Biden Pardons Hunter on all counts

[Brian4Liberty]

Considering how many times I've heard that line recently, it must be some kind of talking point.

Presumably a demonstration of how people would do anything for their children, but how does that excuse a crime? If a judge or prosecutor had a kid that blatantly committed a crime, and they dismissed the charges and said "hey, it's my kid", would that make it OK? Would that make it a legitimate use of power?

Well I think in Biden's case, Hunter's plea deal got taken away for political reasons. An average person probably would have walked with a fine and probation. So Biden is justifying his pardon that way. If your kid got the short end, you might too.

Funny thing, isn't it. Once a talking point like that gets started it just starts rolling like a runaway truck.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://x.com/USAB4L/status/1864136798345069018

[PAF]

https://x.com/USAB4L/status/1864136798345069018

"any and all federal crimes" Do these guys even think before they make such statements? Gee, I wonder, what does Matt Walsh think about Ed Snowden, or John Kiriakou

[Voluntarist]

The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.

No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.

Well I think in Biden's case, Hunter's plea deal got taken away for political reasons. An average person probably would have walked with a fine and probation. So Biden is justifying his pardon that way. If your kid got the short end, you might too.

The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.

No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.

Since Merrick Garland appointed the special prosecutor and approved this prosecution, shouldn't some action be taken against him for pursuing a politically motivated prosecution? President Biden and most of the Democrats seem to be saying it was, after all, a politically motivated prosecution. The attorney General can be impeached. I can't see why any Democrat in Congress wouldn't vote for impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. Hold their feet to the fire and make them admit that it wasn't politically motivated.

=== Edited ===
I guess it's a good thing the Republicans held up approval for his appointment to the Supreme Court. You certainly wouldn't want a corrupt individual like that on the highest court in the land.

=== Second Edit ===
Call Joe Biden as a witness

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJKPcZE2ITM

[Invisible Man]

I need to learn to stop clicking on threads that Collins starts. They're always just links to videos without any comment.

[TheCount]

I need to learn to stop clicking on threads that Collins starts. They're always just links to videos without any comment.

You can't avoid them, they're also every post he makes in other people's threads.

[Brian4Liberty]

Been saying it for a year now. Biden will pardon a record number of people. Hunter is probably furiously selling pardons right now.

[Snowball]

puff diddle

[PAF]

I need to learn to stop clicking on threads that Collins starts. They're always just links to videos without any comment.

You can't avoid them, they're also every post he makes in other people's threads.

In fairness to @Matt Collins , he provides a description in the title, and the synopsis is on the video itself. It is up to the reader to listen to the material in full context, and posting them in various threads is to provide cross-reference relevancy. I myself find it very useful, otherwise they might be missed among the various banter on the site.

[Dr.3D]

Been saying it for a year now. Biden will pardon a record number of people. Hunter is probably furiously selling pardons right now.

10% for the big guy.

[Brian4Liberty]

10% for the big guy.

Every big time fine artist needs an agent. 10% is a very reasonable commission...

[TheCount]

In fairness to @Matt Collins , he provides a description in the title, and the synopsis is on the video itself. It is up to the reader to listen to the material in full context, and posting them in various threads is to provide cross-reference relevancy. I myself find it very useful, otherwise they might be missed among the various banter on the site.

The video is B roll of random Biden footage that plays while a voice over reads a news story to you. Unless you're blind, you could have read that news story in less than a tenth of the time it took to be read aloud to you.

It might be even more of a waste of time than dannno's Jordan Peterson videos.

[Matt Collins]

https://x.com/YALiberty/status/1864432259324948790

[Voluntarist]

Everyone is pardoned for what they do on the night of The Purge.

[Matt Collins]

Hot take: I'm glad Hunter Biden got pardoned. Federal drug and gun laws are unconstitutional. The President should have also pardoned everyone else charged and convicted of similar federal crimes.

[Invisible Man]

Hot take: I'm glad Hunter Biden got pardoned. Federal drug and gun laws are unconstitutional. The President should have also pardoned everyone else charged and convicted of similar federal crimes.

That's not a hot take. That's the take that everyone here has. The problem isn't pardoning him for those specific crimes. It's giving him a blanket pardon for every crime he might have committed against the US, including any that he hasn't been charged with yet.

[PAF]

Three Cheers for Hunter’s Pardon

Ron Paul Institute
by Andrew P. Napolitano
Dec 5, 2024


My initial reaction to the issuance of a full pardon by President Joe Biden to his son Hunter was emotional. What father wouldn’t pardon his own son, if he could?

I suspect that the president has harbored these paternal thoughts even while he denied numerous times that he was planning on doing so. We have come to expect lying in politicians. When the president denied that he planned to pardon his son, he had every reason to believe that he’d be a candidate for reelection — and he wanted his son’s known sordid behavior off the table.

Here is the backstory.

Under the Constitution, the president can pardon any person for any federal crime. He does not need permission, nor must he offer a justification.

The essence of a pardon is mercy and forgiveness, not justice and punishment. How and when to forgive? That is an ancient question, the short answer to which is: when it is earnestly sought and least deserved. For if a pardon were deserved, it falls under justice, not mercy. Mercy is by its nature undeserved.

Did Hunter deserve a pardon? That is a trick question, since under the justice-is-deserved-but-mercy-is-undeserved rubric, no one deserves a pardon. Yet, our system of law enforcement often makes mistakes, and pardons can correct them. Answering the question about Hunter’s pardon brings us back to why was he prosecuted. What crimes did he commit?

Hunter pleaded guilty to failure to pay income taxes in a timely manner, and he was convicted by a jury of lying about drug use on an application to purchase a handgun. Yet, by the time of his guilty plea in the tax case, he had already paid his taxes, with interest and penalties. And the gun that he obtained after denying that he was a habitual user of drugs was never used. His girlfriend discarded it in a dumpster.

Should he have been prosecuted for these crimes? That question requires us to examine if these are in fact valid crimes, worthy of prosecution. Every classic definition of the concept of crime has three characteristics. The first is that the criminal behavior is proscribed by a legitimate authority. The second is that the behavior in question caused palpable harm. And the third is that the behavior in question produced an articulable victim.

Can Congress make criminal the late payment of taxes or lying on a piece of paper in order to exercise a natural right? The Constitution only permits the Congress to enact and prescribe two crimes: treason, which is defined in the Constitution as waging war on the states or giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies, and debasement of the money supply that is passing off a forged coin as if it were genuine gold or silver.

For all other crimes, Congress has given itself the power to articulate and punish.

Can Congress give itself powers that are not delegated to it by the Constitution? The Constitution itself says that it cannot. The 10th Amendment teaches that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Congress cannot just assume these powers.

Notwithstanding these basic principles of constitutional law, as of 2019 — the last time this was calculated — Congress had created 5,199 federal crimes.

The theory of the drafters of the Constitution was not that the new country would be anarchic, rather that crimes would be proscribed by the states, and not the feds. This is consistent with the idea that the federal government is one of limited powers, and the states – which, after all, created the federal government — would serve as a check on its power.

The U.S. didn’t even have a Department of Justice until after the War Between the States. Prior to that era, if the feds were victimized and harmed, they asked the governments of the states in which the acts that caused the harm occurred and in which the victim suffered to do the prosecution.

The most famous example of all this was the prosecution of farmers who refused to pay federal taxes on their whiskey in Western Pennsylvania in the early 1790s. Most were prosecuted in a Pennsylvania state court. Two were tried for treason in a makeshift federal court in Philadelphia’s old City Hall. How could a failure to pay taxes be made treasonous? It wasn’t and couldn’t, but the federalists running the government persuaded a federal judge and a jury that using force to resist a tax collector is the moral equivalent of waging war against the states.

The farmers who were convicted of treason were pardoned by President George Washington.

Now back to Hunter.

He harmed no one by his tardy tax payment with interest and penalties. And he harmed no one by falsely obtaining a gun permit and then discarding his weapon. Thus, the three components of crime — legitimate authority, palpable harm and articulable victim — are all absent in the Hunter Biden case.

When his farther pardoned him, he sounded like Donald Trump! He argued that raw politics had interfered with the ordinary processes of government, and this resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Stated differently, President Biden argued if Hunter’s last name were Jones instead of Biden, he’d never have been prosecuted.

I’m happy Joe pardoned Hunter. It has generated a debate about the rule of law in America. We need that debate as the Trump administration enters office. I hope the debate produces a commitment to the recognition and enforcement of constitutional principles that limits Congress to its constitutional role and limits prosecutions to those who have harmed others, as the drafters of the Constitution clearly intended.

But, if history is a guide, my hopes — along with those of Thomas Jefferson — are illusory. Jefferson predicted that in the long march of history, governmental power only grows and individual liberty only shrinks. Except when there is a revolution.



https://ronpaulinstitute.org/three-c...unters-pardon/

[Occam's Banana]

I admit that I didn't follow Hunter, but according to that OP letter it was over taxes a gun registration form? Shouldn't this be celebrated?

I wouldn't hold tax evasion against my worst enemy.

Why are they trying to make me like & respect Hunter Biden?

https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/stat...68736718663681

https://twitter.com/FreeStateNH/stat...98158781878578

[Occam's Banana]

[...]

Adams wrote on X that Hunter can no longer refuse to answer questions before Congress.

That is because the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from having to answer questions before Congress if it could help a prosecution case against them or compel them to make self-incriminating statements.

With Hunter now free from all his criminal cases, he cannot use the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer questions.

"The upside to Joe Biden's pardon is that Hunter Biden no longer enjoys the right to assert his 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination and contempt of Congress is also a crime," Adams wrote.

"Adams wrote on X that Hunter can no longer refuse to answer questions before Congress."

LOL. Of course he can. What are they gonna do about it if when he does?

Even if it wasn't just a dog-and-pony show for the purpose of providing red-meat outrage content for fund-raising letters and the like, the Republicans simply don't have the balls to do anything about it. (The Democrats might, though, if the roles were reversed ...)

[Origanalist]

[WarriorLiberty]

Well apparently i wonder if the Biden admin will Pardon AQ.

Since they already approved Turkish plans of taking Damascus with AQ/HTS Terrorists in Syria.

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92GyjRa3WY

[Occam's Banana]

Dave Smith | Hunter Gets A Pardon | Part Of The Problem 1199
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XceVfDbFtU
{Dave Smith | 03 December 2024}

On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave is joined by co-host Robbie "The Fire" Bernstein to discuss Joe Biden's decision to pardon his son Hunter, the coverage of his statement that he wouldn't choose to pardon his son previously, Dave's beef with Chris Cuomo on X, and so much more.

[Occam's Banana]

CLIP from SYSTEM UPDATE #374:

Biden Pardons Hunter After Vowing He Wouldn't
https://rumble.com/v5vy0uk-biden-par...e-wouldnt.html
{Glenn Greenwald | 04 December 2024}

[Occam's Banana]

Whoopi Goes Crazy Defending Hunter’s Pardon, Demands Co-Host Stop Calling Biden a Liar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vea5PqzvbAA
{Nate The Lawyer | 03 December 2024}

[Occam's Banana]

Whoopi Goes Crazy Defending Hunter’s Pardon, Demands Co-Host Stop Calling Biden a Liar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vea5PqzvbAA
{Nate The Lawyer | 03 December 2024}

Charlamagne Tha God Calls Out The View’s Shocking Bias!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw93O1bPstE
{Nate The Lawyer | 06 December 2024}

[Voluntarist]

As preemptive pardons are being discussed for others besides just Hunter:

Biden's 'Preemptive Pardons' Once Again Prove That the Democrats' Accusations Are Confessions That Crimes Have Been Committed
By Batya Ungar-Sargon (Self identifies as left-wing populist)

The very idea of a preemptive pardon is shocking—the exact kind of norm breaking that the Democrats love to accuse Trump of. Think about what a preemptive pardon means: It is a tacit admission that the Democrats believe that Fauci or Schiff committed crimes—that there would be something to find if one went looking—but also that the Democrats will not and would never go looking there. In other words, if Biden issues these blanket pardons, he will be ratifying the idea that was so aptly laid out by Peru's General Óscar Benavides: "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."

It's a complete assault on the rule of law—an admission that the Democrats believe that justice not only is political but should be politicized. It sets an extremely dangerous precedent—from the side constantly yammering on about the dangers posed by Trump to our democracy. I guess we've arrived at the "doing away with the rule of law" stage of defending democracy!

Every accusation from the Democrats is a confession.

They say that Trump's appointees are hell bent on revenge. It is Republicans who plan to weaponize the Department of Justice and the FBI against Trump's political enemies—as though the Democrats didn't deploy the DOJ and courts across the country to attempt to imprison Donald Trump, in an obviously politically-motivated witch hunt. As though the FBI were not instrumental in covering up the Hunter Biden laptop story to help Biden win in 2020. As though the intelligence community didn't routinely collude with President Trump's political opponents to undermine him at every turn, both while he was in office and since.

[Brian4Liberty]

...
My initial reaction to the issuance of a full pardon by President Joe Biden to his son Hunter was emotional. What father wouldn’t pardon his own son, if he could?
...

"I would pardon my child". Good doggy.

https://x.com/USAB4L/status/1864136798345069018

[Anti Federalist]

"I would pardon my child". Good doggy.

The hardest thing I could ever possibly imagine doing is turning my back to one of my children due to their criminal behavior.

But I could see where the conditions would warrant that.

But Biden only tossed a pardon his way to cease any further investigations that could connect Hunter to himself in whatever corrupt business dealings and kickback schemes they had/have going on.