Summary
President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden, reversing his prior stance against using executive clemency.
The pardon covers Hunter’s federal gun conviction and tax evasion guilty plea, sparking political controversy.
Biden cited political attacks and a “miscarriage of justice” as reasons for his decision, emphasizing his son’s recovery from addiction and the targeting of his family.
Critics argue the move undermines the judicial process, while supporters view it as within Biden’s constitutional powers.
This decision shields Hunter from potential prison time as Biden nears the end of his presidency.
I don’t really care. The law is the law. The investigations were quite clearly politically motivated, trying to get to Joe by going after Hunter, but the trial was nothing but fair and the judiciary did not make a mistake in the trial or the sentencing. You cannot claim to be a supporter of the rule of law only when it’s convenient for you. This pardon undermines just about every bit of credibility the Democratic party had left. It’s not Biden breaking the rules or using his power for the good of the nation or the people, it’s a selfish abuse for the sake of keeping his son from being held accountable for the things he actually did.
I would not be surprised if Joe Biden supported some of the very same legislation that would have put his son behind bars back when he was still a senator. Dude was well known for being a “tough on crime” type of politician.
The judge straight up rejected the plea deal Hunter and the prosecutor agreed to. They absolutely bowed to political pressure.
You’ve got the Republicans who stole his laptop and illegally distributing his dick pics publicly, during the congressional hearings it’s ducking ridiculous. It’s basically revenge porn
I think you forgot about all the shit the Republicans did here.
If they did half the stuff they did as civilians, they’d be facing criminal charges in most countries. It’s actually far worse than you remember. And you’ve been talking shit about Biden for months looking at your History
Biden hasn’t been relevant since like July. How far back in my comment history did you have to read to find a single post where I’m critical of Biden?
You sure seem to have a lot of free time on your hands.
You’re literally talking shit about 5 posts ago / 3 weeks ago
So on the first page of your comments
Ie, didn’t really browse at all, but I expected it, which is why I looked
Quote the post, then. I suspect you have a reading comprehension problem if you think any of my posts that are even tangentially related to Biden in the last three weeks have been negative.
Have you ever smoked a joint? Have you been to a gun range? If so, you committed practically the same felony hunter did.
Literally fuck off. This whole thing was an obvious political ploy and you justifying it and defending it is pathetic. Rules exist to benefit society, when those same rules are used to damage society, must we still obey them? Your whole point is a joke.
Not practically, literally. They prosecuted a guy for marijuana under this law, and the only reason they couldn’t get him is they didn’t get evidence of “continued drug use”. That’s why that was so important in Hunter’s trial.
I’ve never done either of these things, but if I did, I sure wouldn’t lie about not having ever done it on a government form.
To be clear, I do not think that the law is fair or just, nor do I think that it’s application to Hunter in such a high profile case was warranted, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Republicans applying political pressure to Hunter Biden does not give Joe Biden carte blanche to be a hypocrite without some strong condemnations from people like myself.
The one thing I’ve learned from this thread is that nobody believes in objective justice. Trump supporters will say Trump’s felony convictions were politically motivated, Biden’s supporters will say Hunter’s felony convictions were politically motivated, and everybody is perfectly happy to discount witness testimony or a jury’s verdict so long as it suits their own subjective sense of justice, that as long as “their team” is winning, it’s right and just and fair.
Hardly. Both sides can say the the prosecution was politically-motivated, but that’s where the similarity ends. One side has a long history of just saying things that sound good to them, and when called on it, falling silent and disengaging from discussion. The other side has evidence, or at least a strong argument that they are able to articulate. It’s not objective justice to ignore that.