Hunter defense to argue that Hunter was sober at the specific time he bought the guns...

He admits to being an addict prior to and after purchasing the gun, but will claim that there is no evidence that he was an addict at the precise moment he signed the sworn statement.

So according to none other than Hunter Biden, Hunter was an addict that had gone through six different rehabs by the year 2016. He admits to have continued as an addict till 2019. On top of that, there are sightings of him in public places smoking crack throughout this time.

He signed the sworn statement in 2018.

The Hunter team is going to argue that he had been through rehab and that he saw himself as clean at the time he purchased the gun. So they will suggest that in spite of his multiple rehabs, multiple rehab failures, and subsequent admission of being an addict from well before to well after the dates in question, that at that "specific time" he was not an addict. Perhaps it was just that month, or week, or day, or even just that precise moment that he signed the paperwork. But the argument is that the State cannot prove that he was an addict when he signed the paperwork. You cannot make this stuff up folks!

Now I am not familiar with the form in question. But I do not think the intent is to question whether someone was sober at the moment that they signed the paperwork (as opposed to high on crack as he filled out the form). I believe the intent is for someone like Hunter to disclose his ongoing crack addition and multiple rehabs. I could be wrong. After all I am not an attorney representing a Biden.

That being said, it becomes obviously that this is a bulletproof defense and has a 99.99% chance of working in D.C. with any defendant with the last name of Biden. Well that might not be true. Perhaps it is more like 100%. If I were David Weiss I might just drop the charges and stop wasting taxpayer dollars on such a flimsy case. No way can he prove that Hunter was an addict at any precise moment in time. How could he?