Biden pardons Hunter | Biden commutes sentences of nearly all federal death row inmates to life in prison

  • Thread starter Thread starter BlueSmoke
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 594
  • Views: 9K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
Why? I mean, who cares? Let me run a theory by you:

I've said that Trumpers went all-in on his idiocy in 2016, and when he turned out to be who we said he was, there was no going back. They were committed and thus did they elevate him to god-like status and we know the rest. To admit now that he's completely FOS would be an admission that everything they've done the past four years was BS.

So maybe liberals are like this in a different way? We went all-in on the rule of law stuff. We excoriated Trump for pardoning his peeps, and we made it a really important campaign issue. So if Joe were to commute Hunter (which, given that Hunter's crimes are almost never prosecuted in that way), it would be an admission that we hyped that shit too far?

Otherwise, I can't understand why anyone would be pissed. Hunter already suffered a lot, and he didn't really do anything particularly serious. Trump is going to pardon everyone associated with J6, which is much, much worse.
Click to expand...
Because I haven’t seen anything to suggest Hunter did not commit the crime for which he was convicted, he hasn’t served any time for it yet, and I therefore don’t think this falls anywhere close to the narrow categories for which the pardon power should be exercised. It would also reek of self-dealing, and while Pubs obviously don’t give a crap about that anymore, I still do.
 
lawtig02 said:
Because I haven’t seen anything to suggest Hunter did not commit the crime for which he was convicted, he hasn’t served any time for it yet, and I therefore don’t think this falls anywhere close to the narrow categories for which the pardon power should be exercised. It would also reek of self-dealing, and while Pubs obviously don’t give a crap about that anymore, I still do.
Click to expand...
Pardons aren’t for claims of actual innocence. The gun charge itself is arguably unconstitutional and virtually no one is ever prosecuted for a case of lying about whether or not you believe yourself to be an addict. The tax case is more meritorious, but he did pay back the taxes with penalties and interest. And being in the middle of addiction is a pretty good explanation for not paying taxes. If he weren’t the president’s son, there is 0.0% chance he would have been sentenced to jail in either case. It would have been pled out - as he attempted to do.
 
Calheel said:
Pardons aren’t for claims of actual innocence. The gun charge itself is arguably unconstitutional and virtually no one is ever prosecuted for a case of lying about whether or not you believe yourself to be an addict. The tax case is more meritorious, but he did pay back the taxes with penalties and interest. And being in the middle of addiction is a pretty good explanation for not paying taxes. If he weren’t the president’s son, there is 0.0% chance he would have been sentenced to jail in either case. It would have been pled out - as he attempted to do.
Click to expand...
I’ll be honest — I really don’t care if anyone else would have been charged with this crime. He was, and a jury of his peers convicted him. If a court finds the theory of the case to be unconstitutional, I’ll reconsider. Otherwise, he’s guilty and he should serve his time.
 
lawtig02 said:
I’ll be honest — I really don’t care if anyone else would have been charged with this crime. He was, and a jury of his peers convicted him. If a court finds the theory of the case to be unconstitutional, I’ll reconsider. Otherwise, he’s guilty and he should serve his time.
Click to expand...
Under that theory, there would never be pardons. The whole point of a pardon comes from the king’s ability to grant mercy. I wouldn’t be opposed to getting rid of the pardon power, as it is anti-democratic. That said, if the power exists, Hunter certainly has a meritorious argument for getting one.
 
Calheel said:
Under that theory, there would never be pardons. The whole point of a pardon comes from the king’s ability to grant mercy. I wouldn’t be opposed to getting rid of the pardon power, as it is anti-democratic. That said, if the power exists, Hunter certainly has a meritorious argument for getting one.
Click to expand...
I’ll freely admit I think the pardon power should be used extremely rarely and I’d be fine with doing away with it completely, but I don’t think my view of Hunter’s case means I think a pardon could never be issued. I just don’t think Hunter deserves one. At the very least, I would expect some level of remorse, and I don’t remember hearing even that from Hunter.
 
lawtig02 said:
I’ll freely admit I think the pardon power should be used extremely rarely and I’d be fine with doing away with it completely, but I don’t think my view of Hunter’s case means I think a pardon could never be issued. I just don’t think Hunter deserves one. At the very least, I would expect some level of remorse, and I don’t remember hearing even that from Hunter.
Click to expand...
“I’m here today to acknowledge that I have made mistakes in my life, and wasted opportunities and privileges I was afforded,” he said. “For that, I am responsible. For that, I am accountable. And for that, I am making amends.”

www.usatoday.com

Hunter Biden hits out at Republicans: 3 takeaways from the president's son's rare public comments

Defying a congressional subpoena, the president's son appeared outside the Capitol building to push back on the House GOP's impeachment effort
www.usatoday.com www.usatoday.com
 
lawtig02 said:
I’ll freely admit I think the pardon power should be used extremely rarely and I’d be fine with doing away with it completely, but I don’t think my view of Hunter’s case means I think a pardon could never be issued. I just don’t think Hunter deserves one. At the very least, I would expect some level of remorse, and I don’t remember hearing even that from Hunter.
Click to expand...
Hunter has apologized. But he also has a right to be angry at Republicans who politicized his life and prosecution for five years, making an embarrassing and difficult addiction fodder for right wing news and having his schlong spread all over the internet. I’d be pretty angry with those people in his shoes, too.
 
superrific said:
Why? I mean, who cares? Let me run a theory by you:

I've said that Trumpers went all-in on his idiocy in 2016, and when he turned out to be who we said he was, there was no going back. They were committed and thus did they elevate him to god-like status and we know the rest. To admit now that he's completely FOS would be an admission that everything they've done the past four years was BS.

So maybe liberals are like this in a different way? We went all-in on the rule of law stuff. We excoriated Trump for pardoning his peeps, and we made it a really important campaign issue. So if Joe were to commute Hunter (which, given that Hunter's crimes are almost never prosecuted in that way), it would be an admission that we hyped that shit too far?

Otherwise, I can't understand why anyone would be pissed. Hunter already suffered a lot, and he didn't really do anything particularly serious. Trump is going to pardon everyone associated with J6, which is much, much worse.
Click to expand...
You are By far, not even close. The biggest hypocrite, morally and ethically bankrupt poster on this board and on the IC board. You should definitely not be teaching law.
 
Calheel said:
Hunter has apologized. But he also has a right to be angry at Republicans who politicized his life and prosecution for five years, making an embarrassing and difficult addiction fodder for right wing news and having his schlong spread all over the internet. I’d be pretty angry with those people in his shoes, too.
Click to expand...
Yes, poor, poor crackhead hunter. trading on daddy’s name and getting appointed to boards he has zero experience in and fucking strippers and his sister-in-law.
 
Callatoroy said:
You are By far, not even close. The biggest hypocrite, morally and ethically bankrupt poster on this board and on the IC board. You should definitely not be teaching law.
Click to expand...
The way to avoid losing arguments to me is not to seek them out on topics that you don't know or understand. But you do, and then you get embarrassed, and then you lash out with this stuff. It's sad, really.
 
chrissteel said:

He did work at doj for a time before
Click to expand...
Do you know how many litigators "did work at DOJ for a time before?" You're talking about like half the litigators in the country (if you include state prosecutors' offices).

The reason Bragg hired him was, if you read the article, because he had a wealth of experience in the New York AG's office, and was familiar with Trump's misdeeds. It wasn't because DOJ was trying to push Bragg to do anything. I mean, the gish gallop bullshit is SO tiring.
 
Callatoroy said:
boards he has zero experience in
Click to expand...
Hunter was plenty qualified for that position. Here again is your shtick. You're making a strong claim about corporate law and corporate governance, when obviously you don't know the first thing about it. Why? Why are you so sure that you know better than people who do this for their profession?

The reality is that companies go out of their way to appoint people who DON'T work in the industry to serve on boards, for a number of reasons. They are called outside directors, and they are supposed to comprise a majority and sometimes a super majority of the board. Outside directors don't have to be from a different industry, but corporate governance best practice is to hire some outside directors with completely different backgrounds and experience.

Here, for instance, is the Apple board of directors. Note how many of them have any experience in computing or consumer electronics. 6 of 8. There's someone from a microfinance non-profit, some aerospace guys, some finance industry -- and nothing about computers. That's because the board of directors doesn't manage the company. It oversees the management.

www.apple.com

Apple Leadership

Apple leadership biographies include Apple’s executive team responsibilities and experience. Learn more about Apple’s leadership team.
www.apple.com

But I guess you know better than Apple investors and leadership.
 
superrific said:
The way to avoid losing arguments to me is not to seek them out on topics that you don't know or understand. But you do, and then you get embarrassed, and then you lash out with this stuff. It's sad, really.
Click to expand...
Lmao. You have never admittedly lost an argument in you life. Your ego and lack of humility won’t allow it. It’s all you have. Can’t adapt in the real world. Emotionally fragile. But now I see also morally and ethically void. You are going to struggle over the next 4 years. Hoping you banked some snowflake days because you are going to need them.
 
Callatoroy said:
Lmao. You have never admittedly lost an argument in you life. Your ego and lack of humility won’t allow it. It’s all you have. Can’t adapt in the real world. Emotionally fragile. But now I see also morally and ethically void. You are going to struggle over the next 4 years. Hoping you banked some snowflake days because you are going to need them.
Click to expand...
Well, one thing I do is avoid arguing on topics I know shit about. That makes it easier to have a good record. You should try it, instead of rejecting all knowledge. Just like your damn user name. You're wrong about timeouts. You just are. That's not because I'm so smart. It's because smart people have studied the topic with actual data and have found that they don't make a difference -- which can be readily observed in experience, for what it's worth.

Who lacks humility? Me, for adapting my view to fit the data analyzed by smart, qualified people who I trust? Or you, for clinging to your view no matter what anyone else says or what the data or the science show? As I've said before, you are the arrogant one here.
 
superrific said:
Hunter was plenty qualified for that position. Here again is your shtick. You're making a strong claim about corporate law and corporate governance, when obviously you don't know the first thing about it. Why? Why are you so sure that you know better than people who do this for their profession?

The reality is that companies go out of their way to appoint people who DON'T work in the industry to serve on boards, for a number of reasons. They are called outside directors, and they are supposed to comprise a majority and sometimes a super majority of the board. Outside directors don't have to be from a different industry, but corporate governance best practice is to hire some outside directors with completely different backgrounds and experience.

Here, for instance, is the Apple board of directors. Note how many of them have any experience in computing or consumer electronics. 6 of 8. There's someone from a microfinance non-profit, some aerospace guys, some finance industry -- and nothing about computers. That's because the board of directors doesn't manage the company. It oversees the management.

www.apple.com

Apple Leadership

Apple leadership biographies include Apple’s executive team responsibilities and experience. Learn more about Apple’s leadership team.
www.apple.com

But I guess you know better than Apple investors and leadership.
Click to expand...
You are an idiot. Board me,hers are typically accomplished business people or accomplished in their field. Apple and every other board in the world isn’t putting crackhead losers with zero professional accomplishments on their boards. You might be the only person that actually believes hunter was put on that board based on his own merits and not because daddy. You simply aren’t a serious person to have discussions with. Another thing I’m giddy about from the election though is the possibility that trump turns the dogs lose to investigate hunter and his uncle and Joe and that they bring charges based on anythin and everything, no matter how obscure. Time for lawfare to be turned on the Biden’s. Maybe shake L. James tree also. Payback is a bitch.
 
Ramrouser said:
Trump campaigned openly of pardoning the nonviolent J6ers……so yea.

Trump should tell Biden at their Wednesday meeting that he will pardon Hunter, sparing POTUS from having to pardon his own son (bad look internationally).
Click to expand...
Why would Biden trust him to do so?
 
What is Hunter going to possibly be pardoned for? Stuff that was on his laptop or other stuff? I haven’t been able to follow the circuses about the Trump cases and Hunter Biden cases, so forgive my ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top