Biden Pardons Hunter

[Politesse]

So argue your case with the dictionary people, @Politesse..

The "dictionary people" did not define punishment for a crime as persecution.

 

[Toni]

How does persecuting the kid, spoiled though he may be, mitigate the fire or other danger brought by the arsonist?
IT DOESN’T.

Ah, there's the root of the trouble. After all this, it was just a common spelling error. Charging someone for committing crimes that they actually committed is prosecution, not persecution.

Hunter was tried and convicted and due to be sentenced for his offenses. Unfortunately his offenses are common enough that I know that many individuals avoid trial altogether fir similar offenses/circumstances and when they are tried and convicted, are usually given suspended sentences, especially if they have undergone treatment for their substance abuse problems and have paid back taxes and penalties, as Hunter Biden has done. Those who assert that Hunter likely would not have been tried if his last name were not Biden have a very good point. Many in similar situations, whose fathers are not POTUS are not tried. Look at Don. Jr. who casually slides his hand into his pocket and rubs his gums on camera, on stage and has put up numerous videos where he is very very clearly loaded. Not that he’s a criminal or anything. Just a fraudster and thief who stole from a children’s cancer charity and is barred from ever doing business in NY again. But nothing to see there.

If there were not a vengeful narcissistic senile madmen about to take office, Biden Sr. would have had no reason to pardon his son. But given that Trump has frequently stated his plans to exact vengeance on a lot of people he considers enemies, Biden did what he thought necessary to try to help his son.

What I absolutely do not remember is so much vitriol heaped upon Trump for pardoning so many of his close associates and allies for much worse crimes, or fur his stated intention to pardon those who, at his bidding, attempted to overthrow the government.

 

[Politesse]

What I absolutely do not remember is so much vitriol heaped upon Trump for pardoning so many of his close associates and allies for much worse crimes, or fur his stated intention to pardon those who, at his bidding, attempted to overthrow the government.

Yeah, well, a lot of people seem to have similarly shaky memories of the Trump years, or we wouldn't be in this mess. For the record, I have always opposed these kinds of pardons, under every administration. It probably didn't stick to your memory, because that didn't cause the classic Poli Dartboard that happens when I dare to criticize, or even question, the actions of a Democrat.

 

[Elixir]

So argue your case with the dictionary people, @Politesse..

The "dictionary people" did not define punishment for a crime as persecution.

I provided the definition. Read it, educate yourself.
Then try addressing the point.

 

[Elixir]

For the record, I have always opposed these kinds of pardons, under every administration.

Please link just ONE SINGLE COMPLAINT you’ve made about a Trump pardon. Nobody else seems to recall any such thing either. Collective amnesia by everyone else, or prevarication by Politesse?
Since he has taken the job of assigning new restrictive definitions to common words, he probably doesn’t have time to provide a link. Yeah. Collective amnesia - must be it.

 

[Elixir]

So argue your case with the dictionary people, @Politesse..

The "dictionary people" did not define punishment for a crime as persecution.

So what. You’re wrong about the definition of “persecute” and its derivatives. What’s worse, you’re sticking to your error even after being corrected. For a damn professor, that’s lamentable. But it’s also irrelevant to the discussion you are quite obviously unable to continue.
When Hunter starts siccing brownshirts on people like you, cancelling elections, violating separations of powers of branches of American government … please do let me know.

Meanwhile, I sure hope Donny doesn’t pardon Eric or Junior for drug offenses we both know they have committed; that would really be damaging! /sarcasm
Such fools Americans are …

 

[Elixir]

two things aren't even connected. You're the one with the bullshit analogy, don't ask me to try and make sense of it.

I ask you to make sense of your “bullshit” claim. You forgot to explain

No, I think it's a bad idea

For a dad to protect his kid from PERSECUTION (look it up, since you don’t believe me). I though you were a parent?

because it is nepotistic to use the pardon to excuse a family member from the crimes they committed

Like daughter’s FIL?

and encourages a culture of politically expedient pardons that shields the upper classes from prosecution for any crime, while the poor get sucked into an endless cycle of industrialized incarceration and unpaid labor.

Oh, like that shit wasn’t totally rampant in the Trump administration???? And without any persecution.

Now, thanks in part to excuses such as you provide with your false equivalences, you’re gonna see a whole lot more of that. The whole town (Country) will burn to the ground while you cry about that awful Hunter guy.
What an American.

 

[Elixir]

How does persecuting the kid, spoiled though he may be, mitigate the fire or other danger brought by the arsonist?
IT DOESN’T.

Ah, there's the root of the trouble. After all this, it was just a common spelling error. Charging someone for committing crimes that they actually committed is prosecution, not persecution.

Hunter was tried and convicted and due to be sentenced for his offenses. Unfortunately his offenses are common enough that I know that many individuals avoid trial altogether fir similar offenses/circumstances and when they are tried and convicted, are usually given suspended sentences, especially if they have undergone treatment for their substance abuse problems and have paid back taxes and penalties, as Hunter Biden has done. Those who assert that Hunter likely would not have been tried if his last name were not Biden have a very good point. Many in similar situations, whose fathers are not POTUS are not tried. Look at Don. Jr. who casually slides his hand into his pocket and rubs his gums on camera, on stage and has put up numerous videos where he is very very clearly loaded. Not that he’s a criminal or anything. Just a fraudster and thief who stole from a children’s cancer charity and is barred from ever doing business in NY again. But nothing to see there.

If there were not a vengeful narcissistic senile madmen about to take office, Biden Sr. would have had no reason to pardon his son. But given that Trump has frequently stated his plans to exact vengeance on a lot of people he considers enemies, Biden did what he thought necessary to try to help his son.

What I absolutely do not remember is so much vitriol heaped upon Trump for pardoning so many of his close associates and allies for much worse crimes, or fur his stated intention to pardon those who, at his bidding, attempted to overthrow the government.

Spot on.
I know of one set of deaf ears upon which it will fall.

 

[Shadowy Man]

How does persecuting the kid, spoiled though he may be, mitigate the fire or other danger brought by the arsonist?
IT DOESN’T.

Ah, there's the root of the trouble. After all this, it was just a common spelling error. Charging someone for committing crimes that they actually committed is prosecution, not persecution.

Hunter was tried and convicted and due to be sentenced for his offenses. Unfortunately his offenses are common enough that I know that many individuals avoid trial altogether fir similar offenses/circumstances and when they are tried and convicted, are usually given suspended sentences, especially if they have undergone treatment for their substance abuse problems and have paid back taxes and penalties, as Hunter Biden has done. Those who assert that Hunter likely would not have been tried if his last name were not Biden have a very good point. Many in similar situations, whose fathers are not POTUS are not tried.

If I recall correctly, Hunter had worked out a piea deal, from which Joe very likely would not have pardoned him. I wonder what ever happened to that plea deal?

 

[Politesse]

This really is just a dumbass "us and them" thing, right? I criticized Biden, so I must be pro-Trump? You people really are toddlers.

 

[Toni]

What I absolutely do not remember is so much vitriol heaped upon Trump for pardoning so many of his close associates and allies for much worse crimes, or fur his stated intention to pardon those who, at his bidding, attempted to overthrow the government.

Yeah, well, a lot of people seem to have similarly shaky memories of the Trump years, or we wouldn't be in this mess. For the record, I have always opposed these kinds of pardons, under every administration. It probably didn't stick to your memory, because that didn't cause the classic Poli Dartboard that happens when I dare to criticize, or even question, the actions of a Democrat.

I’m certain that you did voice disapproval over those pardons.

Here’s what I think: There are many people in the US who are wrongly convicted and/or are given overly harsh sentences. Sometimes, thinking changes over time, and offenses that were once heavily punished are now not treated nearly so harshly. President Carter, for instance, either pardoned or commuted sentences for those convicted of fudging the draft during the Viet Nam War. I believe Obama pardoned a bunch of people for minor drug charges that would not currently receive such harsh sentencing. I probably only remember those because there was a lot of controversy over said pardons but I believe that they were in fact, correct. If a law was unjust or unjustly applied or a sentence was unjust or overly harsh, the remedy is sometimes a pardon. Governors do it; so do presidents. I don’t know for certain but I’m guessing that it is actually less expensive and more efficient a process to try to give people actual justice than going back and re-trying and re-sentencing each person.

I would much prefer that we had a better, more impartial and less arbitrary system where the color of your skin and your zip code and bank balance did not determine what brand of justice you received. I would like to see us work harder to achieve that goal.

But we need to give relief to those who were treated unfairly or who were sentenced harshly for crimes that would not be treated so harshly now.

 

[Elixir]

I criticized Biden, so I must be pro-Trump?

No. You must be a faux-egalitarian or something like that. Is there a better word for someone who sticks to false equivalences?
Everyone is bad. You’re the only one who sees it. The last time I thought it was so simple I was five years old, and recall the moment of epiphany.

 

[Politesse]

That's not my position on the matter. You continue to demonstrate your inability to get beyond simplistic good and bad, black and white arguments.

 

[The AntiChris]

This really is just a dumbass "us and them" thing, right? I criticized Biden, so I must be pro-Trump? You people really are toddlers.

There was a similar reaction back in July when anybody on this forum dared suggest Biden should drop out from the presidential race because of very obvious mental/physical decline.

 

[Elixir]

That's not my position on the matter.

Whine away then.
Your “position(s)” are unspoken, but apparent.
I will tell you that you are a small rivet in the permission structure that will enable Donald Trump to destroy American democracy*. As a reward, Hunter will not threaten you any more, so you can thank Agent Orange for that.

* If you let him know about your assistance to his efforts to persecute Hunter, maybe he’ll send you a pair of those gorgeous sneakers.

 

[Elixir]

This really is just a dumbass "us and them" thing, right? I criticized Biden, so I must be pro-Trump? You people really are toddlers.

There was a similar reaction back in July when anybody on this forum dared suggest Biden should drop out from the presidential race because of very obvious mental/physical decline.

WUT?
Around here most were anxious to see him drop out right after that debate debacle.

 

[Politesse]

I will tell you that you are a small rivet in the permission structure that will enable Donald Trump to destroy American democracy

Because I think the Democrats are screwing the pooch on opposing him, you think I'm the problem. Not the party that just lost the fucking election, they're blameless and unblamable. Politesse on the internet is the problem.

 

[Elixir]

Not the party that just lost the fucking election, they're blameless and unblamable. Politesse on the internet is the problem.

Oh woe is ye!

So persecuted for your juvenile kneejerk reaction to a minor infraction!
It’s downright weird to see such contorted self flattery.
The loss of a small rivet is rarely the sole cause of the catastrophic failure of a large machine. Get over yourself.

 

[Politesse]

It’s downright weird to see such contorted self flattery.
The loss of a small rivet is rarely the sole cause of the catastrophic failure of a large machine. Get over yourself.

You're the one going fucking nuts over nothing. I criticized a guy for giving an inappropriate pardon. That's all. I had nothing to do with the Fall of America, you over-dramatic loon.

 

[Politesse]

I was Michigan's AG. Biden sets dangerous precedent with preemptive pardons - Mike Cox

The Founding Fathers understood the necessity of a pardon power, but they also feared its abuse. In Federalist No. 74, Alexander Hamilton defended pardons as a tool of mercy to correct judicial excesses, not a blank check for presidents to inoculate their allies or family members from accountability. President George Washington first demonstrated their value when he offered pardons to the leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion — in return for their renouncement of violent opposition to U.S. law. This act of mercy came after justice had been served.

Preemptive pardons, by definition, violate this principle. They allow a president to act as judge and jury — deciding not just who deserves clemency, but who should be beyond the reach of the law altogether.

The dangers of normalizing such behavior cannot be overstated. If presidents routinely issue preemptive pardons, it’s only a matter of time before every administration shields its allies from future investigations. This would turn the presidency into a protective racket for the politically connected, undermining the core principle that no one is above the law.

I think we're already there, actually. Now that the precedent has been set, I can't imagine any future president failing to draw up a similar list of untouchable family members and business partners before they begin their service. Who's going to stop them? What's going to stop them? The only thing that used to restrain these behaviors was decorum and social convention, and those are all done for.