it in that long. it s in the plain reading of the statute. let me ask you something else here because of the larger implications of this. please don t take this question the wrong way and let me know if you re taking it the wrong way. okay. word that you guys had a film crew embedded with you from fox news from tucker carlson
think, more afraid we became of some sort of compromise, potentially. walking into that courtroom, pins and needles doesn t begin to explain it. you know, i told my client, if it goes south, you re not walking out of this courtroom a freeman and you won t see the light of day for a long time. if we win at all, you get to come home with us. and luckily, i think after a lot of hard work, it went that way. i think the jury spent a lot of time. i think part of the time they put in was to show how thorough they were. i think the other part of it was, i think, some people probably wanted to hold him accountable for something. but under the facts in the law, it wasn t there. i know that a lot of people went crazy when the gun count was dismissed. we fought that from the