The Pardon May Not Be Quite the Magic Bullet It Seems
“You can’t bring criminal charges against Hunter Biden, but there’s nothing that prevents the Trump Justice Department from filing a fraud case and seeking civil remedy.”
Many Americans were outraged on Sunday after learning that President Joe Biden had issued a sweeping pardon to his son, Hunter. This decision came despite repeated public denials from both Biden and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Hunter, who faced convictions on three gun-related charges and a guilty plea for tax evasion, was on the brink of near-certain incarceration. The pardon effectively wiped the slate clean. Yet, as with most complex matters, it is not without limitations.
During a Monday night panel on Fox News’ Hannity, investigative journalist John Solomon, editor of Just the News, and Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett discussed the ongoing risks facing Hunter and the Biden family.
“Hunter’s pardon does not prevent the Department of Justice from pursuing fraud charges against him,” Solomon explained. Drawing a comparison, he noted how O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in a criminal trial but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil suit, and ordered to pay $33.5 million in damages.
Solomon said, “You can’t bring criminal charges against Hunter Biden, but there’s nothing that prevents the Trump Justice Department from filing a fraud case and seeking civil remedy and taking money from him and other members of the family on allegations that they reported false information. They committed fraud. Those are things that are still on the table. A pardon doesn’t protect you from civil actions.”
“He no longer will be able to deny or say ‘I don’t want to testify in any proceedings because I invoke my Fifth Amendment right against incrimination.’ The president took that away from him, so he’s going to have to testify if he’s compelled.”
[Note: According to Reuters, if Hunter is called to testify before the House of Representatives or the DOJ about the Biden family business dealings, the fact that he was pardoned “could limit his ability to invoke” his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. That is “because he no longer faces criminal jeopardy for any federal crimes committed during the period covered. Before he was pardoned, he could have declined to do so, citing the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.”]
Additionally, Solomon noted that “the [burden of] proof [required] in a civil case [is] much lower” than it is in a criminal case.
Tim Parlatore: Biden’s sweeping pardon for Hunter removes his Fifth Amendment protections https://t.co/9aVk5ZpSvV
— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) December 3, 2024
The panel unanimously agreed that the pardon was more than just a selfless gesture from a loving father. Its broad immunity, covering the period from January 2014 to December 2024, revealed its true intent. As I mentioned yesterday, 2014 marked the beginning of Hunter’s tenure on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings. This was the year the family’s influence-peddling operation ramped up, and the flow of money began.
Jarrett pointed out that “[t]his sweeping pardon is not only beneficial for Hunter, but it’s self-serving for Biden himself because there is, of course, compelling evidence that the father actively aided and abetted his son’s financial schemes, selling access, promises of influence. That’s what China, Ukraine, Russia, and other countries were buying in exchange for tens of millions of dollars funneled into Biden-controlled shell companies.”
He continued, “By his pardon, the president didn’t just wipe out Hunter’s two convictions. No, he granted clemency for a decade, eleven years to be precise, of other uncharged crimes in which documents show the father was implicated as an accessory. So, by foreclosing any future charges for the son, Joe Biden effectively impedes further inquiry into his own crooked role. And by protecting his son, he is protecting himself. The Ukrainian quid pro quo, the $5 million Chinese pay to play deal. So, this grant of clemency, as broad as it is, is far more cunning and devious than meets the eye.”
Gregg Jarrett: Biden Lied To All Of Us When He Pardoned Hunter. He Put Himself First.https://t.co/RwlH7B96nz
— Gregg Jarrett (@GreggJarrett) December 2, 2024
There remains the possibility that James Biden, Joe Biden’s brother and Hunter’s partner in the family business, or even Joe Biden himself, could become targets of a criminal investigation. Joe Biden denied knowledge of his son’s activities for years—most notably during the 2020 presidential debate—but Hunter’s former business partner, Devon Archer, identified him as the “brand” they were leveraging.
The panel was split over whether the president might issue pardons for James or even himself before leaving office in January.
It wouldn’t be a bad idea.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Hunter Biden did not kill himself.
put a watch on Hillary
A Timex is good enough.
Takes a licking, but keeps on ticking.
Although, the odds are that he ends up dying like David Carridine. Either that or he annoys some drug dealer or pimp a little too much …
I expect to see pardons issued for
James Biden as well as old slo Joe himself. additionally I wudnt be surprised to see pardons issued
for Gen. Milley as well as Facci.
perhaps his entire cabinet …
Obama, Clintons (both) and anyone
else who might be dirty …
Small problem: Whom did he defraud? What money did he take from anyone under false pretenses? As far as I know all the money he received was paid willingly by his clients, for services rendered (either by him or by his father). So who could sue him for fraud?
IRS, that I know of. And suits could be brought about him with minors, shot by his own camera.
It’s been widely reported that he has paid all the taxes he owed, plus all the interest and penalties. So the IRS has nothing to sue him for.
One of these alleged minors may choose to sue him, but no one can control that.
Correct me if I’m wrong— doesn’t the immunity mean that he can’t claim the privilege against self-incrimination if he’s questioned about anything that took place during that period? That means if there is an investigation into, eg, whether the Big Guy knowingly benefited from Hunter’s criminal activities, Hunter would have to answer or go to jail for contempt, unless there was a risk of being convicted for a state or local crime.
Yes, but we’re talking about the idea of suing him for fraud, and that requires a plaintiff whom he has defrauded. Since he’s reported to have paid the IRS everything he owes, they can’t sue him, so who can?
As for the 5th amendment, he has only lost it if there is no potential state prosecution. He can be questioned about matters that are covered only by federal law, and for which there is no state law under which he could be prosecuted. As soon as the questions veer to something that could potentially trigger a state prosecution, he gets his privilege back.
Has the “Big Guy” reported all the money he received and has he paid the IRS for those illicit gains? To the best of my knowledge, he hasn’t, and I suspect his brother hasn’t. If Hunter is questioned about that and doesn’t answer truthfully, then he is opening himself up. If he does answer honestly, the IRS and others should go after the Big Guy and his brother.
Why do you always act as defense counsel for scumbags?
I don’t. I defend the truth. I would even defend you, if the truth were ever on your side.
The judge in the tax case just wrote a remarkably scathing essay in his order accepting the pardon, taking President Biden to the woodshed for the disgusting comments he made about Hunter being ‘targeted’ as well as poking substantial holes in the pardon’s intent of granting sweeping clemency to unnamed crimes. It’s really quite an order, I think written by a Trump appointee.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.907806/gov.uscourts.cacd.907806.239.0.pdf
He’s not the first person I’ve read over the last 24-hours who finds Biden’s attempt to pardon Hunter for all crimes, even those that are unnamed or even unknown to the government to be constitutionally questionable and he cites case law to back up his criticism.
Would it be possible for joe biden to pardon himself? Doesn’t he need to resign, and kamala become president and then she could pardon him?
While it’s never been litigated, the prevailing (if not universal) legal theory is that presidents can pardon themselves because the pardon power is almost absolute. The only presumed limitation to his power of pardon is that he can’t save himself from Impeachment.
Actually, your use of “presumed” is interesting. I don’t think there has ever been a test before SCOTUS as to whether a President can pardon someone for unknown crimes only for what he has been charged with. I’d like to see the DOJ under Trump litigate this before SCOTUS.
diver64, there is nothing to litigate. It has been firmly established for as long as the USA has existed that the president CAN pardon people who have not been charged with a crime, and whose names he doesn’t know. George Washington did so without objection, and that makes it established constitutional law.
I largely agree. There’s almost nothing to litigate. Jimmy Carter put ‘unindicted’ question to the test when he pardoned all the draft dodgers and there were countless Confederate soldiers who were pardoned without ever being indicted. BUT, the crimes in those cases were all known, understood. The issue about pardoning someone for crimes the government isn’t even aware of is untested. In the opinion of at least one federal judge – the one on the tax case – has concluded from the pertinent case law that what Biden is attempting with this sweeping, blanket pardon for crimes known and unknown may not survive judicial review.
Milhouse–how many times does performing an unconstitutional act make it Constitutional? Or is a number of years?
Lichau, anything that the first administration did, without protest from congress, is presumed constitutional.
Treason is not covered by a pardon.
Says who? Nothing in the U.S. Constitution supports your statement. If I have missed something, please quote the relevant text. And how is treason relevant to a discussion of Hunter Biden?
IANAL. But, I do have pretty good understanding of history, particularly as it relates to military history. President Johnson famously pardoned Confederate soldiers charged or at risk of being charged with Treason on Christmas Day in ’68 or ’69.
And so did Washington.
Nah. The president’s pardon power is absolute. In fact, even though Biden is too senile to actually be the president, the pardon still counts. Somehow.
That he’s “too senile to be president” is a mere subjective opinion some people hold. He remans the president with all powers attendant thereto.
He remains the president due to voter fraud
Maybe, but that’s water that’s flowed under the bridge and into the ocean, evaporated and come down as rain five times, and is now in a lagoon on a pig farm.
Regardless of how those electors were chosen, they duly cast their votes on December 14, 2020, and Biden got a clear majority. That makes him the duly elected president.
He remains the president due to voter fraud
Indeed. And a proper investigation into that fraud would reveal much and lead to many arrests and possibly executions.
It would certainly vacate Hunter’s pardon because criminals illegally occupying the White House can’t issue valid pardons.
The leftists who say that this is all “water that’s flowed under the bridge and into the ocean, evaporated and come down as rain five times, and is now in a lagoon on a pig farm.” and other such ‘let us get away with this heinous crime’ garbage
are trying to keep their necks from getting stretched.
And there goes the filthy lying demonspawn again. As usual, like that communist bitch Lillian Hellman, every word he writes is a lie, including “and” and “the”.
No investigation of the 2020 election could possibly result in capital punishment, nor could it possibly invalidate Biden’s election and his subsequent presidency. He is the lawful president until Jan 20, or until he resigns or falls off the perch, whichever comes first. A majority of electors voted for him, and that’s all that matters.
Its not obvious that a president has power to pardon himself. It has never been attempted. It would almost certainly face challenge and end with SCOTUS decision. There are arguments for and against it that appear equally valid. But good chance biden would lose that with the current balance of judges.
It’s never been attempted, but there’s no basis for believing he can’t do it, and the current SCOTUS would almost certainly uphold the pardon 9-0. (If Trump were to pardon himself it would be upheld, but by a narrower margin due to TDS.)
Let me begin by saying that I detest Brandon in particular and the DemoncRat party in general for the harm they caused to America and to political civility. Having said that, I think that we have to stop being a banana republic by going after the opposition. IMHO President Trump should announce just that in his State of the Union speech. He should couch it by pointing the corruption of Brandon and his son, but then say, enough is enough; we are not going down the path of prosecuting past Presidents.
The few people I would like to see prosecuted are Gen. Miley, who should court-martialed for treason, and Faux-xi along with Francis Collins for the harm they inflicted on America for financing the Wu-flu research and the subsequent unscientific diktats they imposed on the country.
1. It is not banana-republicanism to prosecute a criminal just because he happens to be your political opponent. On the contrary, refusal to prosecute someone who would otherwise be prosecuted, just because of his role in politics, is almost exactly the definition of banana-republicanism.
2. Milley may be guilty of many things, and someone should certainly be assigned to find something on him, but he is not guilty of treason.
On the contrary, reassuring the Chinese that no, Trump was not going crazy and was not going to attack them, so they should chill the hell out and take their fingers off the damned button, was very much in America’s interest, and thus the right thing to do.
The only criticism I have is that he should have run it by Trump first, and got his permission. He overstepped his bounds by doing it on his own initiative.
Of course if Trump had, against all expectations, actually ordered a strike on China, it would then have been Milley’s duty to break his promise to his Chinese counterpart. Had he kept his promise, then that would have been treason. But that was never going to happen. He knew it, every American knew it. The point was to convince the Chinese too.
Of course, that’s not what he said and that’s not what he said he said.
Milley committed treason in contacting his Chinese handlers. There is no question about this.
That is exactly what he said, and what he said he said. And he had no Chinese “handlers”. He had an opposite number, in China as in every other country, just as Trump himself did and will soon have again.
First of all, you don’t know what he said.
Secondly, the generals in China certainly were his handlers. His worked for them, not the United States.
Thirdly, Milley can have all the counterparts all over the friggin universe, it is not his place to initiate calls to them to warn them about strategic issues. The Preseident has counterparts, yes, but the President is the one WHO MAKES POLICY. The President decides to tell Traitor Milley to call his Chinese counterpart and calm him down (though we all know from the moron Milley that his worry was not about the CHinese but that Trump was going ‘to something crazy’ (paraphrased)).
Lastly, this was not the first time that Milley had worked to undermine Trump, but this was the most serious and constituted treason.
Milley had also said something about telling his Chinese handlers that he would give them a heads up, or something to that effect.
Milley is a dirtbag traitor.
Neither do you. All we have is the same source, which is Woodword and Costa’s second-hand (at best) paraphrased account. And that’s what they claim he said. Without them you have no basis for believing he said anything at all.
Bullshit. You just made that up out of your bottom. Seriously, how do you just come up with accusations like that, with absolutely no basis? In the extremely unlikely event that Milley were to sue you, he would easily overcome the Sullivan barrier and get everything you have.
It certainly was his place. It was his job. And he was not warning them, he was calming them down, which was also very much his job.
Nothing MIlley did or is alleged by anyone to have done comes even close to treason.
“If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise,” Milley reportedly said.
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-china-united-states-michael-pence-joint-chiefs-of-staff-caba520490ba574393f1cb6d1e961dba
Yes, exactly. He promised the guy that if we were going to attack he would commit treason by giving him a warning. The purpose was to reassure the guy that we weren’t going to attack.
This was blindingly obvious to any American, and certainly to anyone who knew Trump; but it seemed to Milley that it wasn’t obvious to the Chinese, who seemed to be genuinely nervous, and that is not a good thing. We don’t want our adversaries to be nervous, because they might take it into their heads to get their retaliation in first. So it was vital to reassure them. He did so, knowing full well that he would never be called on to make good on his promise.
Now in the extremely unlikely event that Trump did order an attack after all, presumably because China had already committed an act of war, Milley would have had the duty to break his promise. To keep it would be treason. But making the promise was the very opposite of treason.
But it’s not something he should have done on his own initiative. He should have briefed Trump and proposed the idea to him.
It is my understanding the Milley gave orders to subordinates to not follow any orders that didn’t either come directly from him, or were not approved by him. He discussed this plan with Nancy P, who encouraged him to do this or otherwise indicated her approval of the plan. Milley inserted himself between the president and others in the chain of command in order to cause insubordination, mutiny, and the refusal of duty by members of the military and naval forces of the United States. That puts them both on the hook for this:
18 U.S. Code § 2387 – Activities affecting armed forces generally
(a)Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States;
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
That’s not clear. Supposedly, he called the officers for a meting to review the process, and told them something like: “No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I’m part of that procedure.” At least that’s how Woodward and Costa’s book reports it. Neither of these are the most reliable sources, and we have no other record of what was actually said.
If that quote is accurate, then its meaning is ambiguous. Obviously he would be correct to tell them that the procedure are still in force, and they should follow it even if someone tells them not to.
And if all he meant by “I’m part of that procedure” is that the president normally consults him before giving an order to attack, that’s of course correct. If he meant that an order that wasn’t conveyed through him would be unusual and should be treated with suspicion that there might be something wrong with it, that would be correct as well. If he meant that the procedure requires the order to come through him, and that they should therefore ignore any purported order that didn’t, then he was wrong. It could simply be ignorance brought on by negligence in not properly learning the relevant law, or it could be deliberate misinformation, and an attempt to subvert the chain of command comparable to that of James Schlesinger in 1974.
But however you look at it, there’s no treason.
Yeah … *wink wink* … “You know what I mean”
It is clear what Milley was saying. It wasn’t the first time. Milley made clear that he thought Trump was crazy and a danger and that only Saint Milley could save America from the terrible Trump. And Milley was inserting himself in the chain of command where he had no business. He was mutinous, often, and treasonous when he got the chance.
No, it is not at all clear. Especially when all we have to go on is Woodward and Costa’s account, which is not a direct quote.
We have to use common sense and common prudence, neither of which you appear to have any of.
Regarding Milley, his instructions actually did undermine the chain of command, which flows from the President to the SECDEF to the combatant commander (in this case it would have been the 4-star at USSTRATCOM).
The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and in particular the chairman are decidedly NOT in the chain of command. The president decides when, and if, to consult with the JCS.
No matter how one interprets Milley’s statement, it was insubordination to inject himself into the chain of command. He lacked the legal authority to give that order.
Milley knew he would never be held accountable by the incoming administration, so he thought he could get away with it.
Hopefully the swampy JCS gets put back in its rightful place by the new SECDEF and maybe Milley will be publicly reprimanded for his insubordination (and blacklisted by the many blue-ribbon committees/panels that pay generals so handsomely).
Kelly, it’s not at all clear that he did inject himself into the chain of command. All he’s reported to have said was “I am part of that procedure”, which is true insofar as he would normally expect to be consulted before the decision was made, and that the order would be conveyed through him. If an order came without his having been consulted, and not conveyed through him, it would be reasonable for those receiving it to suspect that something was amiss, and to double check whether it’s genuine.
The problem is that we don’t know exactly what he said. We have no account of the meeting at all except for that of Woodward and Costa. Without their report we don’t even know that there was a meeting. So all we have to go on is the way they report it, and they don’t even claim to be quoting him verbatim. Nor could they, since they weren’t there and merely heard about it second- or third-hand. But if the quote is accurate then it’s ambiguous.
First, I didn’t claim it was “treason,” I cited the specific law I suspect was violated.
Second, I’d not trust an account from Woodward, and would tend to favor some first-person, eye-witness testimony under oath about what Milley said and what he meant by it. Consultation with the JCS may be “procedure”, but it is also my understanding that the JCS has no command authority over operations, and therefore it can’t be a conduit for operational orders. (This was done to allow separation between the JCS’ role as consultants to the POTUS and the actual planning and execution of operations.) This is why any interposition of the JCS between the POTUS and operational command of the armed forces is possibly “obstruction” and mutinous.
I believe Pelosi may have shot off her mouth about this as well, in a manner that does not comport with what Woodward has reported.
Absolutely wrong on Chairman Joint Chiefs being in the chain of command.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10542
“The Chain of Command
Title 10 U.S.C. §162 specifies that the chain of command
for military operations goes from the President, to the
Secretary of Defense, to Commanders of Combatant
Commands. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acts
as an intermediary, transmitting orders between the
Secretary of Defense and the Commanders of Combatant
Commands”
Dave, you didn’t say treason, but that is the topic we were discussing. So I pointed out that even if you were right it still wouldn’t be treason.
Woodward is not a reliable source, but he is the only source we have that this meeting even happened, so we have nothing to go on but his report. If we ignore him then the discussion doesn’t even begin.
All he’s reported to have said is that they should follow procedure and that he is part of the procedure. What he meant by that is not clear, in part because we don’t have an exact quote. Again, without Woodward we have no basis for believing the meeting even happened, so we’re stuck with his paraphrase, and it’s ambiguous.
No, JCS is not in the chain of command. That’s clear. But Milley was “part of the procedure”, because it would be expected that before any such decision is made he would be consulted. It’s not a legal requirement, but it’s SOP.
And it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he never bothered to learn the actual law, and just assumed SOP was the law. A lot of people do that. At Biden’s debate with Palin in 2008 he made an absolute fool of himself by showing that he’d never actually read the constitution, but he did it with such confidence that anyone who wasn’t familiar with it would assume he was right. That was before he went senile; he used to have the gift of BS, and he’s lost it.
Also it’s my understanding that although the JCS chair is not in the chain of command, it’s usual for the Secretary of Defense to convey orders through him anyway. More a matter of efficiency and keeping him in the loop than anything else. At least that’s what I’ve read, and it seems plausible. So he might either think that was required, or know that it isn’t but warn people that if he was bypassed it would be unusual and therefore suspicious.
If he actually said that if the order doesn’t come from me you should disobey it, then that would be inserting himself into the chain of command, which is what Schlesinger did in 1974. But we don’t know that.
LOL!!! This is a joke, right? Millley was/is a virulent NeverTrumper who undermined Trump at every turn. He needs to be hunted down with dogs if necessqry.
That may be, but he did not commit treason. He did not betray the USA to the Chinese. Had he actually warned them of an incoming attack, that would have been treason.
As usual the leftist defends his kind.
‘
Understand, he has redoubled his demoralization efforts–he wants the GOP that takes office in 2025 to be nervous and lacking in confidence–and he wants us undermining and infighting to further those efforts.
For the record, it IS ‘banana-republicanism’ to create a crime and go after your political opponents on that basis. Every charge against Trump was such.
And Milley did commit treason. The leftist will stretch the definition into unrecognizability to defend what Milley did, but that is what they do.
They live in a dense web of lies that they want to coat the world and all minds in.
As usual the evil demon lies and defames and lies some more.
Understand that he has never contributed anything of value to this forum, because his only purpose in existence is to serve his master the Prince of Lies, and spew filth to vandalize the world. Every word he writes is a lie, and he makes the world a worse place by his mere existence in it.
And it refutes not a single word of what I say. Ever.
Why?
Because it can’t. It’s a leftist
It IS a lie.
Men can be women. Lawfare is not being committed against the right. Cancellation is just. Biden is a legitimate lawfully elected president.
He IS a lie.
Every word the demon writes is a lie. Every single word. You can almost tell the truth by just taking the opposite of whatever he writes to be the truth.
1. The corruption needs to be exposed, but criminal charges should not be brought. Whatever you and I think about Brandon and company, it does us as a country no good for one Administration to prosecute members of the previous Administration, even if that means letting the corrupt officials walk. (On the other, I am quite in favor of firing every last political appointee and SES level civil servant who are part of the Deep State.)
2. The Constitution in its definition of treason has as giving aid and comfort to our enemies being treasonous. I would let a US Military Court sort out the details of whether the general’s conversation rises to the level of treason.
#1. Absolutely not. Lack of punishment (i.e. justice) would have two adverse effects:
First, it would encourage, rather than discourage, similar behavior in the future.
Second, it would firmly establish a two-tier system of justice in America (if this hasn’t been established already, in which case it’s time to tear it down), with those having the least responsibility to the law being held to it, while those with the greatest responsibility to the law are allowed to violate it at will knowing that there will be no negative repercussions (see “First” above). I’d say that everyone should have an equal responsibility to the law, but those who have sworn to uphold it have voluntarily taken greater responsibility unto themselves. They have volunteered to be held to a higher standard, and to be subject to more scrutiny and harsher penalties for making an oath and breaking it, a responsibility to which most citizens have not acceded.
I would rather these scumbags be judged in the court of public opinion than in a court of law.
1. If being a politician gives one a free Stay Out of Jail card, then we are already a banana republic. Letting a criminal off because he’s in the opposition is just as bad as doing so because he’s in the government. How do you let your political opponent off and then send some poor shmock to prison for the exact same thing?
2. Giving aid and comfort to our enemies is not in itself treasonous. The constitution gives two definitions of treason: (1) Levying war against the USA; that means literally taking up arms, participating in a military campaign against the USA. (2) Adhering to the USA’s enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The key word in that second definition is “adhering”. Merely doing something that you know will help the enemy is not enough. If you do it for your own reasons, and not because you support the enemy’s cause, then it’s not treason. Only if you do it because you adhere to the enemy and for that reason perform an overt act that helps him, is it treason.
E.g. a politician who leaks military secrets in wartime, not because he wants the enemy to win but because he wants to embarrass the government and gain political advantage, is not committing treason even though he knows he’s helping the enemy.
The Trump administration, circa 2016-2020 WAS an administration.
The Biden installation was not.
Letting the left get away with that monstrous crime will only lead to worse offenses–like assassinations, like the camps leftists are so fond of concentrating people into.
Justice will out. We can aid it, and get a good outcome, or we can stand idly by and be swept up and treated as part of the problem –which we will have become by letting evil slide.
Milley was Chairman of Joint Chiefs. He is not in the line of command. He has not authority to command anyone to do anything. He is merely and advisor.
I know, Milhouse, pedantry is your ballpark and I shouldn’t be playing in it.
This is true and no one is disputing it. The question is whether he actually claimed to be in the chain of command, and whether he urged officers to ignore the actual chain. The only basis we have that any of this happened is Woodward/Costa, and their report is ambiguous. So we don’t know whether he did this. What we do know is that nothing he’s accused of would be treason.
So you’re saying that Trump should only allow Republicans to be prosecuted for corruption? Well, the democrats certainly agree with you.
No, I am saying we have got to stop engaging in lawfare, even if it means letting obviously corrupt officials walk, such as Brandon. What I would like to see are Congressional investigations unto these corrupt officials to lay out to the American people the extent of the corruption, but no criminal charges to be filed (with the exceptions I noted). If we continue at lawfare, it will not be good for us as a country.
Justice is not lawfare. Lawfare is the corruption of the law for political purposes. Trump is in a position in which he can lawfully go after his political opponents. His desire for revenge (if that’s what he has) happens to coincide with legitimate law enforcement and judicial processes because of criminal liability (for their illegal acts) borne by those he may prosecute. This is not lawfare.
‘Lawfare’ is using a corrupted legal system to persecute one’s enemies.
Rectifying it by working WITHIN the law to eradicate the capacity for lawfare is not.
Spreading the idea that fighting lawfare IS lawfare is a leftist tactic used to allow THEM to continue using it while any response is deemed reprehensible as ‘weaponizing the justice system’.
Joe and cohorts DID go after Trump, because he was a political foe. Bidens bribed, blackmailed, swingled…photos and witnesses from their own side
The crime Gen. Milley committed is MUTINY, not treason. The elements of treason are not present in Milley’s conduct; conversely, the elements of mutiny are clear.
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/894
Not clear, because we don’t know exactly what he said. But an arguable case can certainly be made for it.
Absolutely not. If Biden was selling secrets through Hunter to our enemies, don’t forget he granted Hunter security clearance over the objections of the FBI and DOJ, and took bribes while in office I want him prosecuted as a clear message of what happens to venal aholes like that. If Biden passes away I was the lawsuit to go forward against his estate. Every member of his family whether it’s his brother, Jill, Hunter etc should be prosecuted.
That’s a big if, though. As far as I know there is no indication of it at all. It’s just pure speculation. In fact I have never heard that Hunter had any dealings at all with any enemy government, or indeed any foreign government at all. It’s certainly possible, but there doesn’t seem to be any basis for supposing it.
If Biden can be shown to be incompetent or otherwise impaired, would that not provide a path to vacate his semi-literate babble?
America knows, everyone knows, that Joe Biden is mentally impaired and relies on around the clock medical administration of his variations medicinal “therapies”?
There is abundant evidence of his inability to even comport himself as an autonomous adult.
No, it would not. Laws he signed would still be laws, and the pardon would still be valid.
Agreed. The 25th Amendment was written to address such situations. If it hasn’t been invoked, then the threshold for removing the signature authority from a POTUS hasn’t been reached.
One thing is certain, Hunter Biden can no longer take refuge under the fifth amendment. He is under absolutely no risk of criminal prosecution and therefore cannot claim he will be. If he’s under oath and refuses to answer a question, he can be held in contempt. I do believe that in the current political climate he would be held in contempt and I believe in Trump’s justice department he would be prosecuted for that contempt. So Brandon’s got a lot more pardons to fill out or he’s not thinking very clearly
This pardon just protects Hunter from Federal prosecution. I will bet that plenty of money will be spent to find state charges that testifying could expose Hunter to liability for. So … why can’t Hunter still take the Fifth relative to State exposure? Finally, mustn’t he have an addled brain and poor memory due to all the drug use?
He can, if there’s a potential state prosecution for the answer to something he’s asked. He can certainly be asked about things that don’t even potentially involve a state crime.
He can still claim 5th amendment protection if the testimony would expose him to the risk of incrimination for crimes not covered by the pardon, such as state crimes or crimes committed after the pardon.
Here is what the Constitution says about pardons, in its totality:
“(The President) shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Can someone explain why this only applies to criminal prosecutions and not to civil prosecution? Because the Constitution makes no explicit statement that a pardon only immunizes a person against criminal prosecution, nor does it explicitly admit a pardoned person is still subject to civil prosecution.
And if Hunter still is subject to any kind of prosecution, wouldn’t he still be able to invoke his right to not be compelled to give testimony against himself? Could what he says, say, before a congressional committee, be used against him in a civil proceeding? And, if so, wouldn’t that mean he can still “lawyer up”?
There’s no such thing as “civil prosecution”. Civil cases are lawsuits, not prosecutions. There’s no crime involved in a civil lawsuit. It’s just a plaintiff claiming that the defendant owes him money. So the entire concept of “pardon” is irrelevant.
The right against self-incrimination applies only to criminal cases. In a civil case there is no right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself.
Can someone explain to me how this applies to something that is totally unknown as of yet?
The answer to all your questions basically is a single word – ‘Crimes’
The power to pardon is for offenses, not convictions, unlike many Governors who can only pardon people convicted and sometimes only those sentenced.
Similarly the Fifth Amendment is limited by its text to criminal testimony and only testimony that would lead to conviction rather than indictment.
“Similarly the Fifth Amendment is limited by its text to criminal testimony and only testimony that would lead to conviction rather than indictment.”
This is incorrect. A defendant or suspect (or a person who becomes one or both of those persons) has an absolute right to not bear witness against himself. The amendment doesn’t use the words “incriminating” or “incrimination,” and for good reason – a person cannot know what it is that he might say that may be used against him. He may say something he believes exonerates him, and a prosecutor can use those words against him. The defendant/suspect can’t judge whether or not anything he says may be incriminating, because he doesn’t know how a prosecutor may use those words, therefore he has a complete right to not testify at all.
Also, any time anyone proposes that a “right” is limited by the anything in the Bill of Right, I’m appalled. The BOR is supposed to put an upper limit on government acts, it is not meant to delimit the rights of citizens. (See the Ninth Amendment.) Nowhere in the Constitution will you find authority for the government to compel testimony. Thinking otherwise is part of the problem we have with government. We have too long “asserted our constitutional rights” instead of (more properly) complaining of “no government authority.”
As an aside, I have a problem with compelled testimony in exchange for the imposition of immunity. If the subject agrees to surrender his right to remain silent* in exchange for immunity, fine. But the government shouldn’t have the authority to demand the exchange when the subject isn’t willing to make the trade. The imposition of immunity isn’t the “due process” necessary to take anyone’s rights away – it is not a punishment for conviction of a crime.
*Note the “Miranda warning” admission that we have a right to remain silent, and not merely a right to not “incriminate” ourselves. SCOTUS probably found this right in the Fifth Amendment. Fine. But I also find it in the First (as the corollary to the freedom to speak – i.e. freedom to not speak – as well as silence being a form of expression itself) and the Ninth (as an unenumerated right).
Yeah, yeah. There’s a slew of court decisions that say otherwise. I don’t care. I make my arguments on first principles.
Dave, compelled testimony is a fundamental principle of the common law. In fact the founders saw it as one of the fundamental rights that we all have, including the government. Any time someone believes another person has something to say that would help him, he has the absolute right to compel that person to testify, on pain of criminal sanctions if he refuses.
The right against self-incrimination is an exception to that right. And the constitution explicitly limits it to criminal cases.
(I.e. the potential case in which his words now could be used against him must be criminal. The circumstance in which he is now called to testify can be anything: a civil case, a congressional hearing, even a form he’s filling out. He can’t be compelled to disclose anything that would constitute testimony in a potential future criminal case. But he can be compelled to disclose matters that could only be used against him in a civil case, or in a political campaign, or in a business negotiation, etc. Hence the common use of the word “incriminate”.)
The right to remain silent is with the police, not when you’re on the stand in a court case or a congressional hearing. At that time you have no right to silence; your only right is to refuse to testify against yourself in any potential criminal case.
Spot on. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the power to pardon “…offenses against the United States.” under the United States Constitution Article 2 Section 2 Clause 1 is for crimes, and only federal crimes. Hunter Biden has exposure for the civil income tax liability related to some or all of the alleged $24 million that the Biden family took in over the years. If returns were not filed, then the statute of limitations remains open. If tax returns were filed, but there was a substantial understatement, then a 6-year statute of limitations would apply. Civil tax, interests, and civil tax penalties could be draconian.
Furthermore, much has been made of “loans” between various participants in this scheme. Cancellation of loans is considered gross income under Internal Revenue Code section 61.
Nothing will ever come of this. Biden has been a corrupt politician for over 50 years. He was able to laugh off this issue because he knows all about the equally corrupt goings on, on both sides of the aisle. Nobody dare pursue this strenuously lest he find himself in prison.
Sadly, I think you are correct. The GOP will bellow, stomp their feet, maybe even hold their breath for a bit. A strong letter or two will be written. But, when the dust all settles, nothing much will have transpired. A real investigation will expose too much dirty laundry on both sides.
Every now and then someone puts together a genealogy chart of The Swamp. Which judge is married to which MSM type. Which Congresscritter’s kids are in which consulting firm, or some Deputy of some sort.
It makes the Hapsburg’s look exogamous.
Another thing to consider is if there are investigations into any of the Bidens, including the “Big Guy” Joe, corruptions Hunter might be questioned. Even if he can’t be charged or prosecuted for his past crimes, he can still be charged with a present/future crime of lying to investigators/perjury. Unless he exercises more discipline than in the past, he might actually commit further crimes. One thing this farce should make clear is the presidential power of pardon should be constitutionally reformed. One suggestion is to limit the power to actual crimes that a person has been convicted of, which is the traditional manner in which it has mostly been applied. Accusation is not the same as proof. How is a person pardoned from a crime if they haven’t acknowledged they actually committed a crime? Without being legally convicted or pleading guilty to a crime then why the need for a pardon. For Joe, granting Hunter a blanket pardon seems to be that Joe knows of crimes that Hunter has committed but is not informing the American people what they are. Well, most likely he can’t because he would incriminate himself and other Biden family members. The power to pardon should be limited to minimize the chance that a president uses it to cover his own crimes. Remember, there was no limitation on presidential terms until Franklyn Roosevelt broke with tradition and got himself elected 4 times.
Leave a Comment