I was of two minds about that pardon. On the one hand it seemed like an abuse of pardon power. On the other hand, it was also reasonable at the time to expect abuse of presidential power to prosecute political enemies. So on balance I was OK with it. I think the compromise I'd like to see is to curtail both powers.
Because he was prosecuted for doing drugs and owning a gun? There's literal video of Joe Rogan smoking pot and he talks about his concealed weapons permit. It would be a slam dump case, some how i don't think he's getting prosecuted because its selective law open to abuse. Seems perfectly good use of pardon.
The Hunter Biden issue was not about smoking marijuana... that would have been the very least of his multitude of legal problems. Biden's own DoJ was prosecuting the cases - which is important context to consider here.
> Since 2018, Weiss had been investigating Hunter Biden as U.S. attorney. In 2023, Republicans asked Garland to appoint a special counsel, some specifically demanding Weiss, a Republican appointed to his role by President Donald Trump. Garland ultimately appointed Weiss, giving him additional authority. However, congressional Republicans then expressed criticism, some stating Weiss was untrustworthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_C._Weiss
6 years of investigation and all they could find was that Hunter did drugs and owned a gun. I am sure if we drug tested congress, we could prosecute a bunch of congressmen for the same crime. Maybe thats why supreme court is looking at the constitutionality of the law and its all been ruled unconstitutional in one of the courts districts but hey lets prosecute Hunter Biden for it.
That was not all of Hunter's legal problems - he had serious tax evasion charges[1], along with other Biden family members (all of which were pardoned, unprecedentedly by President Biden).
Trying to minimize Hunter's significant legal problems to "he did [many hard, highly regulated] drugs and [illegally] owned a gun [which was thrown into a dumpster]" is disingenuous and factually incorrect.
Hunter's (and other Biden family member's) legal issues were so plainly severe, with a near-guarantee of prison time, President Biden was forced to issue an unprecedented, unconditional pardon for "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." A decade-long period during-which any crimes Hunter committed were erased and forgiven.
Nobody is above the law? This was Biden's own DoJ.
Six years of investigation and all they could find is that he put false information on a government form and paid his taxes late. Six years. Mueller investigation was only two years and how many charges did he find? Jack Smith investigation was one year before he has charged people with dozens of charges. This prosecutor had six years and couldn't dig up anything. Either hunter biden is the smart person in world that was so smart that he left no evidence of crimes or it was partisan witch hunt.
Also if the gun charges were so serious, why aren't we prosecuting Joe Rogan, its literally a slam dunk case. He smokes pot(a schedule 1 drug) on his podcasts and brags about his concealed weapons permit. You don't even need to find witnesses, just show the jury of him smoking pot and a copy of his federal form. Or we could just cross reference the ATF background database with states' Medical Marijuana Registries. Could prosecute tens of millions of people including Joe Rogan.
It protected one individual - there have been a rash of politically motivated moves by the justice department that have targeted plenty of others. I can understand the pardon but the fact that so many other people were left out to dry just reinforces our multi-tiered justice system.
That's why it was not just one individual -- he also pardoned Fauci, members of Congress who served on the J6 investigations, and Gen. Milley for the same reason.
It's clear that he was correct that Trump was going to target his political enemies, but it sounds like he can't win here -- if he pardons everyone including Comey, people would say he's abusing the power by pardoning everyone. If he only pardons a few then he's accused of leaving others "high and dry."
Yeah, that's a very fair point. The persecution of Fauci and anyone associated with bringing the charges against Trump would've also been very predictable targets for pardons.
Just as a judge should not be ruling on a case where the defendant is throwing suitcases full of money at him, a judge should also not be ruling on a case where the defendant is his own son. Both are inappropriate uses of a power intended for the application of mercy and the correction of faults in the justice system. Both are the sorts of things that should lead to recusal.
Biden's use is far more forgivable, as it's a given that his son was being prosecuted politically to punish Biden (though certainly he was guilty) and would likely have been prosecuted more under Trump, like Comey is being prosecuted today. And certainly "saving your children" is a far more forgivable sin than naked bribery, but being better than Trump is a low bar, but it's still not okay to excuse criminals from punishment because they have an important family member.
How is pardoning people like Fauci, or even Hunter, that Trump was clearly going to target as part of an "enemies" list, more "self-serving" than literally pardoning anyone that makes you/give you millions of dollars?
(Changpenh Zhao - made him billions; Trevor Milton - donated $1.8 million; Walczak - his mom donated millions)
You don't have to prove it to me that Trump is a lot more self-serving than Biden. This should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.
That said, this shouldn't be a competition of who is "more self-serving". Just because your neighbour murdered two people, doesn't mean that you get to murder one.
It would be weird if he didn't? He pardoned his entire family, as Trump made it clear he was aiming to harass Biden's entire family for revenge. And the way he's been acting this presidency has only confirmed that's not beneath him.
The decision is a lot more respectable than "this guy gave me a bribe." They are worlds apart. And some may be theoretically willing to roll the dice on that for their family, but it reads naive.
It's not binary. I can not respect both decisions. Just because I don't respect Trump does not mean I must respect Biden's decision or vice versa. Current POTUS is absolutely vile. The previous guy was put in a position and a decision was made that I did not agree with, but over all, no he wasn't using the federal money to directly line his pocket as compensation for being investigated for things he actually did.
So if you were the outgoing president, and the incoming president said out loud in front of the nation he was going to abuse his power to jail your family members out of spite, you would just let that happen on principle?
Again, the threats were not levied just at family members, but only family members received the pardon. So let's not get all sanctimonious on this issue. If he was doing this as anything other than self preservation of his family we could talk, but actions speak louder than words and he chose family over principles.
> only family members received the pardon.... If he was doing this as anything other than self preservation of his family we could talk
Seems like you should do some more research about this before forming such strong opinions, because you are not correct -- Biden preemptively pardoned more than just his family. He pardoned Fauci and Miley after Trump accused them of treason; as well as some members of the J6 committee like Liz Cheney (Trump retweeted a post that claimed Cheney was guilty of treason and should face a military tribunal).
I still think you should answer my question though, because it establishes a baseline for acceptability. I believe that you personally would pardon your own family against such threats because I believe most decent people would. So if you're willing to pardon your own family, then there's a conversation to be had about why you would need to, and whether that protection should be extended, for the good of the nation, to other people not related to you.
The problem we see right now with the pardon power was predicted by the founders:
"The President of the United States has the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason; he may pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic... If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?" - George Mason
And boy was he right! We are at that future day! So they saw this coming yet decided to include it anyway. Why?
Hamilton argued:
"In seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments when a well-timed offer of pardon to insurgents... may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth."
"Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed."
and
"Without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel."
They recognized the system might need a release valve, or would make mistakes, and they included the pardon power to correct them. They made it broad and "unfettered" as Hamilton put it because they expected the person who would exercise the power would be "prudent".
And in doing so they ensured that the pardon power reflects the soul of this nation. We get the government we vote for, and the pardon power is used in a way that we the voters tolerate.
The problem isn't the pardon power is broad, it's that we as an electorate are so willing to elect someone who is comfortable abusing those broad powers and other authority for his personal gain.
I will close by just noting that both of the abuses of the pardon power we are talking about were precipitated by Trump. Biden wouldn't have pardoned any of the people you're mad about if Trump hadn't first promised to abuse his power to persecute them. Biden had the good judgement and foresight to take Trump seriously, because he turned out to be 100% right.
I think the point is, Biden said he pardoned his son to prevent political persecution of him by Trump. Biden's fears have been borne out - the Trump administrationg is persecuting Trump's enemies. Does that change your opinion of Biden's pardon?
It wasn't only family members. Biden granted clemency or pardons to over 4200 people. Notably for the same blanket pardon from 2014 to 2025 for family members, includes Dr. Anthony Fauci, and General Mark Milley.
And all of the members of Congress on the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack for anything having to do with their role on that committee.
Schiff was on that committee. He said the pardon was unnecessary and unwise.
At that Biden was the only president who had used DOJ to persecute his predecessor. So basically he started this shit, and when it turned out the other guy won the election, he pardoned his obviously guilty son, and other obviously guilty party members.
You say persecute yet those without an agenda say investigate. It was not persecution to look into the events of January 6. Conflating the investigation as persecution is not a very honest take on the events.
I'm talking about the NY real estate bs. It was bs, everybody does it, including the prosecutor Letitia James, there were no victims, it was a selective enforcement of a law, the statute of limitations had expired and the prosecutor ran on the promise that she will find something to get Trump.
Biden did not order his DOJ to prosecute anyone. Unlike Trump with Pam Bondi, Biden did not personally direct Merrick Garland, who promised to run the DOJ independently and did -- to the point Garland even prosecuted the President's own son.
The Trump prosecutions were not only warranted, they were insisted by Republicans; the Republican Senators explicitly declined to convict Trump in his second impeachment because they anticipated he would be prosecuted in a court of law for January 6. From Republican Leader Mitch McConnell when he explained his rationale during the 2nd impeachment trial:
“Former President Trump’s actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty,” added McConnell. “Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.”
“We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one,” he said.
By labeling him as "practically and morally responsible" and then refusing to vote to impeach, explicitly citing our criminal justice system as the appropriate venue for recourse, Mitch McConnell essentially demanded that Biden's DOJ prosecute him for J6.
In refusing to convict Trump on J6, McConnell set the precedent that it is improper to impeach a President if he commits crimes between the Election and the Inauguration as Trump did. According to McConnell, accountability lies in the Courts. If it's true that the incoming administration also cannot prosecute those crimes, then POTUS is essentially immune from any and all accountability under the Constitution, which cannot be the case; POTUS would be able to commit or attempt to commit any crimes he wants between Nov and January 20 at the end of his term, up to and including high crimes like insurrection against the government.
Republicans shirked their Article I duty by refusing to impeach a man they publicly blamed for provoking events which led to the deaths of multiple people. Specifically it was Republican Senators who punted it to the Biden DOJ, which made them Constitutionally bound to prosecute.
I'm talking about the NY real estate bs. It was bs, everybody does it, including the prosecutor Letitia James, there were no victims, it was a selective enforcement of a law, the statute of limitations had expired and the prosecutor ran on the promise that she will find something to get Trump.
That case was tried and adjudicated before a court of law, and Trump was convicted on the merits. Trump had the opportunity to argue that the prosecution was selective, vindictive, or otherwise unjust, and his arguments failed.
Obviously he's upset by this outcome, but even if you agree with him, his response has been to burn down the rule of law and the entire concept of justice. Even if you feel he was wronged by James, weaponizing the DOJ against James is not justified by "She started it".
I'm talking about the NY real estate bs. It was bs, everybody does it, including the prosecutor Letitia James, there were no victims, it was a selective enforcement of a law, the statute of limitations had expired and the prosecutor ran on the promise that she will find something to get Trump.
I'm glad he pardoned CZ. The previous administration + SEC are responsible for this mess by not passing reasonable laws. Coinbase fared much better fighting them all the way.
Equivalence may be a strong word, but pardoning your kids is classical Borgia shit straight out of the worst times of Italian Renaissance, and most people would condemn it if it was done by leader of some Central American Ruritania.
Of course, once it is done by a president representing the party you (generic you) feel affiliated with, the double standards inevitably kick in.
> Of course, once it is done by a president representing the party you (generic you) feel affiliated with, the double standards inevitably kick in.
Less that, more we're all aware of what Trump campaigned on and what he promised to do to Biden's entire family. And we're disheartened that there's cultists (not you) trying to convince us that we should let our families suffer if dear leader demands it.
I don't know these people, I don't have a strong feeling if any of them go to jail for something they did, because I'm not in a personality cult. But I care a lot more if people are going to jail just because a more corrupt person got the keys to everything. Turns out, those fears were valid, and I'm increasingly alarmed that there's still so much vitriol towards Biden pardoning a checks notes gun charge, than there is for the blatantly corrupt shit we see every day.
If your family is threatened by the incoming president, your only reasonable course of action is to move them all abroad to some safe country.
A paper you signed is insufficient protection from truly Erdoganesque leaders who are about to gain an imperial presidency. It is just bad politics from all perspectives: inefficient in its original purpose and controversial at the same time.
Looking at how this administration is now using the DoJ to hunt even people like Comey and Bolton whose crime was being a non-Trump-aligned Republican…
It’s probably good that Biden took away this particular show trial option from them.
It’s worth clarifying that the investigation into Bolton started in 2022 during Biden’s term. Hard(er) to say whether the ultimately issued indictment was politically motivated, but we need to keep an eye towards accuracy on these topics.
I was against the Biden pardons at the time but in hindsight with the current administration pushing poorly done prosecutions for political purposes I have changed my mind on them. Trump will say his pardons are similar but looking at the facts I don't find them comparable (I'm still livid that he pardoned Blagojevich, who was literally caught on tape talking about selling a US Senate seat).
No. Almost everybody hated it out of context, but in context many understood that one man was about to obtain unprecedented power over all three branches of government and use it to vindictively pursue personal vendettas. These people were correct, this then happened.
Personally, I’m reminded of how every dysfunctional country’s deposed regimes flee or are killed. We sheltered Americans find it easy to forget that peaceful transfer of power is an accomplishment of lawful society, and as rule of law weakens we have only more chaotic, ignominious, and probably eventually violent transitions to look forward to.
Reaction to the Biden pardon is a pretty huge thing to be completely unaware of. You should reevaluate whether you’re in a media bubble.
He didn't just pardon his family members and issue questionable preemptive pardons, he also issued the most pardons of any president ever, and not by a small margin, but by a factor of 20 compared to Trump up to now, in a single term, including pardons for violent criminals and yes, white-collar fraudsters as well. They didn't get much publicity because most of them were committed at the tail end of his term while the media were focused on the election and on the transition of power, because of double standards, and because the actors were low-profile. It really shouldn't be controversial to point out that the abuse of presidential power didn't start nor end with Trump. He most certainly wouldn't have gotten re-elected if that were the case.
Maybe my source was outdated, at least it should be accurate when comparing first terms. Quite the editorial spin on this Wikipedia article, it proves my point about double standards. I'd share some articles listing some murderers and embezzlers pardoned by Biden, but I don't like linking to politically biased sources regardless of their substance since it usually ends up with people nitpicking about the source. It's very easy to find evidence that these weren't 4,000 pardons for innocent marijuana users on Google anyway.
I was of two minds about that pardon. On the one hand it seemed like an abuse of pardon power. On the other hand, it was also reasonable at the time to expect abuse of presidential power to prosecute political enemies. So on balance I was OK with it. I think the compromise I'd like to see is to curtail both powers.
[flagged]
Literally at no time did the Biden administration ever direct the Department of Justice to investigate a political enemy.
Exactly the opposite of what the Trump administration had been doing.
But what about if we just imagine the evidence of Biden interference in DOJ decisions?
Then they’re basically the same!
/s
He sicced Letitia James on Trump.
What evidence do you have that the administration requested the DOJ to initiate that investigation?
Have you ever heard of Whitewater?
Because he was prosecuted for doing drugs and owning a gun? There's literal video of Joe Rogan smoking pot and he talks about his concealed weapons permit. It would be a slam dump case, some how i don't think he's getting prosecuted because its selective law open to abuse. Seems perfectly good use of pardon.
>would be a slam dump
You are watching a very different game from me.
Well, slam _dump_ does sound like a potentially apt description.
The Hunter Biden issue was not about smoking marijuana... that would have been the very least of his multitude of legal problems. Biden's own DoJ was prosecuting the cases - which is important context to consider here.
> Since 2018, Weiss had been investigating Hunter Biden as U.S. attorney. In 2023, Republicans asked Garland to appoint a special counsel, some specifically demanding Weiss, a Republican appointed to his role by President Donald Trump. Garland ultimately appointed Weiss, giving him additional authority. However, congressional Republicans then expressed criticism, some stating Weiss was untrustworthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_C._Weiss
6 years of investigation and all they could find was that Hunter did drugs and owned a gun. I am sure if we drug tested congress, we could prosecute a bunch of congressmen for the same crime. Maybe thats why supreme court is looking at the constitutionality of the law and its all been ruled unconstitutional in one of the courts districts but hey lets prosecute Hunter Biden for it.
That was not all of Hunter's legal problems - he had serious tax evasion charges[1], along with other Biden family members (all of which were pardoned, unprecedentedly by President Biden).
Trying to minimize Hunter's significant legal problems to "he did [many hard, highly regulated] drugs and [illegally] owned a gun [which was thrown into a dumpster]" is disingenuous and factually incorrect.
Hunter's (and other Biden family member's) legal issues were so plainly severe, with a near-guarantee of prison time, President Biden was forced to issue an unprecedented, unconditional pardon for "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." A decade-long period during-which any crimes Hunter committed were erased and forgiven.
Nobody is above the law? This was Biden's own DoJ.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco-weiss/pr/grand-jury-ret...
Six years of investigation and all they could find is that he put false information on a government form and paid his taxes late. Six years. Mueller investigation was only two years and how many charges did he find? Jack Smith investigation was one year before he has charged people with dozens of charges. This prosecutor had six years and couldn't dig up anything. Either hunter biden is the smart person in world that was so smart that he left no evidence of crimes or it was partisan witch hunt.
Also if the gun charges were so serious, why aren't we prosecuting Joe Rogan, its literally a slam dunk case. He smokes pot(a schedule 1 drug) on his podcasts and brags about his concealed weapons permit. You don't even need to find witnesses, just show the jury of him smoking pot and a copy of his federal form. Or we could just cross reference the ATF background database with states' Medical Marijuana Registries. Could prosecute tens of millions of people including Joe Rogan.
At the time that did reek of corruption and misuse of power, but given current state of things, it was the right move.
It protected one individual - there have been a rash of politically motivated moves by the justice department that have targeted plenty of others. I can understand the pardon but the fact that so many other people were left out to dry just reinforces our multi-tiered justice system.
That's why it was not just one individual -- he also pardoned Fauci, members of Congress who served on the J6 investigations, and Gen. Milley for the same reason.
It's clear that he was correct that Trump was going to target his political enemies, but it sounds like he can't win here -- if he pardons everyone including Comey, people would say he's abusing the power by pardoning everyone. If he only pardons a few then he's accused of leaving others "high and dry."
Yeah, that's a very fair point. The persecution of Fauci and anyone associated with bringing the charges against Trump would've also been very predictable targets for pardons.
Truly don’t understand the equivalence here.
If you just argue both sides are the same, you get to excuse yourself from self reflection.
Just as a judge should not be ruling on a case where the defendant is throwing suitcases full of money at him, a judge should also not be ruling on a case where the defendant is his own son. Both are inappropriate uses of a power intended for the application of mercy and the correction of faults in the justice system. Both are the sorts of things that should lead to recusal.
Biden's use is far more forgivable, as it's a given that his son was being prosecuted politically to punish Biden (though certainly he was guilty) and would likely have been prosecuted more under Trump, like Comey is being prosecuted today. And certainly "saving your children" is a far more forgivable sin than naked bribery, but being better than Trump is a low bar, but it's still not okay to excuse criminals from punishment because they have an important family member.
I will help: people don't like it when the presidential pardon is used for self-serving shit.
How is pardoning people like Fauci, or even Hunter, that Trump was clearly going to target as part of an "enemies" list, more "self-serving" than literally pardoning anyone that makes you/give you millions of dollars?
(Changpenh Zhao - made him billions; Trevor Milton - donated $1.8 million; Walczak - his mom donated millions)
You don't have to prove it to me that Trump is a lot more self-serving than Biden. This should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.
That said, this shouldn't be a competition of who is "more self-serving". Just because your neighbour murdered two people, doesn't mean that you get to murder one.
Really? What ever positive opinions I had left of Biden went out the window with that decision.
It would be weird if he didn't? He pardoned his entire family, as Trump made it clear he was aiming to harass Biden's entire family for revenge. And the way he's been acting this presidency has only confirmed that's not beneath him.
The decision is a lot more respectable than "this guy gave me a bribe." They are worlds apart. And some may be theoretically willing to roll the dice on that for their family, but it reads naive.
Doesn’t it affect your opinion in any way that Trump’s DOJ has been used exactly like his harshest critics last year said it would?
It's not binary. I can not respect both decisions. Just because I don't respect Trump does not mean I must respect Biden's decision or vice versa. Current POTUS is absolutely vile. The previous guy was put in a position and a decision was made that I did not agree with, but over all, no he wasn't using the federal money to directly line his pocket as compensation for being investigated for things he actually did.
So if you were the outgoing president, and the incoming president said out loud in front of the nation he was going to abuse his power to jail your family members out of spite, you would just let that happen on principle?
Again, the threats were not levied just at family members, but only family members received the pardon. So let's not get all sanctimonious on this issue. If he was doing this as anything other than self preservation of his family we could talk, but actions speak louder than words and he chose family over principles.
Simply untrue. He pardoned hundreds of people, many of them with the same blanket pardon, and commuted the sentence of thousands.
Pardoning Hunter was also because he was technically guilty. They’d rather believe had something to pin on him.
If he’d pardoned a whole team of people he’d also signal to the world that he believe they are guilty too.
> only family members received the pardon.... If he was doing this as anything other than self preservation of his family we could talk
Seems like you should do some more research about this before forming such strong opinions, because you are not correct -- Biden preemptively pardoned more than just his family. He pardoned Fauci and Miley after Trump accused them of treason; as well as some members of the J6 committee like Liz Cheney (Trump retweeted a post that claimed Cheney was guilty of treason and should face a military tribunal).
I still think you should answer my question though, because it establishes a baseline for acceptability. I believe that you personally would pardon your own family against such threats because I believe most decent people would. So if you're willing to pardon your own family, then there's a conversation to be had about why you would need to, and whether that protection should be extended, for the good of the nation, to other people not related to you.
The problem we see right now with the pardon power was predicted by the founders:
And boy was he right! We are at that future day! So they saw this coming yet decided to include it anyway. Why?Hamilton argued:
and They recognized the system might need a release valve, or would make mistakes, and they included the pardon power to correct them. They made it broad and "unfettered" as Hamilton put it because they expected the person who would exercise the power would be "prudent".And in doing so they ensured that the pardon power reflects the soul of this nation. We get the government we vote for, and the pardon power is used in a way that we the voters tolerate.
The problem isn't the pardon power is broad, it's that we as an electorate are so willing to elect someone who is comfortable abusing those broad powers and other authority for his personal gain.
I will close by just noting that both of the abuses of the pardon power we are talking about were precipitated by Trump. Biden wouldn't have pardoned any of the people you're mad about if Trump hadn't first promised to abuse his power to persecute them. Biden had the good judgement and foresight to take Trump seriously, because he turned out to be 100% right.
I think the point is, Biden said he pardoned his son to prevent political persecution of him by Trump. Biden's fears have been borne out - the Trump administrationg is persecuting Trump's enemies. Does that change your opinion of Biden's pardon?
Where's the preemptive pardons for Comey, James, Schiff? So no, it's not much of a move of the needle since it was only family members.
It wasn't only family members. Biden granted clemency or pardons to over 4200 people. Notably for the same blanket pardon from 2014 to 2025 for family members, includes Dr. Anthony Fauci, and General Mark Milley.
And all of the members of Congress on the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack for anything having to do with their role on that committee.
Schiff was on that committee. He said the pardon was unnecessary and unwise.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-granted-president-jos...
At that Biden was the only president who had used DOJ to persecute his predecessor. So basically he started this shit, and when it turned out the other guy won the election, he pardoned his obviously guilty son, and other obviously guilty party members.
You say persecute yet those without an agenda say investigate. It was not persecution to look into the events of January 6. Conflating the investigation as persecution is not a very honest take on the events.
I'm talking about the NY real estate bs. It was bs, everybody does it, including the prosecutor Letitia James, there were no victims, it was a selective enforcement of a law, the statute of limitations had expired and the prosecutor ran on the promise that she will find something to get Trump.
You said Biden and DOJ, not NY State. Get your story straight.
Biden did not order his DOJ to prosecute anyone. Unlike Trump with Pam Bondi, Biden did not personally direct Merrick Garland, who promised to run the DOJ independently and did -- to the point Garland even prosecuted the President's own son.
The Trump prosecutions were not only warranted, they were insisted by Republicans; the Republican Senators explicitly declined to convict Trump in his second impeachment because they anticipated he would be prosecuted in a court of law for January 6. From Republican Leader Mitch McConnell when he explained his rationale during the 2nd impeachment trial:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-acqu...
By labeling him as "practically and morally responsible" and then refusing to vote to impeach, explicitly citing our criminal justice system as the appropriate venue for recourse, Mitch McConnell essentially demanded that Biden's DOJ prosecute him for J6.In refusing to convict Trump on J6, McConnell set the precedent that it is improper to impeach a President if he commits crimes between the Election and the Inauguration as Trump did. According to McConnell, accountability lies in the Courts. If it's true that the incoming administration also cannot prosecute those crimes, then POTUS is essentially immune from any and all accountability under the Constitution, which cannot be the case; POTUS would be able to commit or attempt to commit any crimes he wants between Nov and January 20 at the end of his term, up to and including high crimes like insurrection against the government.
Republicans shirked their Article I duty by refusing to impeach a man they publicly blamed for provoking events which led to the deaths of multiple people. Specifically it was Republican Senators who punted it to the Biden DOJ, which made them Constitutionally bound to prosecute.
I'm talking about the NY real estate bs. It was bs, everybody does it, including the prosecutor Letitia James, there were no victims, it was a selective enforcement of a law, the statute of limitations had expired and the prosecutor ran on the promise that she will find something to get Trump.
That case was tried and adjudicated before a court of law, and Trump was convicted on the merits. Trump had the opportunity to argue that the prosecution was selective, vindictive, or otherwise unjust, and his arguments failed.
Obviously he's upset by this outcome, but even if you agree with him, his response has been to burn down the rule of law and the entire concept of justice. Even if you feel he was wronged by James, weaponizing the DOJ against James is not justified by "She started it".
Are you trying to claim that it's never valid to investigate a former President? What the fuck?
I'm talking about the NY real estate bs. It was bs, everybody does it, including the prosecutor Letitia James, there were no victims, it was a selective enforcement of a law, the statute of limitations had expired and the prosecutor ran on the promise that she will find something to get Trump.
no equivalence indeed, it's way worse. Biden's son has never contributed to anything, CZ has and had a net positive impact on the Blockchain industry.
And I say this as someone who despise Trump. A broken clock can be right twice a day.
> CZ has and had a net positive impact on the Blockchain industry.
So, a net negative impact on society.
And HN's bias comes out again.
I'm glad he pardoned CZ. The previous administration + SEC are responsible for this mess by not passing reasonable laws. Coinbase fared much better fighting them all the way.
Trump did the right thing here.
You mean a net positive for other crypto scammers by showing how easy it is?
What did the Jan 6 rioters contribute to?
To this useless comment, among others.
Equivalence may be a strong word, but pardoning your kids is classical Borgia shit straight out of the worst times of Italian Renaissance, and most people would condemn it if it was done by leader of some Central American Ruritania.
Of course, once it is done by a president representing the party you (generic you) feel affiliated with, the double standards inevitably kick in.
> Of course, once it is done by a president representing the party you (generic you) feel affiliated with, the double standards inevitably kick in.
Less that, more we're all aware of what Trump campaigned on and what he promised to do to Biden's entire family. And we're disheartened that there's cultists (not you) trying to convince us that we should let our families suffer if dear leader demands it.
I don't know these people, I don't have a strong feeling if any of them go to jail for something they did, because I'm not in a personality cult. But I care a lot more if people are going to jail just because a more corrupt person got the keys to everything. Turns out, those fears were valid, and I'm increasingly alarmed that there's still so much vitriol towards Biden pardoning a checks notes gun charge, than there is for the blatantly corrupt shit we see every day.
If your family is threatened by the incoming president, your only reasonable course of action is to move them all abroad to some safe country.
A paper you signed is insufficient protection from truly Erdoganesque leaders who are about to gain an imperial presidency. It is just bad politics from all perspectives: inefficient in its original purpose and controversial at the same time.
Looking at how this administration is now using the DoJ to hunt even people like Comey and Bolton whose crime was being a non-Trump-aligned Republican…
It’s probably good that Biden took away this particular show trial option from them.
Non-Trump-aligned Republicans are now the worst enemies of the state, because they pose a credible threat.
Disloyalty is the worst crime around Trump. You must never stop proving your loyalty. Just look at videos of their meetings.
Each person speaking must first have a little sermon praising and thanking God, oh sorry no, not God, I meant Trump.
It’s worth clarifying that the investigation into Bolton started in 2022 during Biden’s term. Hard(er) to say whether the ultimately issued indictment was politically motivated, but we need to keep an eye towards accuracy on these topics.
I was against the Biden pardons at the time but in hindsight with the current administration pushing poorly done prosecutions for political purposes I have changed my mind on them. Trump will say his pardons are similar but looking at the facts I don't find them comparable (I'm still livid that he pardoned Blagojevich, who was literally caught on tape talking about selling a US Senate seat).
No. Almost everybody hated it out of context, but in context many understood that one man was about to obtain unprecedented power over all three branches of government and use it to vindictively pursue personal vendettas. These people were correct, this then happened.
Personally, I’m reminded of how every dysfunctional country’s deposed regimes flee or are killed. We sheltered Americans find it easy to forget that peaceful transfer of power is an accomplishment of lawful society, and as rule of law weakens we have only more chaotic, ignominious, and probably eventually violent transitions to look forward to.
Reaction to the Biden pardon is a pretty huge thing to be completely unaware of. You should reevaluate whether you’re in a media bubble.
He didn't just pardon his family members and issue questionable preemptive pardons, he also issued the most pardons of any president ever, and not by a small margin, but by a factor of 20 compared to Trump up to now, in a single term, including pardons for violent criminals and yes, white-collar fraudsters as well. They didn't get much publicity because most of them were committed at the tail end of his term while the media were focused on the election and on the transition of power, because of double standards, and because the actors were low-profile. It really shouldn't be controversial to point out that the abuse of presidential power didn't start nor end with Trump. He most certainly wouldn't have gotten re-elected if that were the case.
it doesn't matter how you count it, what you are saying is bullshit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_gra...
the substance of the pardons matters a great deal, as well.
Maybe my source was outdated, at least it should be accurate when comparing first terms. Quite the editorial spin on this Wikipedia article, it proves my point about double standards. I'd share some articles listing some murderers and embezzlers pardoned by Biden, but I don't like linking to politically biased sources regardless of their substance since it usually ends up with people nitpicking about the source. It's very easy to find evidence that these weren't 4,000 pardons for innocent marijuana users on Google anyway.
Carter pardoned 200,000 draft dodgers. Biden pardoned 256 people, the rest were mass commutations.