https://youtu.be/H4hQ3k7wPOQ?t=219
At roughly 3:40, Cindy reveals what she describes as a little known fact:
While on vacation with her parents in Hawaii during Spring Break, they were invited to a "glorious reception" on behalf of a Senate delegation on its way to China. During the event, Jill and Joe Biden came over to her and insisted that Cindy be introduced to NoName.
Cindy is wearing a cast on her right wrist and almost cries while sharing this story.
Joe Biden comes on stage and feels up Cindy for a bit and says some things to her. Joe Biden comes up on stage, confirms the story and takes credit for introducing NoName to Cindy while he was married.
Trying to map out the exact timeline of things. You have to think white hats want us to analyze this so help a fren out here! If Cindy was born in 1954, and we do McCain a favor and assume she was between 18 and 22 years old, that puts the timeline of the event between 1972 and 1976.
~1972-~1976: Cindy is introduced to married NoName while on Spring Break with her parents
1980: NoName and his first wife are divorced.
1982: McCain elected to House.
1986: McCain elected to Senate.
Credit to my original source!
My understanding of the order of operations here is Steven Cheung initially reported Trump as having bought the gun.
https://twitter.com/TheStevenCheung
This lead to a quick flood of articles rightfully documenting that such an action would be a felony.
Cheung then apparently deleted the Tweet and the campaign formally stated Trump did not buy it.
But what actually happened in the background? Here is my theory:
-
Trump did attempt to buy the gun.
-
The dealer did make him fill out a form 4473.
-
Trump truthfully answered the Form 4473.
-
Trump was denied the purchase based on box 11b of Form 4473!!
Trump--through Cheung--is able to masterfully accomplish the act of buying the gun without buying it (the media took the bait and gleefully published the stories). Large swaths of the public will now be left with the impression that he did brazenly buy it.
But most importantly, he can now say his rights were violated by this law, just like Hunter!
Is it not inevitable that unlike the primarily Black men who were prosecuted and then pardoned by Trump for gun possession (Lil Wayne, Kodak Black, Weldon Angelos), Hunter as a White, money-laundering liberal would get special treatment and a Supreme Court hearing? And that Trump would file an amicus briefing based on how his rights were violated, first by unwarranted suppression of his 1st amendment rights, and through prosecution of that his 2nd amendment rights?
And that the SC would ultimately rule not just in Hunter's favor, but more broadly on the unconstitutionality of the Gun Control Act?
Here's the "US code":
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-921.html
Form 4473:
Amicus briefings:
"...to be effective, an amicus brief must bring something new and interesting to the case. This might be better research, an explanation of the connection between the particular case and other pending cases, an improved discussion of industry practices or economic conditions, a more penetrating analysis of the regulatory landscape, or a convincing demonstration of the impact of the case on segments of society apart from the immediate parties."
