Post New

Dec. 1, 2024

President Biden issued the following statement on Sunday night.

Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter.

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 noncriminal 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 courtroom — with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.

No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong.

There has been an effort to break Hunter — who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me — and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here.

Enough is enough. For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth. They’ll be fair-minded.

Here’s the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice — and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.

Executive Grant of Clemency

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

President of the United States of America

To All to Whom These Presents Shall Come, Greeting:

Be It Known, That This Day, I, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, Pursuant to My Powers Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution, Have Granted Unto

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, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted (including any that have resulted in convictions) by Special Counsel David C. Weiss in Docket No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and Docket No. 2:23-CR-00599-MCS-1 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF I have hereunto signed my name and caused the Pardon to be recorded with the Department of Justice.

Done at the City of Washington this 1st day of December in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty-four and of the Independence of the United States the Two Hundred and Forty-ninth.

I noticed that the specific power granted to the President by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution is:

"[The President] shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

What's the definition of an "offense against the United States"? Is it just the breaking of a Federal law? What if someone is in jail for a state crime and not a federal crime? Can the President pardon them?

What's the definition of an "offense against the United States"? Is it just the breaking of a Federal law? What if someone is in jail for a state crime and not a federal crime? Can the President pardon them?

No. Pardons are only for federal crimes. The President cannot pardon someone for state crimes (though often the Governor of that state can).

As far as Biden's decision - man, it's a bad and selfish choice. There's no real reason for the pardon other than that Hunter is his son, and this is something he can give him. There's no evidence that Hunter wasn't given due process, or lacked the resources to fairly contest the charges, or any of the more substantive reasons that the Pardon power has been exercised to correct in the past. Worse, Biden's assertion that Hunter's travails were due primarily to politics - under his DOJ - just gives support to Republican denigration of Trump's prosecutions as mere "lawfare" rather than the application of criminal law.

Biden's legacy had already taken a number of hits, and this is another (completely self-inflicted) one.

Biden's legacy had already taken a number of hits, and this is another (completely self-inflicted) one.

If I'm Biden, watching the installation of an administration that says it will be revenge driven, everything that happened before is irrelevant.

Trump is a criminal installing violent criminals in his administration. Justice is no longer assured in a Trump administration run by loyalist sycophants. Biden had one, and only one, opportunity to save his son from a criminal administration.

Biden had to assess the likelihood that Trump's 'revenge' driven administration could easily result in his son's untimely death, like Jeffrey Epstein's death, in a jail cell.

President Biden - nice job!

Now, Donald, Eric, Jared...... open season if they know what to do with it.

Literally they can walk int to 10 banks today, empty the register, feel the teller up if they feel like it, walk out, have a hot meal. and get pardoned.

My hope is that one of them - probably Jared is long working on this - and now the pre-hatched plan will be enhanced and more brazen than ever.

*One caveat: My advice is DO IT NOW, and get the pardon NOW. I am 50-50 that Trump will serve 4 years.

HCR expressed it well:

"President-elect Trump continued to name the people he wants in his incoming administration. His picks seem designed to destroy the institutions of the democratic American state and replace those institutions with an authoritarian government whose officials are all loyal to Trump."

As such, there is a reasonable expectation that his son will be denied justice, that there will be revenge-driven interference by the incoming authoritarian regime.

Biden's legacy had already taken a number of hits, and this is another (completely self-inflicted) one.

It's completely understandable to me. It did look like a political prosecution to me - which befuddled me. Since everything I read said that no one gets prosecuted for the gun form fib, and all I'm interested in on the taxes is that he pay tax, penalties, and interest - I saw no reason to prosecute him. But it was done. He faced 2-4 years possibly.

The other part is that he was being painted as an easy target for the MAGA crowd - so that this wouldn't be the end of the troubles. We are going to see some retribution investigations. So I'm willing to say that if we see plenty of investigations with some questionable prosecutions that this was a prudent move on his part. We shall see.

If I'm Biden, watching the installation of an administration that says it will be revenge driven, everything that happened before is irrelevant.

It's still a choice, and he made a bad one. No doubt Biden was worried about his son going to jail, with good reason - and perhaps he was more worried about it under a Trump DoJ/BoP than a Harris one. But I don't think it's reasonable to believe that Trump would have done anything more to Hunter than has already been done - Trump won, and Biden's done with politics, and Trump doesn't have much of a history of caring about foes he's already completely vanquished. And if you genuinely think that Trump is going to misuse DoJ, it makes this choice even worse - it might spare Hunter the consequences of that misuse, but it makes it harder for anyone to call Trump to account for misusing the DoJ against anyone else. Biden's basically saying that the DoJ responded to political pressure in prosecuting his son - that his DoJ responded to political pressure. Not a great look for people arguing that DoJ is and should be independent. It was just a bad choice, and a selfish one.

Biden's basically saying that the DoJ responded to political pressure in prosecuting his son - that his DoJ responded to political pressure.

But that's exactly what it looked like happened.

But that's exactly what it looked like happened.

No, it didn't. Hunter committed the kind of willful and knowing tax evasion that can quite often land you in jail, even if you pay it back afterwards. Generally speaking, if you deliberately don't pay your taxes, a "normal" defendant can very much expect to face the very real possibility of criminal prosecution - and a jail sentence of years, not months. Even a rich and famous person can expect that - Wesley Snipes did more that two years in prison for his tax evasion.

Count me in for Brett Stephens' take:

But when a Democratic president behaves as Biden just did, it fuels the corrosive public cynicism that helped elect Trump yet again while licensing and excusing whatever plans the president-elect may have for politicizing justice and using it for the benefit of friends, family and self.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/02/opinion/biden-h...

But I don't think it's reasonable to believe that Trump would have done anything more to Hunter than has already been done -

The use of “reasonable” and “Trump” in the same sentence invalidates whatever point you were trying to make.

But I don't think it's reasonable to believe that Trump would have done anything more to Hunter than has already been done

Agree to disagree. With a circle that includes the likes of Hegseth, Stone, and Bannon to name just a few, it's not unreasonable to expect them to make an example of Hunter Biden.

... Trump doesn't have much of a history of caring about foes he's already completely vanquished....

Who says vanquishing is an adequate amount of revenge for the Orange Jeezus crew??

And if you genuinely think that Trump is going to misuse DoJ,

IF???? Look at the sycophants he's choosing to work with- and he has immunity- and he has a documented history of blowing off the advice of those who would temper his actions.

Biden's basically saying that the DoJ responded to political pressure in prosecuting his son - that his DoJ responded to political pressure.

Biden is recognizing that the system he was counting on to deal with his son fairly will no longer exist after January.

But when a Democratic president behaves as Biden just did, it fuels the corrosive public cynicism that helped elect Trump yet again while licensing and excusing whatever plans the president-elect may have for politicizing justice and using it for the benefit of friends, family and self.

The cynicism I get.

But Trump has never, ever, shown a scintilla of giving a whit (redundancy required) when it comes to licensing and excusing whatever plans he may have for politicizing justice and using it for the benefit of friends, family, and self. You can’t pin that one on Biden.

And for consistency, you can’t fix stupid.

Even a rich and famous person can expect that - Wesley Snipes did more that two years in prison for his tax evasion.

Wesley Snipes didn't have a national socio-politico regime like MAGA screaming for lib heads to roll.

No, it didn't. Hunter committed the kind of willful and knowing tax evasion that can quite often land you in jail, even if you pay it back afterwards. Generally speaking, if you deliberately don't pay your taxes, a "normal" defendant can very much expect to face the very real possibility of criminal prosecution - and a jail sentence of years, not months. Even a rich and famous person can expect that - Wesley Snipes did more that two years in prison for his tax evasion.

Yes, it did. There are plenty of those guys who never see jail. Most of the time if they agree to the civil fraud penalty the criminal part isn't pursued. The larger it is, the more likely to go to court - his was not that big. Perhaps I'm used to the first prosecutor. The prosecutors also like to go after crooks. What is prosecuted is a just a small part of what's there. Hunter Biden, from what I can see, isn't a crook, or at least is reforming. It looks like Snipes co-defendants were crooks, and that's the rub, because Snipes was convicted of misdemeanor charges.

albaby1: Even a rich and famous person can expect that - Wesley Snipes did more that two years in prison for his tax evasion..

Sorry, I couldn't resist posting. I mean, it's not every day you get to tell albaby1 he's full of shit.

Wesley Snipes did not pay his past due federal taxes before being sent to prison. And comparing Snipes' past due federal income tax situation to Hunter Biden's is laughable: Snipes owed the IRS $23.5 million and refused to make any payments. In addition, when he was released from prison Snipes tried to settle his tax debt by offering the IRS $850,000 (only 4% of the $23.5 million tax bill), which the IRS predictably turned down. Hunter Biden paid his past due taxes in full.

As for his persecution being "just" or not, then president Trump led the persecution of Hunter Biden by withholding funds from Ukraine in order to get 1.) Dirt on Hunter Biden; 2.) An agreement for Ukraine to announce an investigation of Hunter Biden's corruption.

Then president Trump tasked his attorney Rudy Giuliani to work with a Russian spy to acquire dirt on Hunter Biden.

Then president Trump instructed AG Barr to set-up a side channel to receive damaging information on Hunter Biden and the Biden family.

Then president Trump instructed AG Barr to prosecute Hunter Biden after a prosecutor twice decided that nothing in the years 2014-2015 -- the heart of Trump's claims about Hunter Biden -- could be charged.

Kash Patel has said that prosecutorial decision would be revisited in a second Trump term.

Then president Trump worked with republicans to have them investigate Hunter Biden -- investigations that last two full years -- and to make sure the plea deal that fell apart stayed dead.

Under pressure from congressional republicans and former president Trump, prosecutors reneged on the plea deal (and refused to renegotiate its terms).

In short, Trump was deeply, corruptly involved in the six-year investigation and prosecution of Hunter Biden and there's no reason to believe Trump would no longer feel the need to continue persecuting him.

I mean, seriously, have you learned nothing about Trump in these past eight years?

As far as the pardon is concerned, I am reminded of Gene Hackman in Enemy of the State: "I wouldn't have, but I understand the argument."

Apologies to all: I'm gone again and I, like you, am hoping for good this time.

IF???? Look at the sycophants he's choosing to work with- and he has immunity- and he has a documented history of blowing off the advice of those who would temper his actions.

Of course. He clearly rejects the idea that the DoJ - or any department of the federal government that is under the President - should be independent of the President. And he doesn't tend to take advice.

Neither of those, however, provides much of a basis for concluding that Donald Trump would direct his agencies to go after Hunter Biden specifically. He's a useless target. Biden's out of politics now - he's not even going to have the informal "soft" power that an Obama or even a Bill Clinton has. Hunter never did anything to Trump - he was a lever to get to Biden Sr., and there's nothing there now. No one else in the party cares what happens to Hunter. I genuinely do not credit the idea that Trump would direct his DoJ to go after Hunter Biden.

But Trump has never, ever, shown a scintilla of giving a whit (redundancy required) when it comes to licensing and excusing whatever plans he may have for politicizing justice and using it for the benefit of friends, family, and self. You can’t pin that one on Biden.

Sure you can. It gets harder to push back on those things if you've done the same thing. If you want to attack Trump politically for insulating people from criminal consequences, it gets harder if you have a big prominent example of you doing it yourself.

I am curious about one thing, though. I tend to follow politics - but I'm struggling to recall the most significant instance when Trump tried to politicize DoJ as a weapon against other people. He clearly wanted to insulate himself and others from any investigations or consequences, no doubt. He didn't want to be the subject of any DoJ activity. But what would you say is the most consequential use of DoJ - whether successful or thwarted - he tried to do to go after someone else in his first term?

Wesley Snipes didn't have a national socio-politico regime like MAGA screaming for lib heads to roll.

Not really relevant, though. The point I was making is that Hunter being prosecuted was what you would expect from those sorts of tax charges. If you willfully evade a few million in taxes for a few years, you don't get to just pay it back with a penalty. You're probably going to be prosecuted, and you're probably doing some jail time. These weren't prosecutions that would never have been brought but for the MAGA screaming.

"Neither of those, however, provides much of a basis for concluding that Donald Trump would direct his agencies to go after Hunter Biden specifically. He's a useless target."

It's cheap red meat for the cult... and... it's a useful, although false, equivalence for the likes of MTG, Jordan, etc when they need to raise the temperature of any hearings on anything.

Hell, Albaby, they're not done with Hunter. For cryin' out loud... 'they' still drag out the blue dress.

Yes, it did. There are plenty of those guys who never see jail. Most of the time if they agree to the civil fraud penalty the criminal part isn't pursued. The larger it is, the more likely to go to court - his was not that big.

I think you have a very mistaken impression of what happens to people who willfully commit seven-figure tax evasion. Hunter was alleged to have willfully both failed to file tax returns in multiple years, failed to pay his required taxes over multiple years, in an amount that exceeded a million dollars. If you do that sort of thing, there's a very good chance you're going to get prosecuted - not get a civil penalty - even if you're rich and famous.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/23-celebrities-con...

Hell, Albaby, they're not done with Hunter. For cryin' out loud... 'they' still drag out the blue dress.

Politically, yes they drag it out - in no small part because Clinton is still active in politics. But no one's trying to find new dirt on Bill, or prosecute Bill for things - even though he is still active in politics.

And Biden has absolutely assured that they will still be talking about Hunter for decades to come. Like Bill's blue dress, the Hunter pardon will be a symbol of the Democrats not taking seriously the idea that everyone should face consequences for criminal behavior. Clinton's gross and venal indulgence of his sexual desires was bad for the Democrats, and I think Biden's choice - while far more understandable but still a personal benefit to himself - will also have consequences for the party's ability to push back on Republicans.

These weren't prosecutions that would never have been brought but for the MAGA screaming

All things being equal I would agree but all things ain't equal now. Biden gets to look forward and use his pardon power to prevent injustice. The MAGA grinder that lies ahead screams 'injustice ahead.'

A guy like Kash Patel who calls himself an "avenger", working for a guy who says he could shoot somebody in the middle of 5th avenue and nobody would care, who got immunity from a corrupt SCOTUS; that's the future.

The game changed, Albaby, with Trump's re-election.

I was fine with Hunter doing time like Kushner's daddy, but if a pardon is okay for Kushner's daddy, then I'm fine with Hunter's being pardoned too.

Either way, MAGA will scream blue dress, benghazi, her emails, hunter. At least now Hunter is not at risk of having to hang around in Epstein's jail cell.

I think Biden's choice - while far more understandable but still a personal benefit to himself - will also have consequences for the party's ability to push back on Republican

They're not getting what you're saying, al. What Biden did was literally everything that they've accused Trump of doing and while he was doing it...he threw his own Justice Department under the bus. Not to mention he made fools out of KJP and the entire media (who were carrying his water and praising his commitment to justice and the rule of law for years).

Biden should have made a deal with Trump - I'll pardon the non-violent J6 people if you pardon Hunter - and walked out the door with one of those Presidential Moments that historians look fondly. Something akin to Gerald Ford's simultaneous pardons of Richard Nixon and many anti-war protestors that moved the nation past the Vietnam Era divisiveness.

But nope. He went the other way.

Sorry, I couldn't resist posting. I mean, it's not every day you get to tell albaby1 he's full of shit.

Then Daryl Strawberry. Or Ja Rule. Or Lauryn Hill. Or any of a number of other celebrities that were tagged with willfully failing to pay their taxes. If you do it over multiple years, for more than a million dollars, with some false filings or outright failure to file altogether, you face a real chance of criminal prosecution and actual jail time.

He committed serious tax fraud. He deserved to face criminal prosecution for serious tax fraud. Had he been an ordinary person, with no political involvement at all, there's a very good chance that he would have been prosecuted for serious tax fraud.

That chance was heightened for Biden because, unlike ordinary people, he wrote a memoir. Which was filled with incriminating information and substantial evidence documenting his tax fraud. Which made it a slam dunk for prosecutors to prove that many of the elements of the tax evasion were not honest mistakes, but rather a years-long pattern of willful deception. Which completely removed the "it's hard to prove intent" element that allows some people to dodge an actual criminal conviction and just get hit with civil fraud.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/lessons-from-the...

Biden should have made a deal with Trump

No way to make that deal, because there's no way to hold Trump to his end of the bargain.

"And Biden has absolutely assured that they will still be talking about Hunter for decades to come."

Yes, it will be a 'shiny thing' on the string of pearls MAGA clutches in their never-ending quest for eye-catching shade.

THE PARDON! will provide shade whenever Fox needs to jack up the outrage machine.

And if THE PARDON! ever fails to generate a sufficient outrage response, they'll resurrect pet eating 'illegals' or 'illegal rapes blond christian iowa girl.'

In other words, they will continue to 'flood the zone with shit.'

But what would you say is the most consequential use of DoJ - whether successful or thwarted - he tried to do to go after someone else in his first term?

How about the unusually prolonged and fastidious IRS investigations of several of Trump's then perceived enemies? Can't recall all their names, but I think James Comey was one of them.

PS - I agree with you that this was a very disappointing thing for Biden to have done, and frankly, now it stinks to high heaven that the only purpose for Biden having declared - multiple times - that he would NOT pardon Hunter was to attempt to win votes for Dems by painting them - and himself - as the party that obeyed the principal of non-interference with the work of the DOJ, no matter the outcome. And his explanation for why he changed his mind stinks of grasping at a convenient excuse: the election of Trump. I suspect Biden intended to pardon Hunter all along, even if Kamala had won.

Sadly, Biden's legacy is now further tainted, and as you said, this pardon only ensures Trump will proceed with renewed vigor with his plans to weaponize the DOJ - or what's left of it - against all "enemies from within" for his own nefarious purposes.

How about the unusually prolonged and fastidious IRS investigations of several of Trump's then perceived enemies? Can't recall all their names, but I think James Comey was one of them.

I can't recall any of those - and IRS is part of Treasury, not DOJ, right?

I can't recall any of those - and IRS is part of Treasury, not DOJ, right?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/13/politics/trump-irs-...

But, yes, I do suppose the IRS isn't the DOJ.

But, yes, I do suppose the IRS isn't the DOJ.

Unsurprisingly, during the Biden Administration they conducted a review of the IRS' behavior during that time. Surprisingly, they didn't do anything to single out Comey or McCabe - it was just a coincidence. No one tampered with the code that was used to select those years' returns for more intensive audits, and they got the same results when they replicated the process.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/01/comey-mcc...

Surprisingly, they didn't do anything to single out Comey or McCabe - it was just a coincidence.

Alright, thanks. I think I now remember that as well. Though Trump still DID exert pressure to conduct investigations according to the CNN article I linked, right?

I think you have a very mistaken impression

I worked with some of those attorneys and did manage to get them to take a few of my cases. Some were 7 figure cases, but most were smaller. One I found a casino operating out of a neighborhood. Another the fellow was keeping a second set of books for the fake acupuncture treatments from people who faked accidents. The casino didn't go to court, just agreed and paid. The acupuncture treatment did go to court and he went to jail. It was due to the insurance fraud I think. The casino was high six figures, and the accident fraud was only a hundred k not taxed.

And yes, I'm aware of some/many of the cases in your article. But, as I say, there's many cases that never go to court. I had one case where the attorneys agreed there was fraud, but it was to convoluted to explain to a jury (and some judges) - so we just took the money.

Though Trump still DID exert pressure to conduct investigations according to the CNN article I linked, right?

Exert pressure? He asked his Chief of Staff, and his Chief of Staff said that you couldn't do that. From the article, Kelly apparently told him that "It’s inappropriate, it’s illegal, it’s against their integrity and the I.R.S. knows what it’s doing and it’s not a good idea...." I fully expect that Susie Wiles would tell him the same thing, if he asked again. From context, it stopped right there with Kelly last time - and again, I expect the same thing would happen with Wiles.

Not because I have any belief that she sees her job as stopping Trump from doing what he wants to do, BTW. But she will tell him when something's completely illegal, and she is unlikely to do anything completely illegal herself.
Because you can't do this kind of stuff without creating a discoverable trail - and even though Trump might be free from any fear or criminal consequences, everyone else in that trail would risk going to jail for that kind of thing. Trump is never going to be in a room, alone, with the sort of very junior people who would need to actually implement this type of scheme. It can't happen. At a minimum, he'd have to tell Wiles to tell Bessent to tell the IRS Commissioner to tell a senior person in tax compliance to get the junior people do it - and that's just too many people. Susie Wiles doesn't have a get out of jail free card from SCOTUS, and neither does anyone in Treasury.

Which completely removed the "it's hard to prove intent" element that allows some people to dodge an actual criminal conviction and just get hit with civil fraud.

That's a good point. :) I didn't know that part.

And yes, I'm aware of some/many of the cases in your article. But, as I say, there's many cases that never go to court. I had one case where the attorneys agreed there was fraud, but it was to convoluted to explain to a jury (and some judges) - so we just took the money.

Yeah, but I would hazard a guess that none of your cases had the perp writing a memoir where they admitted they committed the fraud.

Were you ever involved in a case where the fraud was more than a million bucks, lasted several tax years, and they had incontrovertible proof that it was willful and intentional fraud....and they didn't treat it as a criminal matter?

They're not getting what you're saying, al.

I think they are. They just disagree. You can understand what someone is saying and disagree.

Saw this on another site: Biden just handed Trump a mandate to clean out the "politcized" DOJ :)

Yeah, but I would hazard a guess that none of your cases had the perp writing a memoir where they admitted they committed the fraud.

Were you ever involved in a case where the fraud was more than a million bucks, lasted several tax years, and they had incontrovertible proof that it was willful and intentional fraud....and they didn't treat it as a criminal matter?

As I noted in another post, I forgot about the memoir and thought that was a good point. So you would have everything, the three year pattern, large amounts, and incriminating written statements showing intent - good case then. I agree with you now.

Saw this on another site: Biden just handed Trump a mandate to clean out the "politcized" DOJ :)

How so? Because the DOJ prosecuted Hunter Biden? Explain how that works.

As I noted in another post, I forgot about the memoir and thought that was a good point.

Sorry - our posts crossed!

Exert pressure? He asked his Chief of Staff, and his Chief of Staff said that you couldn't do that.

Sure, but the point is he tried. Whether it worked or didn't is irrelevant. Particularly now that he will now have many fewer - if any - pushing back against his baser instincts.

How so? Because the DOJ prosecuted Hunter Biden? Explain how that works.

Sigh. Because Biden saw fit to attribute his pardon to Hunter's case being politicized.

Had Biden simply explained his decision as personal - a loving father facing a difficult choice - it would certainly have opened him up to criticism. But it would have left the DoJ alone.

Instead, Biden criticized the DoJ process. He claimed that politics was involved in the DoJ's choices - that Hunter was prosecuted only because he was Biden's son. Or as his press secretary put it today, that "the raw politics infected the process and led to a miscarriage of justice."

That's a crippling accusation to levy against the DoJ. All of this took place while Biden was President - the "raw politics" wasn't even coming from inside the Administration. Some committee chairs? Media talking heads?If DoJ can't resist that - if they can't handle a case involving a political figure fairly even in the absence of pressure from the President - then that's a massive defect in the institution. It's never easy to handle the politics of high-profile cases, and I can't imagine how hard it must have been internally in DoJ on how to handle a criminal case against the sitting President's son. But it's hard to see how the "raw politics" could have infected the process unless there's something seriously wrong with DoJ as an institution.

The right answer, of course, is that DoJ didn't let raw politics infect the process, and Hunter didn't suffer a miscarriage of justice. But because Biden Sr. didn't want to be remembered as the guy who pardoned his son for personal (arguably selfish) reasons, he decided to cloak the decision in a claim that DoJ did something wrong.....

.....which plays right into Trump's hands. If DoJ couldn't be trusted to resist "raw politics" to treat the President's son fairly, how can they be trusted to resist "raw politics" to treat the President's opponent fairly? Just an appalling thing to lay at DoJ's feet.

Sure, but the point is he tried. Whether it worked or didn't is irrelevant.

Not much of a try. He floated whether he could do it, was told "no, you can't," and apparently that was the end of it. Certainly not something that would lead one to believe he's going to do that in his second term, since all of the reasons why Kelly said no are still there.

It was just a bad choice, and a selfish one.

I couldn't disagree more. It was the only right choice in the circumstances.

Try to look at it impartially. What kinds of people are typical candidates for a Presidential pardon? If you ask me, they are folks who have recognized their crime, who have made amends as best as possible, or who may themselves be victims of overzealous prosecution. I think Hunter Biden fits all of those.

He certainly recognized and admits to his crimes. He attempted to plead guilty, but that plea agreement was thwarted - arguably for political reasons. His guilty plea would have been for substantially the same crimes of which he was eventually found guilty at trial. On the tax crimes, he has paid all of the back taxes with penalties and interest. Both the gun and tax felonies are ones that are rarely prosecuted. Civil penalties and sometimes misdemeanor prosecutions are far more common. So there is certainly an element of overzealous prosecution.

Hunter would be an ideal candidate for a pardon from any President.

Biden's basically saying that the DoJ responded to political pressure in prosecuting his son - that his DoJ responded to political pressure.

There is a huge difference in responding to political pressure that would be to the benefit vs. the detriment of the President. My understanding of the events leading up to Hunter's investigation and prosecution is that there was a huge amount of political pressure on Joe Biden not to show favoritism to Hunter in this matter because there were accusations of mis-deeds that would implicate Joe Biden as well. To demonstrate that lack of favoritism, the AG chose to appoint a Special Counsel. (Hmmmm - seems like a Special Counsel is OK for this investigation and prosecution, but not Trump's. Interesting. But a completely different topic for another thread.)

The result of the investigation was that while there was adequate evidence to charge Hunter with crimes, there was not sufficient evidence of the crimes implicating President Biden that the Republicans were hoping to find. Not even enough to charge Hunter with those crimes, let alone implicate the President. Hunter's crimes were simply the fallout of the politically motivated investigation - an investigation that President Biden did not interfere with to demonstrate his independence.

With the facts all out in the open, and neither Biden disputing the facts found in the investigation, the attempt to gain some kind of equivalence between President Biden and Trump by some Republicans was thwarted. But the Special Counsel was still out there and President Biden wasn't going to interfere with the Counsel until his work was finished. So Hunter did get prosecuted and convicted.

Now that all of the facts are out in the open - without interference from the President - he has chosen to pardon Hunter. He had to allow Hunter to be thoroughly investigated and even prosecuted to protect the integrity of his Presidency. Now that everything is out in the open and Hunter has been convicted, he can pardon Hunter. President Biden has hidden nothing. Hunter did do some bad things, but the punishment (felony jail time) is considerably more harsh that the vast majority of similarly situated people face. So a pardon is appropriate.

It is not at all a stain on Biden's Presidency. It is a testament to his 50+ years of public service and the high standards he has held himself to throughout those years. He respected the systems we have put in place to govern the country, even when those systems cause both him and his family considerable emotional pain.

As to the independence of the DOJ, the threat to the Republic is not from a DOJ that carries out an investigation and prosecution that might make the sitting President look bad. It is from a DOJ that refrains from investigation and prosecution of those that the sitting President is trying to favor or protect.

--Peter

"No, it didn't. Hunter committed the kind of willful and knowing tax evasion that can quite often land you in jail"

Lol, I can't resist. So what about all of the willful and knowing tax evasion that Trump has committed ?? :-)

I luv that Biden pulled a Trump and pardoned his kid. Dems need to go tit for tat with
MAGA.

Both the gun and tax felonies are ones that are rarely prosecuted. Civil penalties and sometimes misdemeanor prosecutions are far more common. So there is certainly an element of overzealous prosecution.

This just....isn't true, AFAIK, for the tax charges. The gun charges, maybe. But if you commit willful tax fraud for well over a million dollars, over multiple years, with deliberate fraudulent filings, and they have you dead to rights because you wrote a biography admitting to some of this stuff, you're going to get charged. And you're probably going to jail. And you probably deserve to go to jail.

Hunter would be an ideal candidate for a pardon from any President.

A moderately wealthy white-collar tax cheat who was caught dead to rights, who had no reason whatsoever for his decision not to pay his taxes (other than perhaps to pay for his drug habit), with access to expensive private defense counsel? No way a guy with that bio ever gets a pardon from any other President, absent his political (in this case familial) connections.

President Biden has hidden nothing. Hunter did do some bad things, but the punishment (felony jail time) is considerably more harsh that the vast majority of similarly situated people face. So a pardon is appropriate.

Again, I don't think any of this is true. Hunter didn't endure a miscarriage of justice, and he hadn't been sentenced yet. People do get charged with felony tax fraud, and sometimes go to jail for a few years. If the average person were to deliberately cheat the government out of a million or more dollars, and they have you dead to rights, they'd probably go to jail. This is exactly the sort of defendant that progressives generally think should have the book thrown at them - the elite wealthy guy who thinks that taxes are for "little people" (sorry Leona). The only reason Hunter's getting this pardon is because he's the President's son. Neither Hunter personally nor the circumstances of the crime or prosecution warrant the beneficence of a pardon.

The worst part is that Biden could have mitigated the damage caused by this pardon if he hadn't thrown DoJ under the bus in an effort to make this look more principled than it was. Hunter Biden wasn't prosecuted because "raw politics" "infected" the process. He was prosecuted because he committed a fairly serious white collar crime and decided to write a memoir about it. He got caught dead to rights with sufficient evidence that the prosecutors couldn't play the "we might not win in court" with a straight face. Had Biden just made this a personal decision - using his pardon power selfishly but understandably - he would have taken the heat in his own legacy but spared DoJ as an institution. But by claiming that DoJ did something wrong, Biden is throwing them under the bus at a time when they are literally at their most vulnerable in history.

Lol, I can't resist. So what about all of the willful and knowing tax evasion that Trump has committed ?? :-)

The willful and knowing tax evasion that prosecutors don't have evidence of? Seems pretty likely that if prosecutors - state or federal - had actual evidence that could support a criminal charge of tax evasion against Trump personally (rather than cases against his companies), they would have brought those charges.

If Trump deserved to be prosecuted for his white collar crimes, then so did Hunter. I've spilled a lot of virtual ink on these boards defending the decisions to prosecute Trump for the provable crimes he committed, arguing that one shouldn't get a pass because of a political dimension to an otherwise straightforward criminal case. Yes, Trump was in the spotlight because he was super-famous and under a lot of scrutiny - but if that scrutiny reveals a crime, then it is just and appropriate to prosecute the crime even if he would have had a chance to fly under the radar and not get caught if he had been less famous.

For Biden Sr. to now claim that DoJ did something wrong in prosecuting Hunter - or that there's any aspect of DoJ's pursuit of Hunter's case that merits a Presidential pardon apart from him being the President's son - is just wrong. And it undermines DoJ's claim that it functions as an neutral law enforcement agency independent of politics in making its prosecution decisions, at the very time when they most need that message to be heard and believed.

Sorry - our posts crossed!

No problem, thanks for pointing that out. :)

by painting them - and himself - as the party that obeyed the principal of non-interference with the work of the DOJ, no matter the outcome.

But that's the thing. He DIDN'T interfere with the work of the DOJ. If anything, he gave them permission to go ahead and investigate. The DOJ's work with Hunter is done. OK - just short of done - we aren't getting to sentencing. But all of the investigating and prosecuting is done. And a trial (rather than an plea deal) put the facts out in the public sphere. President Biden could have pardoned Hunter before the investigation. Or he could have *suggested* [wink, wink, nudge, nudge] to his AG that it would be really nice if Hunter was not investigated.

Those are the things that make the DOJ less independent. Not pardoning someone after the investigation and prosecution are complete.

If I may engage in the same sane-washing that Trump's disciples are so fond of - When President Biden said that he wouldn't pardon Hunter, he was talking about not pardoning him before the investigation happened. Now that it has happened, he's pardoning Hunter from the consequences of his actions, not trying to cover up anything.

--Peter

.....which plays right into Trump's hands. If DoJ couldn't be trusted to resist "raw politics" to treat the President's son fairly, how can they be trusted to resist "raw politics" to treat the President's opponent fairly? Just an appalling thing to lay at DoJ's feet.

Thanks. So if the President is aware, as you are, that his son should have been prosecuted, then why is he laying it on the DOJ? We did have the problem of the plea deal going bad as attention was paid to it, which made it look like the prosecution was in response to the spotlight on Hunter Biden. Just mulling it over it sounds like he actually believes that was the case.

He DIDN'T interfere with the work of the DOJ. If anything, he gave them permission to go ahead and investigate.

That's not the point.

In his pardon statement, and the subsequent explanations from the press secretary, Biden claimed that the prosecution of Hunter was infected by raw politics. He's claiming that the DoJ was affected by politics. That Hunter was prosecuted because of (presumably) Republican political pressure on the DoJ demanding that outcome.

But that's....a really bad thing to say about the DoJ. He's claiming that DoJ is not independent. That it responds to political pressures. That it is sufficiently pliable to political pressures that even when they come from the opposition party to the President, it is vulnerable. If the DoJ can't resist political pressures coming from the minority party, even as against one of the most politically connected people on the planet (the President's own son), how could it possibly be independent of the political pressures brought by the President's own party against the President's opponent?

IOW, if the DoJ could be steamrolled by Republican Congresscritters into wrongfully prosecuting Hunter, how could it possibly avoid being steamrolled by Democratic Congresscritters into prosecuting Trump? If the prosecutorial decision for Hunter couldn't be protected from Republican influence, how could anyone possibly believe that the prosecutorial decision for Trump was protected from Democratic influence?

That's why Biden should never, never have tried to pin the reason for the pardon on something wrong with DoJ. But he did. Because he didn't want his legacy to include using the power of the office for personal reasons, so he threw DoJ under the bus.

So if the President is aware, as you are, that his son should have been prosecuted, then why is he laying it on the DOJ?

Could be lots of reasons. He clearly loves his son, and probably just can't believe he's a bad enough guy to deserve a few years in jail, so DoJ must be wrong. He probably also believes (correctly) that this prosecution wouldn't have happened if Trump and the GOP hadn't attacked Hunter for so many years, and thinks that's something that's unfair of DoJ. He might also just be trying to preserve his legacy, thinking he'll be judged less by history if he argues that he's trying to correct an institutional wrong, rather than using a Presidential prerogative to help out a family member.

Regardless, if he's accusing DoJ of being unable to resist bending to the will of James Comer et. al., he's being grossly unfair to the agency - and weakening it at a time when it can ill-afford to be weakened.

If the average person were to deliberately cheat the government out of a million or more dollars, and they have you dead to rights, they'd probably go to jail.

I'm not as sure.

Our tax system is based almost entirely on voluntary compliance. Yes, there's lots of reporting going on - 1099s, W2s, 1098s. But those are all for the "little people". The truly big dogs from a financial point of view have precious little of that kind of reporting. Walmart doesn't base it's tax filing on 1099s. Elon Musk gets a couple of 1099s and W2s, but the big money is in SpaceX and his other private ventures where there is no reporting. The same applies to every large business and every wealthy person running a business.

Prosecuting famous people is a deterrent for all of those less famous folks who might have an inclination to ... let's say fudge things a bit on their taxes. Prosecuting some well-off but unknown person for deliberately underpaying their taxes doesn't have nearly the same deterrent effect as prosecuting someone more famous.

Of course, there's also the tax prosecutions for criminals who are good at staying just out of reach for their crimes. Al Capone is the stereotype - the modern examples are probably drug kingpins. Can't quite connect them to other crimes well enough to get a conviction, but the books provide the avenue to get a conviction.

--Peter <== tax guy who went out on his own to get away from bosses asking him to bury the figurative financial bodies.

Could be lots of reasons. He clearly loves his son, and probably just can't believe he's a bad enough guy to deserve a few years in jail, so DoJ must be wrong. He probably also believes (correctly) that this prosecution wouldn't have happened if Trump and the GOP hadn't attacked Hunter for so many years, and thinks that's something that's unfair of DoJ. He might also just be trying to preserve his legacy, thinking he'll be judged less by history if he argues that he's trying to correct an institutional wrong, rather than using a Presidential prerogative to help out a family member.

I would have hoped his advisors would have talked him out of that. So we are now more likely to see Trump go on a retribution hunt via DOJ now. I'm not looking forward to that.

Trump prosecutions fade away as we watch the DOJ investigate Trump's enemies list.

Prosecuting some well-off but unknown person for deliberately underpaying their taxes doesn't have nearly the same deterrent effect as prosecuting someone more famous.

Oh, I disagree. It still has a pretty strong deterrent effect. The reason why these things are crimes, rather than just civil fraud statutes, is because the threat of going to jail has a deterrent effect whether the person is famous or not. And for that deterrent to have effect, you generally try to put people in jail that are provably committing willful fraud in their tax filings. Because you want every one who is filing their taxes to be deterred against large-scale intentional fraud.

And for that deterrence to work, you have to also prosecute the unknown well-off people. You can't have it be the rule that large-scale intentional tax fraud can land you in jail, but only if you're famous. Otherwise people that aren't famous won't be deterred at all by prosecutions against the famous. The IRS has to go after the non-famous large-scale tax frauds, too. Word gets around that if you stiff the IRS for big figures over long periods of time, they'll put you in jail if they can - famous or not.

"The willful and knowing tax evasion that prosecutors don't have evidence of?"

Read the book Lucky Loser. Trump and his Dad been committing tax evasion for their entire life.
And as smart as you are, I gotta believe you know that.

Were you as angry about the pardon Kushner's Dad got ? How bout Bannon's pardon ? Did Trump
pardon Roger Stone ? Did Trump pardon Paul Manafort ?
I dare say that those rouge figures did a Whole Lot More Dame than Hunter ever did.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-charles-kushner...

https://apnews.com/article/steve-bannon-trump-pard...

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/23/949820820/trump-par...

I happy as hell that Biden pulled a Trump and pardoned Hunter.
Shit,Biden should just declare himself King of America, it's worth a try, per the
USSC stand on "official acts", lol.

So we are now more likely to see Trump go on a retribution hunt via DOJ now.

Interesting. These different perspectives are fascinating to me.

I see Trump as far more likely to go on a retribution hunt against DOJ, not via DOJ. He has a particular hatred for what he sees as betrayal and disloyalty. I think he feels more burning desire for retribution against attacks that came from inside "his" government than anyone else on his enemies list.

Biden claimed that the prosecution of Hunter was infected by raw politics. He's claiming that the DoJ was affected by politics. That Hunter was prosecuted because of (presumably) Republican political pressure on the DoJ demanding that outcome.

Was the DOJ affected by politics in the Hunter Biden case? Of course it was. Republicans put a lot of pressure on the DOJ to investigate and prosecute Hunter.

The historical independence of the DOJ is from the President, not from politics. The DOJ is affected by political pressure all the time. Congressional committees refer matters to the DOJ, and then apply pressure to have those matters investigated further and prosecuted. The President sets various political priorities for the DOJ through his AG, then applies pressure to see those priorities implemented.

The key here is that President Biden did not interfere with this specific political pressure. He didn't tell the DOJ not to investigate Hunter. He didn't tell them to whitewash what they found. President Biden and the DOJ kept their independence from each other regarding this matter.

Frankly, I see the DOJ as having done their job here. They didn't just roll over and refuse to prosecute Hunter because he was the President's son. And they didn't seek permission from President Biden to investigate and prosecute Hunter. Quite the opposite, President Biden publicly said that the DOJ should do their job and he wouldn't interfere with that job by pardoning Hunter before the facts were made known. On the other side of the coin, they stood up to the Republican pressure - which was to find some connection between both Bidens, Burisma, and Ukraine. The DOJ didn't roll over and say they found something when they hadn't. And the DOJ didn't roll over and refuse to prosecute what they did find, even though it was a different crime by the President's son.

The DOJ has stood strong here. They did their job - investigating possible crimes and letting the facts and the law drive further investigations and prosecutions.

--Peter

Read the book Lucky Loser. Trump and his Dad been committing tax evasion for their entire life.
And as smart as you are, I gotta believe you know that.

I am quite sure that their companies have been committing tax evasion for their entire lives. I'm equally sure that they've structured that tax evasion so that: i) there's at least a colorable argument that it's tax avoidance, rather than evasion; ii) if that colorable argument doesn't work, it's impossible to prove criminal intent, so things can be settled with a civil violation and a check; and iii) if that doesn't hold up, someone other than Trump or his Dad will be the ones committing the crime. If prosecutors had the goods on Trump for personally committing tax fraud, they would have prosecuted him for it rather than his companies.

Were you as angry about the pardon Kushner's Dad got ? How bout Bannon's pardon ? Did Trump
pardon Roger Stone ? Did Trump pardon Paul Manafort ?
I dare say that those rouge figures did a Whole Lot More Dame than Hunter ever did.

Those figures did more damage than Hunter did....but Biden's pardon of Hunter did more damage to DOJ than Trump's pardons did. Again, all of the prosecutions against Trump were premised on the idea that he wasn't being charged because he was a prominent political opponent of the party in control of those prosecutorial decisions, but because they independently determined he had committed crimes that should be charged. So when Biden turns around and claims that the prosecution of Biden resulted from DoJ succumbing to political influence, rather than the exercise of independent prosecutorial judgment, it is really bad. Because the Democratic party was arguing that Trump was wrong to pardon those guys - that Bannon and Stone and Manafort weren't targeted because of politics, but because they committed federal crimes. For Biden to then adopt Trump's reasoning makes it that much harder to make that case.

You can't have it be the rule that large-scale intentional tax fraud can land you in jail, but only if you're famous.

I can't believe I'm saying this to albaby, but you're building a strawman here.

I never said that you don't prosecute the unknown. I'm just saying that prosecuting the famous gets you lots of publicity about the prosecution. You don't get the same publicity from prosecuting the anonymous. Publicity is deterrence. Only us tax geeks read the IRS news releases about tax prosecutions. But everyone hears about tax prosecutions against the famous.

--Peter

The historical independence of the DOJ is from the President, not from politics. The DOJ is affected by political pressure all the time. Congressional committees refer matters to the DOJ, and then apply pressure to have those matters investigated further and prosecuted. The President sets various political priorities for the DOJ through his AG, then applies pressure to see those priorities implemented.

You realize that your last sentence contradicts the first one, though.

DOJ is supposed to be just as independent from politics as the President when it comes to individual charging decisions. Both the President and Congress can properly try to have their law enforcement priorities implemented. If the President wants more action on fighting opioid trafficking, or Congress wants more enforcement resources against money laundering (or what have you) - it's fair game. But neither Congress nor the President should be putting their thumb on whether to prosecute specific individuals, which decision is supposed to be made through the exercise of independent prosecutorial factors.

I agree the DoJ did their job. I agree that Biden didn't use his position as President to try to stop them from doing their job.

But Hunter didn't deserve a pardon. From Jeffrey Toobin:

The fact remains that Hunter Biden stood convicted of 12 felonies — and he was, in fact, guilty of all of them. Prosecutors played hardball with the younger Mr. Biden, which is something that prosecutors sometimes, even often, do. But those other guilty defendants didn’t have the president of the United States to bail them out. Mr. Biden’s love for his son, as well as his anger about the way he was treated, was understandable, but the president’s consummate act of nepotism has stained the record of the Biden presidency.

https://archive.is/ixSo7#selection-4747.0-4747.525

I also feel that Biden acted unconscionably in asserting that the DoJ's decision to charge Hunter was in any way inappropriate. If Biden wanted to pardon Hunter because he wanted to help his son, then he can do that. It's the wrong choice, but it's an understandable one - the very essence of why we don't allow judges to sit on trials involving their family members. But for the Administration to say that DoJ's choice to bring charges was "infected" by politics? No.

I can't believe I'm saying this to albaby, but you're building a strawman here.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, then. You expressed doubt that if a non-famous person had committed seven-figure tax fraud against the government that they would face criminal prosecution. I inferred you were saying that the IRS is less likely to prosecute someone less famous. Was that not what you were trying to say?

Regardless, if he's accusing DoJ of being unable to resist bending to the will of James Comer et. al., he's being grossly unfair to the agency - and weakening it at a time when it can ill-afford to be weakened.

Thanks Albaby, for taking the time to explain that to me. Sobering.

Al, I luv your perspective, and you are far, far more intelligent than I am. But I am never
going to agree with you on this. I do admit that you have me thinking that in my glee I am overlooking some future damage that this pardon will cause, but I keep coming back to
fight MAGA with MAGA tactics. They don't give a crap about logic, facts, or law, so go
bare knuckle with them.

So glad that Biden pulled a Trump and pardoned his kid.
And luv them snowflake MAGA tears streaming everywhere I listen and read, lol.

You realize that your last sentence contradicts the first one, though.

Guilty as charged. Although from reading further, I see that you understood my point there.

I agree the DoJ did their job. I agree that Biden didn't use his position as President to try to stop them from doing their job.

That is my main point in this entire conversation. And it is the one most important to protecting the integrity of the DOJ and the Presidency.

I also feel that Biden acted unconscionably in asserting that the DoJ's decision to charge Hunter was in any way inappropriate.

I don't see where President Biden asserted that the DOJ's charging decision was inappropriate. What I'm reading is that he said it was the result of political pressure. The DOJ was absolutely pressured by Republicans to take on the case. There is nothing inappropriate about that. And once the DOJ took on the case, they found evidence and successfully prosecuted that evidence to convictions. Nothing inappropriate about that, either.

Political pressure was also put on the DOJ to refrain from entering into the plea deal. That was, IMHO, inappropriate. Plea deals are entered into all the time (even by the rich and famous in the list you posted earlier). Pushing the DOJ to go to trial was nothing more than a successful attempt to drag Hunter through the mud (and by extension, his father) and keep him in the news for political purposes. If there was a failure at the DOJ, that was it. But that wasn't a failure by President Biden. Once again, he stayed out of it. He and the DOJ remained independent.

But Hunter didn't deserve a pardon. From Jeffrey Toobin:

Toobin can stuff his opinion where the sun don't shine. And the stuff usually coming out of that orifice at least has some value as fertilizer. Toobin doesn't even have that.

Other defendants DO have the President of the United States to bail them out. Every Presidential pardon over the last two and a half centuries has been the President bailing someone out. And anyone convicted of a Federal crime can ask for that bail out. That those actual bail outs go to people with either good connections or a good story is the way the system works. Hunter happened to have a good connection. So did Nixon. Get over it.

As I reflect on all of this a bit, it's got the flavor of a Greek Tragedy. Hopefully history will be kinder to both Joe and Hunter than we are being today.

--Peter

Was that not what you were trying to say?

Not at all. Non-famous people facing 7 figure tax fraud are often prosecuted criminally. And sometimes they're not. Depends on the individual circumstances. The deterrent value of the prosecutions is simply higher for the famous than the non-famous because of the publicity.

--Peter

albaby1: But for the Administration to say that DoJ's choice to bring charges was "infected" by politics? No.

Jeebus, buddy, when did you join the cult?

Let's review:

1. Hunter Biden was investigated for FIVE FULL YEARS. The Trump-appointed US Attorney, David Weiss, decided the correct course of action was a non-prosecution agreement. Biden and his attorneys agreed.

2. Weiss then mysteriously decided that Hunter Biden would have to plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and enter into a pre-trial diversion for the gun charge. Biden and his attorneys agreed again.

3. Weiss then made a deal that included an immunity provision for Hunter. The federal judge questioned the scope of the immunity provision in the agreement and asked the parties for clarification of the immunity. She did not kill the immunity provision, though.

4. Trump and his congressional sycophants unleased a mighty fury on Weiss, publicly criticizing him and repeatedly attacking him to get him to kill any immunity provision and to come down hard on Biden. <---- IOW, the prosecution became "infected" by politics. Weiss then asked for Special Counsel status...

5. ...and under the unrelenting pressure by Trump and his congressional shitbags, Weiss indicted Hunter for three felony gun charges in Delaware and nine tax charges in California.

So, then, what happened between the time when Weiss offered Hunter a non-prosecution agreement and he decided instead to throw the book at him?

HINT: See #4 above.

BTW, Carter pardoned his brother for financial shenanigans; George HW Bush pardoned his son for his bank fiasco and Iran-Contra felons; and Trump pardoned his co-conspirators.

Without doing damage to their legacies.

Hell, the majority of Americans probably don't even remember those pardons were granted.

Buh bye all. And I mean it this time. :)

4. Trump and his congressional sycophants unleased a mighty fury on Weiss, publicly criticizing him and repeatedly attacking him to get him to kill any immunity provision and to come down hard on Biden. <---- IOW, the prosecution became "infected" by politics. Weiss then asked for Special Counsel status...

5. ...and under the unrelenting pressure by Trump and his congressional shitbags, Weiss indicted Hunter for three felony gun charges in Delaware and nine tax charges in California.

I know this is your GBF post (and I hope you reconsider) - but I do want to point out that these claims agree with Trump's criticism of the DoJ. Which is why it's so damaging that Biden echoed them. Because you're asserting that the DoJ made their charging decision not through applying independent prosecutorial judgment, but in response to political pressure. Which is exactly what Trump claims happened to him. And if the DoJ can't be independent in the face of political pressure from the opposition party in making decisions about prosecuting the President's son, how can they be expected to be independent in the face of the President's party to prosecute the President's opponent?

That's why Biden's statement is so appalling. He's agreeing with the Trump framing of the DoJ. That they make prosecutorial decisions based on politics, rather than the merits of the case. Rather than acknowledging that his son committed crimes and was legitimately prosecuted for them, Biden claimed that DoJ would never have prosecuted him if he wasn't named Biden. Which is exactly Trump's argument in all the NY cases - that only because he was in the political arena did the NY prosecutors start fly-specking all his business transactions in a way that they never would have absent his political career, and that they reversed a decision not to prosecute him in response to massive political pressure from Democrats.

Hunter Biden was the counter-argument - an example of a politically independent law enforcement agency pursuing the law regardless of who the suspect was. And Biden undercut that by claiming that DoJ prosecuted someone they never would have prosecuted but for political motivation.

But that's the thing. He DIDN'T interfere with the work of the DOJ. If anything, he gave them permission to go ahead and investigate. The DOJ's work with Hunter is done. OK - just short of done - we aren't getting to sentencing.

Whether the arc of justice was interrupted or interfered with before, during, or after it has run its course doesn't make much of a difference. The end result is a disrespect of the process. Yes, the outcome and sentencing are a part of the process, even if they happen at the end of it.

He's claiming that DoJ is not independent. That it responds to political pressures.

To an extent, every agency responds to political pressure, but only as a sop to the pressuring party. In current context, with a corrupt SCOTUS offering no protection, and with Trump constantly beating war drums and the MAGA band dancing to them, the DoJ ---like the WaPo, Times, FB and others-- capitulated in advance to save their own skins.

if the DoJ could be steamrolled by Republican Congresscritters into wrongfully prosecuting Hunter, how could it possibly avoid being steamrolled by Democratic Congresscritters into prosecuting Trump?

Simple. The democrats aren't MAGA.

Because you're asserting that the DoJ made their charging decision not through applying independent prosecutorial judgment, but in response to political pressure. Which is exactly what Trump claims happened to him.

Trump's a compulsive liar.

He makes false accusations, then seizes on an unrelated situation and suggests there is equivalence.

From the Kuo substack:

Kash Patel wrote: “Hunter Biden is guilty of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Hunter Biden was shown to have been in bed with criminals from Ukraine and China to lobby the US government through the laundering of money that Hunter Biden received and leveraging his relationship with his dad. This DOJ should charge him, but they won’t. So I think that is where we need to focus (when we get in).”

That threat alone, paired with Patel being nominated as FBI Director, may have been enough to cause President Biden to change his mind on pardoning his son. After all, under an FBI run by Patel, Hunter Biden would become a constant target for a vengeful, politicized agency."

MAGA constantly accused fed agencies of being completely politicized; deep state, though that was not true.

Now it may well become deep state, with incompetent loyalist sycophants taking leadership positions.

God save the queen

I also feel that Biden acted unconscionably in asserting that the DoJ's decision to charge Hunter was in any way inappropriate.

I don't see where President Biden asserted that the DOJ's charging decision was inappropriate. What I'm reading is that he said it was the result of political pressure. The DOJ was absolutely pressured by Republicans to take on the case.

Without doubt attention was drawn to the case because of the judge not thinking the defense and prosecution were on the same page. So someone inside did take a second look. With intent being easier to prove due to written statements, someone realized he should've been charged. They might not have looked at it if attention hadn't been drawn to it. So in one sense he was charged because he was famous.

But that might not be the case if they review cases where the judge does things like this routinely, in which case it was caught due to normal processing review.

But it looked like this fellow was almost off scot-free and went to court because of the attention, not that he was guilty. I didn't follow it. But he's guilty. If anything it now looks like the DoJ erred in almost letting him off scot-free.

And Biden's pardon is questionable. I agree that you can never put anything past Trump, but we've now gone from attempting to get Ukraine to say they've launched an investigation, to Hunter Biden being convicted and pardoned.

Now we get to see what Kash Patel does with the FBI. His pronouncements sound like anyone connected to the Russian investigations of Trump will be fired.

4. Trump and his congressional sycophants unleased a mighty fury on Weiss, publicly criticizing him and repeatedly attacking him to get him to kill any immunity provision and to come down hard on Biden. <---- IOW, the prosecution became "infected" by politics. Weiss then asked for Special Counsel status...

5. ...and under the unrelenting pressure by Trump and his congressional shitbags, Weiss indicted Hunter for three felony gun charges in Delaware and nine tax charges in California.

All this time I thought they were two different people and the case was taken away from the first prosecutor. Thanks. :)

I happy as hell that Biden pulled a Trump and pardoned Hunter.

I think what upsets Albaby is the harm Joe did to the DOJ in the explanation of the pardon.

Buh bye all. And I mean it this time. :)

Please don't go. We need all the help we can get. :)

Here, al - Jon Stewart is making all your points for you:

https://x.com/EricAbbenante/status/186381189359429...

Maybe this will help.

But I don't think it's reasonable to believe that Trump would have done anything more to Hunter than has already been done - Trump won, and Biden's done with politics, and Trump doesn't have much of a history of caring about foes he's already completely vanquished.,/I>

Just watch the upcoming contest among Trump's cronies and sycophants as they troop down in Florida with news of the latest pain they've been able to inflict on Hunter Biden in the hopes of currying favor and proving fealty. Each member of that giggle group he's calling a "cabinet" will be vying for bringing in the shiniest apple.

Each member of that giggle group he's calling a "cabinet" will be vying for bringing in the shiniest apple.

Why?
Hunter Biden is of no use to anyone anymore. He has zero political value.

happy holidays albaby, seems to me Joe has to pardon all of Hunters partners too, no? Thanks.

Just watch the upcoming contest among Trump's cronies and sycophants as they troop down in Florida with news of the latest pain they've been able to inflict on Hunter Biden in the hopes of currying favor and proving fealty. Each member of that giggle group he's calling a "cabinet" will be vying for bringing in the shiniest apple.

And the pardon goes back 11 years, so there may have been openings for someone to curry favor that way, especially if it contributes to the trump show. That's gone now.

happy holidays albaby, seems to me Joe has to pardon all of Hunters partners too, no?

No, I don't see why he would have to pardon anyone other than Hunter. What do his partners have to do with it?

happy holidays albaby, seems to me Joe has to pardon all of Hunters partners too, no? Thanks.

He more or less has...kinda. Hunter was the bag man who collected all the cash. He's immune now, but as I understand it he can still be compelled to testify. If Joe will pardon Hunter he'll probably issue one for his brother also.

Because you're asserting that the DoJ made their charging decision not through applying independent prosecutorial judgment, but in response to political pressure.

In Hunter's case, that appears to be correct.

Which is exactly what Trump claims happened to him.

Trump's claims are rarely coincident with the truth.

Here's my final thoughts on the matter.

Hunter Biden never tried to argue the process was unfair to him. He accepted the findings of the DOJ at virtually every step of the process. He never really claimed that he didn't commit the crimes which were alleged. He was ready to plead guilty to them until the DOJ caved to political pressure. That was an error on the part of the DOJ. Yes, Hunter pleaded innocent, but that was only because his plea agreement he was ready to accept fell apart due to political pressure. So he was forced to enter an innocent plea to protect his rights. He did all of this because he recognized that he WAS guilty and was prepared to accept the consequences. And his trials eventually did find him guilty.

On the other hand we have Trump crying and screaming like a spoiled brat that he didn't do anything wrong at any step anywhere. That is, of course, his right. On the other hand three different prosecutors in 4 different jurisdictions were able to convince 5 different grand juries (remember, the Jan 6 case went to a grand jury twice), that there was sufficient evidence to bring charges. Again, that doesn't mean he was guilty - only a trial can determine that - but it does show there was significant evidence of the crimes charged. And the one trial that did happen found him guilty.

Was there some political pressure in Trump's multiple cases? Perhaps. But at most that was in pushing the investigations to happen. I have seen no evidence that charging decisions were swayed by overt and improper political pressure. That is in stark contract to Hunter Biden where there was one and potentially two places where political pressure actually changed a charging or prosecution decision. And that was mainly pressure on the prosecutor running the case and from outside sources.

Would the error of falling to improper political pressure in one case negate the same error in a different case? No. Both are errors. And that assumes there were improper pressures in both cases, which is something I'm not willing to stipulate.

And don't forget the bottom line. Hunter Biden submitted to the legal process and let the process play out. He never claimed the process itself was unfair or incorrect. With all of the facts in the public domain and guilty verdicts coming as a result of those facts, the sitting President chose to intervene and issue a pardon, as is his right. Trump has never admitted guilt, nor has he claimed actual innocence. His claims are all an attack on the legal process itself. It is those attacks that damage the legal system, not the issuance of a pardon to a guilty person.

--Peter

Bottom line: President's son can get pardoned. It's OKAY and good.

End of story.

:)

Enjoy

. His pronouncements sound like anyone connected to the Russian investigations of Trump will be fired. - Lapsody

----------------

Start with the dozen or so Mueller attorneys who at the end of their non-political prosecution were obliged to turn in their government cell phones but wiped them clean first.

Later claiming they all had experienced a simultaneous password problem causing the reset. No coverup there, not a smidgen. And how about lying to the FISA court four times in order to obtain and sustain an otherwise illegal search warrant. that was fun too.

Here, al - Jon Stewart is making all your points for you: - Dope

=====================

Smoke Bomb... Yeah!


All of a sudden Stewart is funny again. Go figure!

Start with the dozen or so Mueller attorneys who at the end of their non-political prosecution were obliged to turn in their government cell phones but wiped them clean first.

Later claiming they all had experienced a simultaneous password problem causing the reset. No coverup there, not a smidgen. And how about lying to the FISA court four times in order to obtain and sustain an otherwise illegal search warrant. that was fun too.

All along they've been violating both the spirit and concrete parts of so many laws. For those who need a clue, those cells phones are federal property and subject to FOIA disclosure. They had no right to wipe the data. The lying to the FISA court and fabricating evidence bits are things that only rogue lawpeople do. Nothing of substance happened there.

No, the so-called "Party of law and order" was always a bald-faced, ridiculous lie. If you get your news from the liberal bubble people then you've been kept in the dark for literally years and all this is brand new for you.

Kind of like how during a CNN town hall in 2020 they had to stop and explain to their audience who Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were because CNN never bothered to report on anything related to Crossfire Hurricane unless it could hurt Trump.

The left is a <clown face> show.

He was ready to plead guilty to them until the DOJ caved to political pressure. That was an error on the part of the DOJ. Yes, Hunter pleaded innocent, but that was only because his plea agreement he was ready to accept fell apart due to political pressure.

That's not accurate. His plea deal fell apart because he was trying to get immunity from prosecutions for matters outside the case:

President Biden blamed “political pressure” for the collapse of a plea deal for Hunter Biden, but it was the judge overseeing the case who questioned the agreement.

Hunter Biden’s plea deal did fall apart in dramatic form at the last minute last year. But it did so after the judge overseeing the case at the time raised issues about its unusual construction, involving two separate agreements meant to work in tandem. That construction violated one of the basic tenets of federal guilty pleas: that any agreement not have any side deals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/01/us/politics/bid...

Trump has never admitted guilt, nor has he claimed actual innocence. His claims are all an attack on the legal process itself. It is those attacks that damage the legal system, not the issuance of a pardon to a guilty person.

I don't think that's accurate, either - Trump has pretty consistently claimed that he's committed no crimes, and that the charges are being brought against him due to political pressure, not because the actions are themselves illegal.

The issuance of a pardon to a guilty person doesn't cause a lot of damage to the legal process (every pardon causes some). What damages the legal process a lot is the false assertion that the legal process was flawed - the inaccurate claim that Hunter was prosecuted just because he was the President's son, rather than that he was prosecuted because he was a person who committed some serious crimes that could be proven in a court of law.

Biden decided to accuse the DoJ of succumbing to political pressure to bring charges for conduct that would not be charged absent that political pressure. Which exactly parallels the claims that Trump makes on a regular basis. Which makes it much, much harder for Democrats to push back on Trump's assertions. Because if the DoJ is institutionally so weak that it can't resist the "political pressure" of the out of power party against the President's own son, then there's not a lot of reason to believe it is capable of acting independent of political considerations. If DoJ can't handle it if James Comer is making noise in his committee, how are they going to stand up to something like the January 6th Committee? They made an actual criminal referral! Which is fine, but only if you believe that DoJ can still exercise independent prosecutorial judgment even in the face of that political pressure....which Biden just threw them under the bus on.

He more or less has...kinda. Hunter was the bag man who collected all the cash. He's immune now, but as I understand it he can still be compelled to testify. If Joe will pardon Hunter he'll probably issue one for his brother also. - Dope

--------------

There was discussion of this exact point on the network that shall not be named. The consensus among among those legal scholars was that Hunter has no fifth amendment protection given the pardon. Hunter can be hauled before investigative committees and compelled to answer.

If it was later proved Hunter committed perjury giving such testimony, I would think that would be a separate crime falling outside the scope of the pardon and be subject to prosecution.

There was discussion of this exact point on the network that shall not be named. The consensus among among those legal scholars was that Hunter has no fifth amendment protection given the pardon. Hunter can be hauled before investigative committees and compelled to answer.

If it was later proved Hunter committed perjury giving such testimony, I would think that would be a separate crime falling outside the scope of the pardon and be subject to prosecution.

Exactly right.
democrats normally can lie to Congress, refuse subpoenas, and perjure themselves. See Holder, Eric and any number of Obama- and Biden-era intel and DHS officials who got off scot-free while Republicans were fried.

That won't happen any longer. I don't care about Hunter Biden anymore; with Joe senile and everyone knowing who he is the only method he has left to make any money is to smear his own feces on a pieces of canvas and auction it off at a left-wing money laundering even-, er, "art auction".

But there are still people who need to be hauled up in front of Congress and held to account. Mayorkas heads that list followed by the former and interim heads of the Secret Service. They played games while Americans died, and we can't have that. There's a seat reserved for one Anthony Fauci as well.

Start with the dozen or so Mueller attorneys who at the end of their non-political prosecution were obliged to turn in their government cell phones but wiped them clean first.

Later claiming they all had experienced a simultaneous password problem causing the reset. No coverup there, not a smidgen. And how about lying to the FISA court four times in order to obtain and sustain an otherwise illegal search warrant. that was fun too.

My memory is not exact, but I do remember Secret Service members deleting some of their phone memory. Was it Jan 6? Not sure. And didn't one administration delete 4.5 million emails?

And how about lying to the FISA court four times in order to obtain and sustain an otherwise illegal search warrant. that was fun too.

Wasn't that an attorney lying once, but the FISA was renewed 3 times?

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.