President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter despite the White House saying over and over he would not do it.
The pardon includes charges Hunter faced or might have faced from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024.
Yes, ten years. Absolute insanity. That means anything else that pops up in that time period doesn’t count. Hunter cannot face any charges.
Hunter Biden committed — & was convicted of — felony tax evasion crimes & felony gun crimes. Those convictions are now gone. But… Joe has also pardoned Hunter for *all* other crimes which he may have committed from 2014 to today. So foreign lobbying etc. can’t be prosecuted now. https://t.co/GnKtq3rmeB
— Jerry Dunleavy IV 🇺🇸 (@JerryDunleavy) December 2, 2024
Hunter pleaded guilty to tax evasion. He was going to face sentencing on December 16 for lying on a federal form by saying he was not using drugs or addicted to drugs when trying to buy a gun.
Biden wrote in a press release:
From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.
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.
“I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision,” Biden concluded.
Remember this one?
No one is above the law.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 31, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Of course he did. No downside to it, politically, especially after Trump won.
You, me, we all expected this, right? Joe’s been corrupt his whole miserable life. To think that he might force his son to man up and step up and face the consequences of his own behavior is simply not within Joe’s nasty nature.
We all expected it, but take particular note of the NeverTrumpers that ASSURED us that he totally wouldn’t because he ‘respected the rule of law’.
That never happened. Name one “never-trumper” who made such a claim.
Said the Never Trumper
You did.
Maxmillion wrote:
Bill Kristol.
So “if you’re inclined toward American constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and a free economic order,” you’ll vote for Biden.
https://x.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1798867500970778971
Does this count?
The contrast between a president who respects the sacrifices of those who have served and his predecessor who doesn’t, as well as the contrast between a president who respects the rule of law and his predecessor who’s a convicted felon—this contrast will be there for the American people to see.
—William Kristol
I’d call Joe Biden himself a “never trumper” and he said multiple times he would not pardon him.
EBL, that goes a very short distance in that direction, but no, it doesn’t say he won’t pardon him. It’s just claiming that if Biden allowed the DOJ to prosecute Hunter then obviously he hasn’t weaponized it. Which is about as stupid and disingenuous as one can expect from the Lincoln Project.
Wendybar, the Kristol quote doesn’t even go that far. It claims that Biden “respects the rule of law”. But the pardon power is part of that rule of law, so claiming he respects it doesn’t rule a pardon out at all.
Liz Cheney
Bill Kristol said Biden wouldn’t pardon Hunter?! I don’t believe you. Prove it.
Just wait until they find out that Dr. Jill’s signature is on the pardon.
Joe is too demented to stand trial, but can sign a pardon if his wife moves his hand for him. Oh crap, that looks like a rubber stamp!!!
This pardon effectively serves as a safeguard for Joe Biden himself.
If you examine the details, the pardon dates back to 2014 and extends to 2024, covering crimes both committed and uncommitted during this ten year period.
This broad scope essentially eliminates any potential RICO case against the Bidens, particularly Joe.
In essence, this pardon was strategically crafted to shield Joe Biden from legal accountability, encompassing all actions that may have benefited him directly.
Agree that was the goal but there is still a chance that another Biden like brother James could be investigated and prosecuted who might spill the beans on the whole bunch. Unlikely, but possible.
No, it doesn’t. It just means Hunter can’t be charged in any such case. Joe and Jim are still fair game (unless he issues another pardon by Jan-20.)
Sorry, Milhouse, but Joel Pollack over at Breitbart disagrees with your assertion.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/12/01/hunter-pardon-lets-joe-biden-cover-up-his-own-alleged-influence-peddling-crimes/
Pollack presents no arguments for that. In fact he doesn’t even say it; what he says is that this pardon covers up Biden’s own apparent role. Presumably the idea is that if Hunter is no longer a target for potential prosecution then no one will ask him awkward questions about his father. But that’s just a guess, a gamble. It doesn’t actually protect him, should any prosecutor choose to pursue it.
Former US Attorney, Joe DiGenova just opined that Hunter, now immune, could be forced to testify against others involved in his criminal shenanigans
Too bad Hunter can’t pardon Joe.
Joe can pardon Joe.
BS.
This whole idea of pardoning oneself is crazy.
Given the precedent the Dims set going after Trump, I expect it will become common.
Crazy or not, the power is plenary, so there’s nothing preventing him from doing it.
The only reason he wouldn’t do it is confidence that he’ll never be charged.
So … according to you, the President is not bound by any laws, at all. He can do anything he wants and just pardon himself for it. There are absolutely no restrictions on the President since you claim that he has all-encompassing pardon power, that he can use on his own crimes, so he can order anyone in the Executive branch to do absolutely anything and then just pardon all of them and pardon himself for having given the order and there’s nothing anyone can do.
You do understand that a government with such a power in it cannot exist for very long? The idea is completely insane. Your claim gives the US President more powers than any King or Emperor, because he can pick and choose any federal laws he wants and choose to let people violate them at his whim and then pardon them. There is no need for a legislature in such a system.
There is no question, at all, that that is not the architecture that the Founders laid out and anyone with a brain understands that.
At least in theory, Congress can impeach and remove said president, and no pardon is valid in impeachment cases.
The President could have the military (parts loyal to him) close COngress and keep it from physically meeting. Then he can pardon himself for having done that and everyone in the military junta for having helped him.
Milhouse describes a President with absolutely no limits to his power. He can do anything and pardon everyone who is doing it, himself included, for anything. The idea is just completely insane, but that is exactly what Milhouse is claiming for the pardon power. The President gets ultra-royal power to operate solely on his own whim with no care and no regard for anyone or anything else. And he cannot, ultimately, be held responsible for any of it because he pardons everyone and everything – and that includes he and his gang having embezzled, say, $150 billion from the treasury to help him along in his post-Presidency (if he even allows such a thing).
Primoridal, don’t be more ridiculous than you already are. Of course the president is bound by the law. If he breaks the law he is guilty, and a pardon doesn’t change that. But yes, he can protect himself from any criminal charges by pardoning himself.
You destroyed your own argument when you added “so he can order anyone in the Executive branch to do absolutely anything and then just pardon all of them”. Yes, of course he can do that; that has always been the case, and no one has ever doubted it. But the order would not be a valid one, so a better word to use is “request”. A president can request his underlings to commit a crime, with a promise that he will pardon them after they do it — and he can then break his promise and leave them in the lurch. Again, this has always been obvious. But honorable underlings will refuse such a request, and go public, and so will not need a pardon.
That is not “more powers than any King or Emperor”; on the contrary, most kings and emperors were not bound by laws anyway. Most kings and emperors were officially free to do whatever they liked, because their word was the law. England was always different; the king was bound by the law. But he still had the absolute power of pardon.
Whether you like it or not, the founders of the USA copied the pardon power from that of the king of the UK, and meant it to work exactly the same way.
And of course your suggestion that a plenary pardon power makes a legislature superfluous is beyond ridiculous. No president, with or without a pardon power, can make laws. No president, with or without a pardon power, can lay taxes. The kings of England could not make laws or lay taxes; that’s why they needed to call a parliament every few years.
In fact you sound exactly like the Democrats did when they claimed that the Supreme Court’s finding on presidential immunity turned the president into a king. A president, in exercising his duties, can do whatever he thinks is right without fear of facing prosecution for it. That doesn’t mean he has the right to do whatever he likes; at most it means that he can do so and get away with it.
Maz2331, a pardon doesn’t affect impeachment, but impeachment can’t impose any criminal penalty. The whole point of that clause is that impeachment and criminal prosecution are two independent processes that have nothing to do with each other. All impeaching and convicting a president does is remove him from office; it can’t even prevent him from being reelected, if the people want him back.
That is up for debate. There are people on both sides of this issue that make good cases for and against. Since the President’s power to pardon is “absolute” I’m on the side of Biden being able to do it.
I think the middle of this is that it is one of those things that has “never been tested”. I don’t believe a sitting President has pardoned themselves. So since it hasn’t happened before, everything is speculation.
I’m strzoked beyond belief.
This gives Trump the political cover to pardon all the J-6 political prisoners on January 20.
Now that he stepped down from the race and Kamala got thumped there is no downside as you said. Democrats will memory hole this as fast as possible.
I’m sure Hunty still committed a litany of state crimes that are not covered under the pardon. Any Republican AGs and DAs game?
This is why Hunter stopped fighting anything before the election. An attempt to eliminate the distraction of his 1st Lieutenant of Extortion and Kickbacks in exchange for a pardon after the election.
I’m not surprised because Biden said he was going to pardon a turkey.
Take a very amused thumbs up, sir.
It’s very curious that Joe blames Congress for Hunter’s problems. Who has been in charge of the DOJ for nearly 4 years? As a fellow traveler, Garland didn’t need orders from Joe to understand what path to take. It seems reasonable that Hunter’s prosecutions served a purpose, possibly a dual purpose – control Hunter so that he didn’t become a loose cannon threat to the Joe and the Biden crime family, and to craft a narrative/counter-narrative that the DOJ’s law enforcement efforts were apolitical – “See, we’ve charged the president’s son with crimes. How dare you call us ‘politicized’?”
Good. Now we can proceed to put the finishing touches on the story being written about the most corrupt, traitorist, incompetent Pesidential family in US history. Vile people all of them.
If only this were true. But it isn’t.
This reminds me of how the Dems defended Clinton by claiming that no one is ever prosecuted for mere perjury, about their sexual activity, in a civil action. Except that the NYT dug up eight people who were at that very moment in federal prison for doing precisely that. Simple perjury, about sex, in a civil action. If Clinton had had a shred of self-respect he would immediately have pardoned all eight, and instructed DOJ never again to bring such charges. Then he could claim the same treatment for himself. But he didn’t; he just ignored it, kept those people in prison, and kept on demanding better treatment for himself, and the whole Dem party backed him on it, and successfully made the issue about the sex rather than the perjury.
Clinton had a focus group say he would be negatively polled by the sex…. So he lied…which turned out to be not an issue.
Yet
Jan 6 er’s rot in jail
It’s good to be king
If a person has to be of sound mind in order for a will to be valid, wouldn’t a president have to be of sound mind to issue a pardon?
Nope. There’s nothing in the constitution about the president’s soundness of mind.
Well there is the 25th Amendment but it does have to be invoked first.
Which is another reason no one should have voted for Kamala. Grotesque failure to do her duty to the country and invoke the 25th on Joe.
There is no duty to invoke it. It’s merely an option.
There’s a thing in the whole body of contract law and the concept of volition in actions that addresses “soundness of mind”. There cannot be any legal order of any sort from someone who is not sound of mind. This is a friggin tautology.
And once again you are completely wrong. There is no connection whatsoever between contract law and any of the president’s constitutional powers.
Any order must be SIGNED by someone. A signature is only good for someone who is sound of mind, otherwise the signature is invalid.
This ain’t tough stuff. Even you should be able to follow along without having to have every single little thing explained to you explicitly.
Sheesh …. it’s like talking to a two year old.
There is no requirement that an order be signed. You won’t find that anywhere in the constitution.
You’re also wrong about a signature requiring a sound mind. Legislation requires the president’s signature, but a bill signed by a president who is not of sound mind is still valid law.
LOL.
Yes … you won’t find it anywhere in the Constitution … BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS SIGNED!!! which means, to any normal person, that the concept of signatures on orders and contracts and the like was WELL KNOWN to those … WHO SIGNED THE FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION!!
Holy sh*t …
You don’t seem to understand the concept of the “signature”. Not in the least.
Not by any of the people who “ordained and established” it. One copy of the proposed constitution was handwritten on vellum, and signed by 39 of the 55 delegates who were proposing it. That is meaningless; the entire existence of that copy was never of any legal significance; it was pure theater.
But even if the constitution had been signed, it would be completely irrelevant. Nothing in it says a pardon must be signed. The only two things that the constitution says must be signed are legislation and the presidential electors’ votes.
Even legislation doesn’t have to be signed to become law; if the president sits on a bill for ten weekdays it becomes law without any signature, and when congress overrides a veto the bill becomes law without any signature.
So yes, the concept of signatures was well known to all those involved in enacting the constitution, and yet they did not choose to require one except in the two cases I listed above.
And no, there is absolutely no requirement that a signature be made with a sound mind. You have simply made up this entire structure in your own head, which puts the soundness of your mind in question.
Milhouse is right on this. The president’s constitutionally granted powers are not subject to such tests.
Is there even a precedent for blanket pardons for any thing one may have done bad for a given period? That sounds like an enormous stretch.
Aha. Saw your other post.
The 2nd Amendment prohibits infringements on the right to bear arms, and yet, there’s a whole lot of infringements on the right to bear arms.
What if you can prove that a president was a puppet of someone else?
States should be pursuing the thousands of charges they could easily level at Hunter. And there are so many other federal crimes that Hunter has committed.
Further, this idea that people can be “pardoned” without having been convicted is CRAZY and completely ridiculous. THe pardon power is not one to just be able to take any person outside of the law’s possible reach for anything at all. A pardon is merely the removal of an actual conviction. Without a conviction there can be no pardon.
I find it amazing that people have accepted this farce of pardoning people out of the blue, with the “pardon” being nothing but declaring the person to be “off limits” to the law. It is a mockery.
Oops.
I forgot that he had already pled guilty to the tax evasion charges.
Well, it’s not completely ridiculous, because as we’ve seen in multiple cases (Flynn the most obvious, but the J6ers too), the Deep State is FULLY WILLING to drag things out for years to try and bankrupt their targets without ever actually setting foot in the courtroom.
Particularly if the defendant is already sitting in jail like the J6 crew.
But, as President Trump can put an end to any ongoing harassment by the DOJ and other Executive agencies. He doesn’t need any pardon power to do that.
Now, that doesn’t guarantee that a different administration won’t try to bring up the same charges later (and in this the pardon would stop it) but I don’t think that that is the purpose or function of the pardon power. It is not a power to declare some individual off-limits, just by whim of the President. It is not the power to declare some law inoperable (pardoning everyone who broke that law, say). It is a power that is specific and individual and should relate to a finding of the judiciary or an abuse of the judiciary against someone (in which case those responsible for that abuse need to be pursued).
Of course, all the J6 people who didn’t break in should be freed (and those who did commit crimes but were given ridiculous sentences should have them commuted). This would be pardons for those unlawfully convicted and imprisoned and having the DOJ drop all pursuit of people who are still awaiting trials, with the DOJ setting out to investigate and charge those behind these criminal abuses of the legal system and governmental Executive power.
As usual, you are completely wrong. ~250 years of US history says you’re wrong. None of those involved in drafting and ratifying the constitution agreed with you. It has never been the case, and has never even been suggested, that a charge is necessary for a pardon, let alone a conviction. Blanket pardons (such as Trump should issue for most of those involved in the events of Jan-6-2021) are completely within our tradition; Washington himself issued one.
As if YOU have never been wrong.
I am sometimes wrong. Primordial is almost always wrong.
So, what you are saying is that neither one of you is perfect. But in your mind, it’s only a matter of degree.
I am not perfect, but I am honest. I don’t tell lies and I don’t pretend to believe things that I don’t. Primordial is not honest. He knowingly makes invalid arguments, moves goalposts, drags in red herrings, and just makes things up, like this latest business where he’s invented a requirement for a signature on a pardon, and a requirement that any signature must be made by someone with a sound mind.
From the United States Government’s own Justice web site: (I emboldened the relevant part for you)
So, what you imply is normal and has been part of American governance for 250 years, the US’ own justice web site says is “UNUSUAL” and cites the first instance only in the 1970s. Interestingly, just about the same time that the SCOTUS had decided Roe v. Wade, which has finally been acknowledged to have been complete horsesh*t.
You are always so full of sh*t.
Wrong again. That something is unusual doesn’t make it wrong, let alone “crazy”, “ridiculous”, “a mockery”, or something that’s inherently impossible (” the pardon power is not […] a pardon is merely […] without a conviction there can be no pardon”).
All pardons are unusual. Only a tiny percentage of people accused of crimes are ever pardoned. Defeated presidents making a comeback is highly unusual; it’s only ever happened twice. School shootings (in the sense most people understand the term, not that dishonestly used by the “gun violence archive”) are unusual in the USA. That doesn’t change anything about them when they happen.
And no, the Carter blanket pardon was not the first. They go all the way back to the Washington administration, and no one has ever questioned their legitimacy.
LOL.
That’s your argument? Since English isn’t your thing … the “HIGHLY UNUSUAL” modifier that is used is WITHIN the context of all pardons. Are you really this retarded?
I gave you the link – it’s to The Office of the Pardon Attorney at DOJ. If you have a problem with his information then go pester him about it.
Irrelevant and you know it. You’re not only clutching at straws, you are deliberately making a dishonest argument. Because you are a dishonest person.
It doesn’t matter how unusual something is; that does not affect its legitimacy at all.
You are the one who wrote:
You have now repeatedly acknowledged the opposite, but dishonestly pretend you never wrote it. Nothing you wrote there is in any way consistent with your new position that it’s merely unusual. You are just being a liar, as usual.
How “unusual” something is certainly speaks to its possible legitimacy. Things that are unusual are, generally, not legitimate – which is why they are unusual. The Office of the Pardon Attorney described what I was talking about as “HIGHLY unusual”, which lends credence to the argument that there are problems with the concept.
Further, your silly argument was that it is usual and regular and has been part of Americana for 250 years. I didn’t make that argument – YOU DID.
That’s just retarded. I never said anything of the sort. I was merely pointing out to you that the Office of the Pardon Attorney, itself, called the practice “highly unusual”, as opposed to your claims. I maintain that it was wrong in those instances, it having been a “highly unusual” practice only because people understood that it was wrong and only tried to push it through when they thought there was a possibility of getting away with something they knew was wrong. This sort of thing happens a lot, as with Roe V Wade, a decision made by the SCOTUS that everyone knew was BS from the start, but they wanted that result and forced it through when they could. It was never, however, correct or even passably logical. But it stood for 50 years, nevertheless.
You continue making an idiot of yourself.
The frequency of something says nothing of its legitimacy. Trump is only the second defeated president in history to be reelected; does that somehow make his reelection illegitimate?!
Next you tell a filthy lie when you claim I ever argued that it was usual. What I did say, because it’s true, is that it has been part of our system for ~250 years. We have a ~250-year tradition of blanket pardons being made. Not often, but on the rare occasion when the president of the day saw fit to do so. And every president who never found occasion to use that power still knew that he had it.
By the way, the “office of the pardon attorney” is no more of an authority than anyone else. There is no such office in the constitution; the “pardon attorney” is merely an advisor hired by the president, whose advice he can accept or reject as he pleases. The president is of course free to act without even consulting his advisor, if he chooses.
Huh?
Are you retarded? Talking about the frequency of a law being enforced, say, and some event like the election of someone are two totally different things, but you are intentionally trying to conflate them, for some ridiculous reason. This is crazy stuff … even for you.
IS kicking a 60 yard field goal a usual event? No. Does it have anything to do with “legitimacy”? Of course not. Only a moron like you would even try to make that claim.
Is sentencing someone to 4 years of prison for “parading” in a building, doing no damage, a usual enforcement of the law? No. It is … highly unusual. Why is it highly unusual? Because IT IS WRONG AND AN ABUSE OF THE LAW. SO, it only happens when people are abusing power and siccing government on people. That is why it is highly unusual to see .,.. and when you see it you can be pretty sure that it is wholly illegitimate.
And I never said anything about signatures on pardons … though that was part of it. I spoke about the general concept of signatures on all Presidential orders and how those signatures are invalid for someone who is not of sound mind. To which you respond with the insane notion that a signature is valid no matter the state of mind of the signatory … That is just a completely laughable position.
Okey doke. If you say so. As I wrote before, if you disagree with the Office of the Pardon Attorney then go pester him and leave me out of it. I’ve had more than enough of your asinine arguments.
I for one am Overjoyed that Biden has established this very recent example of the broad powers of the presidential pardon, so that when Donaldus Magnus Trumpus takes office, he can, on day one, issue broad pardons to anyone he deems unjustly persecuted by the federal government both potential and actual charges and of course conventions. Like those poor January 6ers. Oh what a day that will be, when the left and Nevertrumper rrrrrrreeeeeeeessssss echo throughout the land. And now I am assured that Milhouse will comment on that day, defending Agent Orange’s actions, full throated.
Milhouse will be so overjoyed he will take Glenn Becks cheeto bag out of the trash and rub the remnants on his face while electric shocks go up and down his little leg.
Pardoned without even being indicted, pardoned of crimes you can’t even name.
Not can’t name. Don’t want to name. Joe or, if he is too senile, at least Hunter could likely name the crimes.
Anthor time a lying liberal said one king while knowing full well that wasn’t the truth.
Kinda like carrying that rattlesnake across the river, then getting bit. You knew it was a rattlesnake to begin with.
Totally predictable, sleaze begets sleaze.
Wait until he pardons his brother. If there was justice and rule of law, without politics, Joe Biden should be indicted as the Big Guy.
Biden should have apologized for himself and his family and then done it as a father.
Illegal alien amnesty!!
Thankfully, the President doesn’t have the power to confer citizenship or legal residency at his whim (though Traitor Joe has done the latter for millions – in one of the greatest crimes in American history, treason from the Oval Office).
How about the aggravating factors of having this gun left in a dumpster by a school and then the political corruption to make the secret service illegally cover for this event and try to make it disappear, followed by the breathtaking corruption at the DOJ in their laughable mock-investigation of this along with their insane “plea deal”, which was nothing but the DOJ colluding with the Biden crime family to try and make it all go away, all that followed by Hunter Biden refusing COngressional subpoenas and strutting around Washington flouting the law with his tag-along film crew and money-man. BTW, Did Hunter ever pay taxes on the millions that his money-man “gave” him to pay the taxes he refused to pay before??
Traitor Joe and his family are the lowest scumbags to have ever infested Washington – and that is no easy feat. The Biden crime family is a stain on America that will render us a laughing stock for millenia into the future.
Good. Trump’s first act upon assuming office, then, should be pardons of all J6’ers currently rotting in jail.
And those not yet charged or convicted.
Absolutely.
I believe that a pardon can be “Any and All Crimes”. So it could be very blanket.
For any alleged “crime” from 2014 to 2024.
I’d settle for something like “for criminal prosecution due to any action taken between 9am and 9pm on January 6, 2021 within a one mile radius of the US Capitol building…”
Yes, that’s going to catch a number of bad actors, but well within the spirit of Blackstone’s Ratio and Ben Franklin “It is better that 100 guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.” This will free up hundreds of DOJ personnel to go about the painstaking one-paper-at-a-time 5 days a week year-long review of every document removed by the current administration to filter out anything classified or incriminating. Oh and a second layer of them to double-check the first layer. The judges should appreciate the extra time that they can apply to cases involving actual carjacking/murder/assault and other such joyous activities of the DC areal.
#47 should order a full DOJ/FBI investigation and report overseen by AG Bondi and Kash Patel, describing the full scope of the Biden crime family’s racketeering and influence-peddling schemes. Not for the purpose of prosecution, but, to publish a report for consumption by the citizenry, so that the full scope of the wretched Biden clan’s greed, criminality, entitlement and treason is laid bare.
Full Transparency!!!
IRS audit and prosecution is in order for Joe, his brother, daughter and all the grandkids accounts if their “income” hasn’t been declared.
Heck, surprised he didn’t pardon himself, either. And if there are any elected Democrats and party apparatchiks that might think themselves on the Trump Administrations DoJ, they’ll be begging and perhaps receive a pardon as well.
I’m fully expecting him to pardon his corrupt brother and any other member of his family who might be charged–and on the last day I wouldn’t be surprised to see him pardoning himself–he has nothing to lose
Is this blanket pardon an admission that the White House cocaine was indeed Hunters?
No, it isn’t, and there’s no particular reason to believe it was.
The pardon is not for drug charges. It’s only for the two charges he’s already admitted.
whoosh
Oops, I missed that. It does include any potential drug charges, so if the cocaine was his it would be covered. But there’s still no reason to suppose it was his. He’s hardly the only cocaine user to have had access to that area.
Anybody that said he wouldn’t is either a liar or a moron.
We all knew this corrupt drooling dementia patient was going to do it before he left.
Take note. All the NeverTrump morons that said he wouldn’t because he was a ‘moderate’ who ‘respected the rule of law’ can be ignored forever.
I expected a pardon, but not a 10 year blanket pardon for ALL federal crimes. That beyond even my expectation of Biden corruption.
Amateur. The worst things haven’t been mentioned in the mainstream press.
I did expect a blanket pardon, and was surprised when I read early reports that didn’t mention one.
If you’re going to issue a pardon, why would you not make it cover all possible charges? What do you gain by limiting it?
Well, loss of 5A protections for one. If I understand it right, Hunter can now be *compelled* to testify in cases against others in the Biden bribery scandal. Should scare the pants off some of them.
A good point. I expect additional family pardons incoming.
It’s limited to 10 years. So at least he likely didn’t murder anyone since almost everything else that would be beyond the statute of limitations.
Again, name one “never-trumper” who ever made such a claim.
“we cannot flinch from naming the outrageous assault on the rule of law being perpetrated by Trump and his supporters” – Micheal Waldman
Which has what exactly to do with the topic??? Name a “never-trumper” who ever made this claim. If you can’t then you must acknowledge that it didn’t happen, and that Olinser made it up.
Dunno about Never Trumpers, but Latrine John Pissoir stated categorically on 7 November that “That’s not what we’re going to do.”
Guess she was lying as usual.
When’s the last time she told the truth about anything?
Joe Biden: “Nobody’s above the law.”
Hunter: “Except me, right Daddy?”
Get Hunter under oath to testify about the Biden crime family; he can’t claim the fifth since there is no risk of self incrimination.
Boy, the optics of this has an unpleasant odor…like Wilmington, Delaware. It just reeks of 1950s southern democrat antics.
Does this relieve him of fifth amendment rights?
Yes, I believe it does. (Well, not all of them obviously. But the self-incrimination one, yes.)
Maybe. I think his lawyers would say that this is only a federal pardon and since he could still be charged for state crimes arising from the same incidents he still has a Fifth Amendment right to avoid incriminating himself.
Not sure of the caselaw on that or how it would shake out.
We all knew this was coming, no matter who said it wasn’t.
True, but only if there is a potential state charge for whatever he admits to.
Now that Hunter can’t plead the 5th, is it possible to get him to testify under oath about all the things his daddy dearest did that profited from his office? Any ensuing perjury would be whole new crimes, and even if the SOL has run out of some of Biden’s money making schemes it would be nice to actually get them on record so we can stop pretending that Trump’s a crook who benefited from his office and that Joe is NOT.
Joe Biden claims Hunter was unfairly targeted and prosecuted for the very limited number of charges the DoJ actually brought. That ignores the potential charges that didn’t happen b/c they let the statute of limitations run among other reasons. It also ignores Hunter’s guilty plea to those charges.
Then Joe Biden blows his own arguments out of the water by issuing a pardon not limited to the things Hunter plead guilty to but instead issued a blanket pardon encompassing any/all actions for a bit over a decade. I don’t think anyone is truly surprised by the pardon, at least anyone with any sense. It would be interesting to know what other crimes this very broad pardon is covering.
Biden lost me at “… being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted.”
Ever hear of a guy called President Trump?
Jim and Jill to follow?
Yes.
Maybe he has to pardon children and grandchildren as well if they were indeed recipients of the laundering money from foreign parties.
Joe has about 50 days to continue to try to screw over the country–let’s hope he doesn’t use his power of pardon to empty the federal prisons of all prisoners, including terrorists.
One guy wanted him to commute all the death row sentences. I am with you, why stop there.? Open the federal prison gates, and give all those other victims a chance at a fresh start. SMH
No 5Th? At the very least, Hunter could be subpoenaed to testify the identity of “the big guy” who got a cut of Hunter’s earnings. He can’t plead the 5th, he can’t refuse to testify without being (newly) charged, and if he names someone other than dear old dad – and it’s a lie – it’s a new charge.
Is it normal to issue a pardon for unnamed crimes btw?
I mean, Trump could issue the J6 protestors pardons (for trespass) or commutations (for actual violence or theft), but it would be embarrassing to issue blanket pardons and it turns out someone robbed a bank or something and that’s covered as well.
Well, they had to go far enough back to cover Burisma.
No, it’s not normal, but it’s been done. The Nixon pardon, for instance, covered “all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.”
Of course that alleged pardon for Nixon was totally improper. The Presidential pardon power is not giving the President Royal powers to declare a person untouchable from anything. What Ford did was incorrect but people let it pass because it was easier to do so. It was wrong, though.
And Nixon didn’t do much to need a pardon for, anyway. The only thing he did have the missing 18 minutes, or so, of tapes. That was it. Even the actual Watergate break-in, which Nixon had nothing to do with, was not something that was totally foreign to the Democrat party, or the alleged slush fund. Nixon didn’t need any sort of real pardon, let alone a BS, illegitimate blanket pardon that made a mockery of the pardon power.
Who says it was improper? The constitution gives the president plenary power to pardon anyone for anything. The only limit, which is inherent in the very definition of a pardon, is that he can’t prospectively pardon future offenses.
And Nixon was in fact accused of several actual crimes, for which he could in principle have been prosecuted once he was out of office. The Congressional Democrats would have demanded his prosecution. The pardon prevented that.
Plenary, you say? Hmm, then Trump could issue blanket pardons to anyone in his circle, or even any supporter, for any Federal crime, going back to the day dropped from a uterus, simply as a precautionary measure to prevent further lawfare. I like it! I’m happy to be a part of it! Let’s do it!
It was a political prosecution anyway, just by Republicans. It’s good to know that Biden is sensitive to the need to end political prosecutions.
So lying on a 4473 and being a tax cheat are “political prosecutions” now? Good to know.
Smokin’ hot take, doofus.
rhhardin doesn’t even know what a 4473 is.
I think I’ll go do some straw man purchases and then in April I’ll just not file my taxes.
Then I’ll sit around and wait for the pardon.
I suspect I’ll spend the rest of the year in jail.
No, it wasn’t a political prosecution. If his name had been anything but Biden he’d have been prosecuted far earlier and for much more.
Wow, I never knew that republicans ran the DOJ and all other federal law enforcement agencies while Biden was president. Good to know.
“Unbelievable”
Really. Totally to be expected. That he didn’t include himself, his wife, etc. etc. ad nauseum in the pardon is the bigger surprise.
On the way out the door 1/20/25
Weekend@Bidens has been using reverse-psychology for the last 4 yrs. Just the other day after saying Trump would start WWIII, has pressed the WWIII red button himself allowing the Ukraine to use US missiles.
How about the rest of the Biden Syndicate? What if a case can be made for treason? What other crimes have been committed?
Gotta watch GUTFELD tomorrow night for sure. It will be hilarious.
Fine. Going after Hunter would get us nothing anyway. And now Trump has a nice argument to pardon a lot of J6 people, using Biden’s same argument of selective prosecution, also oversentencing … basically if Joe can do it, Donald can too. And then we’re even.
Why now? He will be pardoned by President Kamala Harris.
Everyone knew Joe was going to pardon Hunter and everyone knew Joe was lying when he denied it. I didn’t expect the 10 year blanket pardon. I figured Joe would go back at least 20 years.
Yes, I can’t believe anyone seriously thought that Joe would answer to Hunter’s mother without that pardon.
I have heard no explanation of the 10-year limitation, the political effect is exactly the same for a pardon from the dawn of time to present.
https://amgreatness.com/2024/11/29/blinken-biden-administration-will-send-ukraine-every-dollar-possible-before-leaving-office/
Not Americans, lives destroyed by disasters, no, but we will be sending American taxpayers money
We fought a war with GB for less
He will, you know he will
Pardon all his staff
https://x.com/amuse/status/1863422760539623496
Phew!
Biden had lied about nearly every other issue, and for half a second there, I thought he might keep his word and not pardon Hunter.
Then there is a bridge I have for sale for just you!
And THAT’s why you always pay your 10% to be Big Guy.
I couldn’t wait to read what Miranda Devine would write about Biden and his blanket pardon of his son, Hunter. As always, Miranda doesn’t disappoint.
https://nypost.com/2024/12/01/opinion/we-always-knew-joe-biden-would-pardon-troubled-son-hunter/
Interesting article
https://psychcentral.com/health/the-psychology-of-oppositional-conversational-style-ocs#reflective-listening
Good because now Trump can pardon anyone he wants over the next four years and when the left gets all hyper emotional you can shove this one down their throats like a good Saturday night pickup! 🤣
I expected this… in January. Just before the senile old mummy left office. Not when there was still time for the shit to hit the fan. The Democrats won’t be able to defend this, not when Biden was so blatant in his denials.
I don’t think he cares anymore. And honestly, that’s frightening, because the amount of damage he can do before he leaves office is incalculable.
I am doubtful that the pardon issued is valid, since it does not explicitly define the crime for which the pardon is issued. If it is valid, that means Hunter cannot use the fifth amendment to shield himself when testifying about the crimes of others. If he lies under oath to Congress, that is a new crime punishable by five years in prison….so there’s that.
Its (d)efferent when Democrats do it.
Now we need SCOTUS to declare that pardons can only be given for those convicted and specified infractions, not for any acts known and/or unknown.
I’m a little confused by the subhead of “Unbelievable”.
Did you actually BELIEVE Biden and his underlings when he said he wouldn’t pardon Hunter?
He was lying. He was always lying. Of course he was going to pardon Hunter all along, he just needed the election to be over first.
The only thing unbelievable about this is that it surprised anyone.
Oh, it shocked *lots* of idiots who have spent hours on TV as ‘experts’ braying talking points about how the Democrats are the party of “Law and Order” and believe in the ‘Rule of Law’ and how Biden has accepted the verdict and would never pardon his son et al…
The videos that have been put together showing these twits with pie on their face are epic.
Addressing the Fifth Amendment issue:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/
From Wikipedia:
“ After President Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, close friends said that the President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision, which stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt.”
I think Hunter has been convicted (pled guilty), but not sentenced. The sentencing does not have to acknowledge the pardon unless Hunter brings it up. If he brings it up, he is accepting it, and no longer has Fifth Amendment rights.
Is it possible to “pardon” somebody for a period of time? I thought it was only possible pardon for specific crime(s)? Is biden attempting something novel with the law?
I didn’t read all the comments, if that was already mentioned.
Here’s a question. It is true that Joe has pardoned his reprobate son, Hunter, and the pardon would include whatever liability that he may have under criminal law. But does this pardon include civil liability. This scumbag made millions and didn’t pay his taxes. The IRS has plenty of civil remedies available to him such as the seizure of the delinquent taxpayer’s assets, garnishing income, etc. Can the IRS proceed with civil remedies against Hunter despite the pardon? Anyone know?
Are there any crimes committed by Hunter that are State crimes? Such as drug use and sex with a minor? Something that Quisling Joe can’t pardon him for?
There is no doubt that Hunter obtained millions of dollars thru his participation in criminal activities. Does he get to keep the fruits of his crimes because he was pardoned. I can see a prosecutor going thru his financial records and having him justify every transaction.
Ok, so now here is what the Gremlin that lives in my head is asking.
Since these pardons are usually dropped in a bunch on the Morning of January 20th, I wonder if they did this one before Joe lost the ability to sign anything?