A Dose of Reality for Our Senile, Duplicitous, and Disillusioned President
Instead of acknowledging any wrongdoing on Hunter’s part, Biden portrayed him as a victim of “selective and unfair prosecution.”
Despite repeated denials from both President Joe Biden and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, we all knew the day would come when Biden would pardon his son, Hunter. Of course, he had to wait until the election was over. He also wanted to act before the sentencing dates for Hunter’s federal gun charges on Dec. 12 and his tax evasion case on Dec. 16.
According to the White House statement, the president granted Robert Hunter Biden “a full and unconditional pardon for those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.” And that was the end of that.
Biden’s presidency is already viewed by many as a failure. Pardoning his son at this point will likely have little additional impact on his “legacy.” Within a few days, the media uproar will likely fade.
We really can’t be too hard on the old man. Whatever his other motives, he’s an aging father who wants his son nearby in his final years. Many parents in his position might have done the same.
However, I do find fault with Biden’s pardon statement. Instead of acknowledging any wrongdoing on Hunter’s part, he portrayed him as a victim of “selective and unfair prosecution.” Biden claimed, “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.”
This framing minimizes the seriousness of Hunter’s offenses. In reality, the charges brought against him were relatively minor compared to the breadth of his alleged misconduct. Yet, many individuals have served prison sentences for similar charges.
Biden’s attempt to recast his son as a martyr rather than addressing the facts of the case undermines the integrity of his argument and the public’s trust.
In 1994, a crime bill authored by @JoeBiden locked Black men up for years for the same gun charge he just pardoned Hunter Biden for today.
This is the Democrat Party.
Again, why any Black person would want to be associated with the democrats is beyond me.
— Kimberly Klacik (@kimKBaltimore) December 2, 2024
In 2018, U.S. Attorney David Weiss of the Delaware District Court launched an investigation into Hunter Biden. The probe dragged on for five years, during which time the statute of limitations conveniently expired on some of Hunter’s most serious alleged offenses—such as tax evasion in 2014 and 2015, years when he earned millions from foreign entities. Ultimately, Department of Justice officials charged him with relatively minor crimes, creating the appearance of accountability while shielding him from harsher consequences.
One of the most egregious claims in President Biden’s pardon statement centers on Hunter’s “carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice,” which he blames for unraveling in court due to interference from “political opponents in Congress.” Biden contends, “Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.”
This “carefully negotiated” agreement, however, was widely criticized as a sweetheart deal. It required Hunter to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax evasion charges and enter a pretrial diversion program for a felony charge of possessing a firearm as a drug user or addict. If Hunter complied with the diversion program for two years, the felony charge would be dropped entirely. In essence, the agreement was an extraordinarily lenient slap on the wrist.
On July 25, 2023, Hunter arrived in court expecting to sign the deal and leave within half an hour. However, Judge Maryellen Noreika had other plans. Upon reviewing the agreement, she rejected it, raising serious concerns about its constitutionality, particularly the diversion clause and the sweeping immunity Hunter would receive. Fox News reported that the judge found these elements deeply problematic.
Following the judge’s decision, Hunter pleaded not guilty to all charges and left the courtroom empty-handed. For the Biden family, the collapse of the deal was a disastrous turn of events. For the rule of law in America, however, it was a significant and welcome victory.
President Biden claims that his political opponents are targeting Hunter as a means of attacking him, and there is some validity to this allegation given the Biden family’s history of influence peddling. Investigations launched by House Republicans in January 2023 uncovered substantial evidence suggesting that the Biden family profited by leveraging Joe Biden’s political position to influence U.S. policy decisions in exchange for financial gain. This evidence includes bank records, data from Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop, and sworn testimony from IRS and FBI whistleblowers who were directly involved in investigating Hunter.
The evidence reveals that Hunter Biden and his associates created a network of shell companies specifically designed to launder money through a complex web of accounts, making it difficult to trace the flow of funds.
According to testimony from IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler before the House Oversight Committee in July 2023, documents show that the Biden family received at least $17 million from foreign entities between 2014 and 2019. Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer (R-KY) later said on Fox News that the total amount could be as high as $25-30 million, adding, “All roads lead to Joe Biden.”
While the revelations from 2023 may have faded from the forefront of public consciousness amid a fast-moving news cycle, they remain unresolved. The lack of an impeachment effort against Biden doesn’t negate the gravity of the findings.
By issuing a full and comprehensive pardon to Hunter for 2014-2024, Biden has limited the risk of “future prosecutions or the potential of what the incoming Trump Justice Department could do,” as Jeff Zeleny, CNN’s chief national affairs correspondent, suggests in the clip below.
🚨 NEW: CNN just ADMITTED Biden pardoned Hunter for ALL crimes for the past 11 years out of fear that his family would be investigated by the Trump administration
THIS WAS ONE BIG COVERUP. pic.twitter.com/AJOaWVDKqs
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) December 2, 2024
Finally, President Biden highlights Hunter’s five and a half years of sobriety, seemingly suggesting that his past drug addiction mitigates his criminal behavior. However, IRS whistleblower Joseph Ziegler reminds us of a critical detail. Speaking with investigative reporter Catherine Herridge (as shown in the clip below), Ziegler notes that in his own memoir, Hunter admitted to filing “false tax returns” even after achieving sobriety.
After assurances that no pardon was forthcoming….
The accuracy of the White House statement is also questionable based on our recent interview with IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler.
Listen carefully as Ziegler explains a critical timeline in the IRS felony… pic.twitter.com/1cXVcsWcbV
— Catherine Herridge (@C__Herridge) December 2, 2024
Elizabeth writes commentary for The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a member of the Editorial Board at The Sixteenth Council, a London think tank. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Not sure where I saw it or heard it but Catherine Herridge loves the Democrat Social Circuit. I don’t think she is a champion for the truth.
Well, that’s a well-supported accusation.
We’re you perhaps a witness at the Kavanaugh hearings?
The Biden family is permanently pariah from political power. They aren’t worth it anymore.
Trump should tilt at the current criminals in power instead.
I think that they are worth it, Joe Biden stole a bunch of classified documents and at the same time. It is obvious why they were being paid. This needs to be proven & prosecuted.
Disagree. The deterrent value of criminal and civil prosecutions of prominent political families for obvious crimes can’t be tossed overboard b/c some feel unwarranted sympathy for the Biden Family or are eager to turn their attention elsewhere. Refusal to pursue severe consequences for misdeeds by the prominent only encourages more of the same by reinforcing a belief that they are somehow untouchable and unaccountable.
How many crimes do you suppose Hunter committed during the period covered by the pardon (January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024)?
a. 10
b. 100
c. 1,000
d. 10,000 or more
Just a very, very conservative 1 per day (and we all know that he has committed so many more) gets you quickly up over 4000.
A simpler question would be how many crimes are definitively documented, by Hunter himself, on the one laptop he left at the repair shop?
I don’t know, but Letitia James was able to squeeze 34 felony counts out of a single payment to Stormy Daniels—which payment was actually legal..
That was Alvin Bragg.
Letitia James was able to claim that a billion dollar piece of real estate was only worth about $18 million … which wouldn’t even buy much of an apartment in Manhattan, and then have Trump fined almost a half billion dollars for a ridiculous non-crime where the alleged victim testified for the defense.
Paula, no she didn’t, and neither did Bragg. The single payment from Cohen to Daniels was legal, and Trump was not charged with it. The 34 counts were from 11 transactions, 11 payments from Trump to Cohen, which Bragg (not James) claimed were recorded inaccurately in Trump’s private business records. Each transaction generated three records in Trump’s system: an invoice, a check, and a voucher. The first payment generated two vouchers, because it was for two months ($70K rather than $35), so that’s the 34th count.
It was all BS of course, but that’s how there were 34 counts. They didn’t come from one transaction.
Milhouse — What you say is true, but it gets worse. The offenses Trump was charged with were only misdemeanors under New York law — unless they were perpetrated in furtherance of a felony. Then they become felonies.
What felony were the payments in furtherance of? Supposedly, they were done to influence the election. Now, I’m not sure “influencing an election” is actually a felony, since every politician tries to influence an election. How do you draw the line between putting your best foot forward and “influencing an election.”
More important legally, in my opinion, is that Trump was never charged with “influencing an election,” and therefore couldn’t defend against it. Assuming someone guilty of an uncharged and undefended felony so you can find him guilty of other felonies seems all wrong.
I would just rather see resources focused on stopping current criminals like Schiff and the China bedder guy.
I think there is a limit to what can be reasonably digested by the center that was so important to the election and I’d like to see it spent wisely. Joe is dying and Hunter is pardoned. By all means if he continues throw the book at him.
What crimes do you think Schiff and Swalwell are currently committing?
Schiff witheld exculpatory evidence and obstructed justice.
Swalwell is negligent at thee very least.
Those are things they did in the past. What crimes do you claim they are currently committing, to distinguish them from the Bidens?
If you put Quisling Joe in prison and take back his bribes then other criminals will think twice before committing crimes.
Let’s look at every aspect of US involvement in Ukraine. Which govt officials elected or appointed in or out of office received any benefit. Recall the furor raised about Putin potential capturing ‘labs’ which we were informed contained all sorts of nasty cold war era things …despite the US policy and Congressional appropriation of funds for decades to destroy those same things. That’s the sort of thing we should investigate and prosecute those responsible. If that means the Biden family then so be it.
IOW one thing voters want is the ‘deep state’ /DC establishment and their shenanigans over the last couple decades to be neutered. Investigating and holding them accountable is definitely required to do so. No one should be exempt. We don’t have to go out of our way to find things to use v Biden family as they were in center of Ukraine.
So, who is above the law now? You?
Do you honestly believe that you would receive a free get out of jail card if you did any of the things Hunter did?
There are people who need to be prosecuted, and Hunter holds the information on a lot of them.
He can’t claim the 5th Amendment anymore. So he needs his drug addled ass pulled into court to testify about what he knows about others who were complicit in his crimes. Including the feeble old coot who lied.
I’m not feeling as generous as you.
The pardon makes prosecution of Quisling Joe for his crimes easier. Hunter can’t refuse to testify before Congress and at Joe’s trial.
Let’s just assume that Hunter is called as a witness before the grand jury and/or Congress to lay out all the details of the Biden influence peddling history. He will refuse to testify based on (a) the pardon and (b) the Fifth Amendment. He is charged with criminal contempt. It will take years to get that before the Supremes and in the meantime a democrat might be elected President in 2028 and the charges will be immediately dropped. If it does get to the Supremes, they have a dilemma: if they say the pardon is invalid (which I think it is) or inapplicable, Hunter’s Fifth Amendment claim becomes clearly valid.
Either way, he will never testify. Ever.
No, Biden was a sitting senator , a sitting Vice President and probably sitting President of the United States of America
Whatever time he has left, should be behind bars
It would set a disastrous precedent not to …
No, no. no, no.
I can’t frame it as the actions of a loving father. I see another angle.
These are the actions of a criminal with the power to grant impunity to himself and to his partner(s) in crime.
Joe Biden* is, and has always been, a corrupt, lying punk @ss bitch.
And, for anyone who has been unlucky enough to come into contact with him, a nasty, vindictive prick.
Why are you going so easy on Brandon?
Biden’s political career is over, and he knows he is entering dementia. There is no downside to pardoning his son, and probably anybody would have done it.
Also, pardoning the son for unspecified crimes will stop any investigations that might have followed Biden into Memory Care. Biden himself will soon pass the point of being mentally competent for any kind of prosecution.
I think the downside is that Joe is damaging the “brand” as a whole ala Bud Light moment. At least that is what I want to believe 😉
Whatever value the “Biden Brand” might have left will have no value at all if he pardons a bunch more family members as he walks out the door.
I was hoping the poison would spread to the entire “Democrat Brand.”
We really can’t be too hard on the old man.
I can.
“A Dose of Reality for our Senile, Duplicitous, Disillusioned President”
Joe had his last dose of reality over 50 years ago. He’s been so senile the last few years that he doesn’t know the difference between what’s real and what’s imaginary.
Bullsh*t.
The whole Biden crime clan are nothing but deranged psychoaths. Every single one of them. They don’t care about anything but their own selfish desires.
Traitor Joe is making this illegitimate and insane “pardon” (though a sweeping declaration that a person is not to be held liable for ANYTHING, even things that the “pardoner” might be unaware of is a ridiculous abuse and not a “pardon” in any sense) only to save himself and his own interests. If Hunter goes down, Traitor Joe knows that the drug-addled psychopath spawn of his would take him down with him in a second.
No one in the Biden Crime Clan has any feelings about any other person, at all. They are all deranged psychopaths.
Blanket pardons, in this age of ever-multiplying federal laws, are practically required. If you pardon someone for acts against laws A through W, the feds will still nail the pardoned individual with violation of laws X, Y, and Z. (This would hold for a pardon listing specific acts being pardoned. The list could hardly be made exhaustive.) A pardon with specificity such as you may think proper could effectively leave the pardoned individual with no pardon at all.
They’re not required, unless you truly believe the feds are out to get you and will spare not effort to thwart the pardon, and also that your entire life is an open book to them. In most cases those things are not true.
Orwellian newspeak. We have come full circle. Wrong is right, bad is good, and screw all those along the way. The Biden Doctrine.
If Xiden thought this would be buried and forgotten, he is wrong. By extending the pardon to cover Hunter all the back to his start at Burisma he made a major tactical error. He can be called before Congress, Senate and grand juries and compelled to testify. The pardon operates the same as “immunity from prosecution” in a plea deal. No one may go to prison, but the Xiden name and demonrats by association, will be sullied for decades. And more importantly it may, it may deter other politicians from trying the same grift.
This is a ridiculous and un-Constitutional abuse. The pardon power needs to be challenged in court so that we can get an official ruling on what the word “pardon” actually means … because it does NOT mean that the President has Godlike powers to declare anyone totally outside of the law, even outside of its reach for crimes that the “pardoner” is unaware of at the time of the so-called “pardon” and has not contemplated. A President cannot pardon someone for crimes that the President doesn’t know about, because that is not a pardon. That anyone would argue that this is part of the word “pardon”, to free any person from ALL law and to free that person from things that he pardoner is unaware of, is crazy. That is not what a “pardon” is. It’s about time that the SCOTUS took this issue up because it is very serious and the arguments that some are making for Traitor Joe’s illegal action are INSANE.
Actually, he does have God like powers in this regard, and it is Constitutional. But that does not mean the act will not live in infamy.
https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard-html/
That piece does not say what you think it does.
The actual definition of the Constitutional “pardon” has never been addressed in court. People seem to be happy to treat it as though it could mean anything that obviates law, in some respect, but that is not what “pardon” means. The Constitution says, exactly:
If you cannot name the Offences then you cannot pardon for them. The Constitutional pardon power is not unlimited so that the President may hold some individual outside of all federal law at his whim. That is insane and utterly ridiculous. And the President cannot pardon someone for something the President is not even aware of.
Since people like you demand that these totally insane concepts of “pardon” be accepted it must be tested in court as soon as possible, because the word “pardon” does not include all that in its definition.
Of course it means what oldschool says. The POTUS’ authority to pardon is not limited by the Constitution. Therefore, a POTUS can pardon anyone for anything, including for as-of-yet unidentified or unnoticed crimes.
“The Constitutional pardon power is not unlimited so that the President may hold some individual outside of all federal law at his whim.”
Certainly the POTUS can hold an individual outside of any set of federal laws of his choosing. This authority would include holding someone outside the reach of the set of all federal laws, because there is no limit on which or how many federal laws from which a single person may be made immune.
See my post above about the practical necessity of blanket pardons.
Good thing you didn’t write “grandfather” and “granddaughter” in there …
Hunter wasn’t any sort of father to that girl, either. He had to finally be forced to see the kid and Traitor Joe and the rest of the psychopath family still pretend that she doesn’t exist.
They can be cellmates.
OFF TOPIC: For those who still think Musk would have a case for defamation against Alex Vindman (or would if not for Sullivan), see Hill v DePaul Univ., decided just a few months ago by the Illinois Appellate Court. It’s exactly on topic (for Musk v Vindman, not for this post).
Here’s the key quote:
Exactly so, Vindman’s statement about Musk “stated the factual basis for the opinions it expressed”, and “evaluative opinions are not actionable since, by definition, such statements are based on disclosed facts”.
He’s not protecting his crackhead, he’s protecting his own ass. It’s very obvious to anyone with half a brain that Hunter Biden was The Bag Man in his criminal syndicate. The only thing Hunter had to sell was Daddy’s office, which he wouldn’t have been able to sell even once if Daddy hadn’t been complicit.
I believe you are correct, but there is an alternative explanation, which you hear every time someone accuses Hunter of “influence peddling”.
Influence peddling is the good case for the Bidens. It means Hunter was selling, not Joe’s favors, but his own influence with Joe. If true, that would be legal!
Hunter had every right to tell customers that, in exchange for money, he would talk to his father about their situation and influence him to help them. That is lobbying, which is expressly protected by the constitution.
But you and I agree that that is not what Hunter was doing. He wasn’t peddling his own influence at all, he was directly peddling his father’s favors. The payments he received were not for him but for his father; that is what the term “bagman” means, that you used and I agree with. A bagman is not acting for himself but as his principal’s agent. And that makes Joe the criminal, and Hunter merely his accomplice.
This pardon doesn’t get Joe off the hook, but it greatly reduced the possibility that he will ever be charged. A possibility that was already low, because of his delicate mental state. As Durham reported, when he wants to he is able to project an image of a confused old man who is just being persecuted; Durham didn’t buy it but concluded that a sympathetic jury would.
I”m sure Hunter registered as a lobbyist for multiple foreign governments under FARA, yes?
No???
I’m shocked.
That’s a felony. Each and every iteration of doing this.
Which foreign governments do you claim he lobbied for? I have been following his saga for a long time and can’t remember any instance of his being paid by any foreign government.
Burisma is not a foreign government, and neither are the various Chinese companies he has provided with his services, whatever those might be.
Also, as I understand it lobbying without registration is not a crime; the crime is failing to register. That means there’s no felony for “each and every iteration”. If he was paid by the Chinese government to exert his influence on his father on ten occasions, there would still only be one charge for failure to register.
You’re also forgetting that Congressional investigations have turned up phone calls that Joe personally participated in.
Then there’s Hunter’s email stating “10% for the big guy”, and similar messages sent by Joe’s brother.
With the Burisma thing, we know for a fact that Joe personally delivered on the favor, quid pro joe, from Hunter’s getting paid to be on the Board of that company despite having zero knowledge of the industry. Joe threatened the President of Ukraine that US aid $$ would be cancelled if he didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma. And that prosecutor did get fired with days of this threat.
We know that this happened because Joe boasted about the whole thing, laid out the whole story, and did so publicly. I’ve watched the video on Youtube. And the prosecutor that got fired has testified that every bit of what Joe was boasting about actually happened.
So, your grand theory that Hunter was merely lobbying his dad is demonstrably false.
Nice try though.
Well Hunter can finally focus on his career as a highly profitable painter.
I would love to see someone make the case that Brandon was too senile to truly understand what he was signing, therefore the pardon isn’t valid.
It’s very unlikely it would fly in court but the argument itself would drive Hunter and Jill – and a huge chunk of the media – right over the edge!
There is no requirement that he understand anything, or even that he sign anything. When the constitution wants a signature on something it says so; it only does so twice. That means in all other cases no signature is required.
If someone did want to challenge a signature’s validity on the grounds of mental incompetence, the appropriate way to do so would be to challenge some law that Biden signed. Legislation does require the president’s signature (with two exceptions), so just find a law signed recently, find a person who has been harmed by that law’s passage, and have him claim that it isn’t a valid law.
LOL. Right on cue …
Milhouse claims that all signatures are valid, no matter the state of mind of the signatory. Any scribble of ink – or even none, I guess – is good enough for the Milhouse types. This is the sort of insane stupidity we have to deal with in modern America.
1. Prove it isn’t.
2. In any case no signature is needed for a pardon.
Milhouse, I believe, is correct. A signature on a document that requires one is prima facie evidence the document has been signed as the law requires. It would require someone’s challenge to the effect of the signature in order to prove to a court that it is for some reason invalid.
If Hunter is subpoenaed in the next congress, can he be deprived of 5th amendment privilege because he does not face criminal liability?
See my response above.
Prove that the year mentioned in the Constitution is from the Gregorian calendar. Prove that it’s even a Christian year is referenced in the Constitution with all the age requirements and such. It never says it anywhere. The only possible mention is at the end, at the signatures! And even then it doesn’t mention which calendar is being used … which is not such a simple thing as the US was using the Julian calendar very much later than anyone else.
But we know what the answer is: You know the calendar that is referenced and I know it and everyone knows it, even though the Constitution doesn’t mention it because it is assumed knowledge that didn’t need to be written out explicitly.
The Constitution discusses the President’s signature on bills only because the Constitution allows for bills to become law without the support of the President (two ways). The signature is the way for the President to express his support for the enactment of the law and for the exact time that it is enacted.
How do you know the exact time that a pardon is enacted without the President signing the order? How do you maintain any record of a pardon if there is no need for a signature – and therefore no need for any documentation?
The Founders were certainly not so sloppy and didn’t expect anyone else to be, either.
Again you’re just making stuff up, without any basis at all in any version of reality.
And by the way the constitution was not signed by any of the people who enacted it (which was the members of the 13 ratifying conventions). The signature of one ceremonial copy, by a portion of those proposing it, was pure theater. That copy had no more official status than all the hundreds of printed copies that nobody signed.
But to the actual question … how do you know (if you do know) that the “year” mentioned in the Constitution is according to the Gregorian calendar? And if you are rejecting the signature page then there is not even any mention of “Lord” in the Constitution to gie a hint as to the sort of “year” that is constantly being referenced.
How do you know the calendar that the Constitution uses? How do you know that the ages aren’t in islamic years? What text in the Constitution do you look at to determine these things?
This is a very simple and direct question that I would appreciate a simple answer to.
You can’t possibly be this stupid.
Almost all references to “year” in the constitution don’t depend on a calendar; they mean a solar year, and any solar — or even luni-solar — calendar will do. A person is twenty-five years old, and eligible to the House, when twenty-five years have passed since his birth, on any solar calendar.
Those few references to actual calendar dates refer to the Gregorian calendar because that was the calendar legally in effect at the time the constitution was adopted. If the USA were ever to adopt a different calendar, the dates given (only in the 20th amendment, as far as I can tell) would have to be converted, just as the dollar amount in the 7th amendment would have to be converted if the USA were ever to adopt a different currency. (It should probably be converted anyway to account for inflation.)
Not all “solar years” are the same. This is elementary school level knowledge. That’s the reason why we switched from Julian to Gregorian, to begin with … though it too the Colonies longer than most others to do this.
Anyhow, how do you know that it’s a “solar year”, anyway? Where in the Constitution do you find the mention that it is a solar year? I must have missed that part. Please copy and paste the exact section of the Constitution that says it has to be a solar year (according to the Gregorian calendar, actually., but even just any old solar year would do). You are the Constitutional absolutist, so where is this definition of the “year”?
BTW, your conversion speculations are crazy. If we switch the sort of year we use then you would change the years to their new converted amount – “35 years” would change to “35.0087442 years”, say? LOL.
Yes, all solar years are the same. The switch from Julian to Gregorian didn’t change the year. It only changed the date.
And no, the American colonies did not change later than the rest of the British empire. They changed at exactly the same time, when Parliament decided to adopt the Gregorian calendar in 1752. Which was 36 years before the constitution was adopted. So there’s no question that when the 20th amendment specifies dates, they are on the Gregorian calendar, not the Julian or any other. Should the USA ever adopt a calendar that does not have a month called “January”, the dates in the 20th amendment would have to be converted to the corresponding date on the new calendar. As far as I can tell there are no other places in the constitution where a date is specified, so changing the calendar would have no effect, so long as the new calendar was also solar.
How do I know that a “year” means a solar year? Because there is no other kind. There is no such thing as a “lunar year”; the Moslem calendar, which is purely lunar, calls 12 lunar cycles a “year”, but that is a purely arbitrary decision, and it could just as easily have used 13, or 6, or 25. That’s clearly not what the constitution contemplates. On a solar calendar, such as the one in use at the time and for at least 2000 years previously, a year is an objective measure, an actual thing, not an arbitrary term.
Uh … no. The year was a different length, which is why there was a change needed in the dates. The “year” on the Julian calendar drifted off because it was too long and added about a day every 100 years. The Gregorian calendar readjusted the dates back and then, took away a leap day every 100 years (generally) to get the right length of a year. The Gregorian year, on average, is shorter than the Julian year.
But that’s not the point. The point is that there are many things in the COnstittuion which are not completely spelled out but that normal people understand full well … such as the point that you cannot pardon someone if you don’t know the crime you are pardoning him for or that you cannot pardon yourself.
Of course, if there are disagreements about these important definitions then they need to be addresses by the court, if not rewritten in an amendment. But until either of those things happen you cannot claim that your interpretation of some Constitutional power – which would be totally unlimited and completely unworkable in your open-ended definition – is correct.
This all reminds me of how many people seemed to accept the idea of negative nominal interest rates, as if it was something normal, when there could not have been anything more abnormal; and insane. But so many people went along with the insanity as if nothing was wrong, not understanding how sick and perverted the system had become.
Gentlemen,
With respect, Millhouse is correct on this issue, and it’s not worth discussing seriously.
There are many people who want to figuratively ‘burn Biden at the stake’ for his crimes, or better put ‘High crimes and misdemeanors’ as Article 2 allows.
However, what political advantage or moral decency is there in putting a man who will be dead in 5 years or less and is mentally in a steep decline in jail? Or, trying to take away his authority to pardon people on such a technicality? Does it help the country? No.
Trump has too much to do in four years (or two as some people believe), to clean up government and lock up some people in the government now who are quite physically and mentally well for their crimes in the last 4 years. That’s who should be legally and politically attacked, not the old man who has only been a figurehead president for the last four years.
The only reason anyone would bribe Hunter is for a political favor from Joe. That’s why all the $$ dried up after Trump got elected and Joe became a private citizen for four years.
So, every time some foreign govt or business hooked Hunter up with a huge pile of case, or a no-work, no-show, “job” on a Board of Directors, there was a Quid Pro Joe of an actual favor being demanded of Joe.
So, its not like Joe was unaware of Hunter’s activities. He was directly involved. And Congress has documented phone calls with Joe on the line.
Plus, the “Big Guy” was getting 10% of everything Hunter (and other family members) were getting.
There’s simply no way Joe could imagine that Hunter was NOT guilty of Treason.
Leave a Comment