Interesting, from the perspective of a father wanting to protect his son, it is understandable. It is just difficult from the perspective of a president even if the reason may sound superficially correct.
Precisely. Would have been so much better if he had just sent a memo effectively saying: "He's my son, so I'm pardoning him, end of story. Sorry I lied about this, I genuinely regret it."
This is known as the “tu quoque” rhetorical device, used for millennia and commonly viewed as a fallacious argument. There are a lot of places online that explain the concept.
Just because your opponent has done the same thing doesn’t mean the original charge against you is invalid. Their hypocrisy does not invalidate their argument. Not supporting either Biden or Trump in their actions, but this isn’t the way to make a convincing argument. (Why aren’t they teaching rhetoric in schools?)
So it somehow "literally does not matter" for Biden to lie to the country just because Trump also lies? That really is not a good excuse to ignore whatever lies Biden says since he and the democrats should know better.
No, it was not "literally" a lie. I'm quite certain Biden would not have done this if the next president wasn't an authoritarian bully obsessed with violent revenge on those who wronged him.
I think it is a political low blow to go after the family of political opposition. I guess that rule went out of the window too, although I think it was the liberal media that started to make fun of Trumps family. But it shouldn't matter who started it.
Sure, everyone should be equal in front of the law, but public persons are a difficult case. To be honest, I think for the alleged crimes he suffered enough punishment just because some people aired his dirty laundry publicly.
Overall it is a sign that the political culture has become vastly more primitive. Were it healthy people would also call out their own political side to stop schoolyard shit like this.
The interesting thing probably was that all that happened in Ukraine. For countries like Russia this can look like governmental involvement that is generally a bad look and it could be misinterpreted.
Didn't Biden say that he would never show favoritism to his son, since has a "commitment to the rule of law and judicial system". The White House PLEDGED several times that they would be NO pardon for Hunter Biden even he if was convicted. They even mocked the journalists who asked this question - several times.
Looks like the Biden Administration was made out of absolute lies and shameful hypocrisy, but the folks who didn't have their heads in the sand knew that anyways.
Oh yes, do blame this on Trump - the real reason is that there was the threat that Hunter would take a plea deal and reveal all dirt on his father - esp the corrupt dealings in Ukraine. Made Biden's Puppeteer's terribly shiver. Ukraine has been a money laundering operation for a long time now - don't want the gravy train exposed.
Expect to see a very large surge of preemptive pardon's issued in the next month - easily several times more than the previous Trump presidency - and nearly all issued to the corrupt members of the current administration.
No, the real reason is that if Hunter was still incarcerated in 2025 then he’d be used for politics. Moved to Guantanamo, Justice department releases a convenient confession, etc.
The only bad thing about this pardon is that it fuels conspiracy theories like these. But it doesn’t really matter, since the conspiracy theorists will soon have full control of the government without any checks and balances to stop them. The country is doomed, so might as well do a bit of good on the way out without asking for permission.
Does the news about Smirnoff pleading guilty of lying about Burisma money change the feelings towards this pardon of anyone?
I have mixed feelings myself.
On one hand I understand that attacks on Hunter Biden are purely political and the fact that Trump won is putting biden's family at risk and thus forced Biden's hand.
On the other hand if they lose the moral high ground by acting like Trump the long term damage to American democracy is going to be huge
Turning the tables: If what he is concerned about is whataboutism to you, then what you are worried about is also whataboutism to him. Both can be safely discarded from one another's consideration.
...That is, unless you're willing to admit neither of your concerns is "merely dismissable as whataboutism" in which case both warrant due attention!
More legitimate than the last Trump presidency that saw Trump granting pardons to convicted fraudsters like Michael Liberty; and while this escalation by Biden isn't right, given the circumstances and rhetoric of the President elect, I can't say I can't why Biden made the decision he did. Tit-for-tat. Exactly as predicted by game theory. Enjoy the consequences.
I can only hope this serves as a generational lesson as to the danger and power of the highest Office of the Executive Branch, and maybe knocks some sense into people that no, it ain't just a popularity contest. Just because a President doesn't have the power of the purse, doesn't mean a man can't do massive damage in 4 years. Not anymore.
It doesn’t seem fair that an article can get unflagged while its comments can not. Half the discussion has been nuked for seemingly political reasons by the time the article is back on the front page, giving a warped perspective of what the userbase actually thinks about it.
Frankly, this wasn’t that popular of a thread to begin with, so I’m not sure why dang decided to revive it.
It’s telling that Republicans mistake an act of love for corruption. Everything about the Hunter Biden prosecution was abnormally politicized[1], and Trump would have loved to squash him like a bug just to spite his father.
[1] Seriously, before downvoting out of reflex, just read the fuckin’ thing and ask yourself if this sounds like justice being done: https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna182437
Stop linking MSNBC and start linking the U.S. Department of Justice. Before calling an act of extreme nepotism an act of "love", I suggest just read the fuckin’ thing and ask yourself whether the pardon sounds like corruption in action.
Remember, Hunter Biden himself pleaded guilty in federal court to ALL counts in a nine-count indictment, including three felony tax offenses and six misdemeanor tax offenses. There was NO plea agreement.
Biden threatened his father that he would SING like a Canary about Ukraine and all that talk about Justice and "Rule of Law" went out of the Window.
If this was Trump, Jesus, the whole media would be BUZZING 24x7, issuing death threats for a whole month and screaming that it is the END of the world. Instead they are all nice and forgiving - making baby-diaper statements like: its a mild stain on Biden's reputation that doesn't negate his so many years of public service, blah-blah. Some even outright stating that he did the "right thing" and that he should issue preemptive pardons for everyone in his administration. How fast can he sign pardons before inauguration day ? (Maybe his handlers can hold his hand as they wipe his ass ?)
These statements being made by the same media heads who feted Biden's “I abide by the jury decision. I will do that and I will not pardon him.” statement. Biden is SO GOOD.
The scent of evil, rotting hypocrisy is sickening.
As of late, truth is not truth. Any Biden incarcerated when Trump takes power becomes a point of leverage. Someone, probably Kash Patel, was already drafting the confession for Hunter that would justify everything like GP comment.
Admittedly, the comment you responded to is sparse on details but in addition to other goals--some of them noble--money laundering and other adjacent activities by those close to the center of power is often a side effect characteristic of these sorts of adventures. It's reasonable to posit that both noble actions and lots of neferious activities can co-exist. And since the commenter specifically mentions the plea deal in relation to Hunter's past dealings with Ukraine, it should be reasonable to assume he was referring to that aspect of the war.
I tried reading the comment in good faith so I thought the commenter was alluding to Hunter's alleged entaglements with Ukraine, being on a board or advisor to some ukranian company or whatnot when he had no qualifications for being there. A reasonable devil's advocate position would suggest that the pardon would prevent Hunter from being forced to expose other incriminating details in exchange for leniency, if there was such a possibility.
I think you will find that a large majority of people supporting both parties vote based on factors like desired policies and the current state of the nation, rather than (pardon my phrasing) trumped up personal drama.
Not only fair play but preemptive protection against an autocrat whose threats against political rivals and their families is both long-standing and current.
Against such telegraphed use of federal prosecutorial powers, presidential pardon is among the few absolutely robust defences.
Yep, it's time to stop taking the high road because republicans will ditch norms when it fits them anyway (see: Mitch Mcconnell in 2016 vs 2020 on supreme court picks)
Dems are held to a higher standard both internally and by the media, but republicans can do/say crazy things without an ounce of accountability from anyone.
This line of thinking creates a vicious spiral straight to a banana republic.
>but republicans can do/say crazy things without an ounce of accountability from anyone.
some republicans campaign explicitly on reducing accountability and embracing nepotism, and when they deliver on those points their voters are hardly "shocked" because they advertised it from the get go. Many dems campaign on the high road, so no one should fault their voters if they feel betrayed and insulted when they go dark.
This behavior is just a childish, "the assholes coming up behind me are going to cut the line, so why should I be the sucker? I'm gonna cut the line and get what's mine while I have the chance."
As with the dumb election strategy of cozing up to establishment republicans: It's stupid because no one will want the fake ones (dems playing republicans) when they can get the original gangsters (republicans).
> I’m trying to imagine how I would have reacted if, back when I was a supervisor at the Southern District of New York, another prosecutor had come to me with this pitch:
> "We’ve got this case on a guy who had a gun almost five years ago. He was a drug addict at the time, and he lied about that when he filled out some forms to buy the gun. He had the gun for 11 days, nobody ever fired it or used it to do anything, and it wound up getting tossed in a trash can. The guy has had major drug issues and ugly familial problems, but no prior convictions. "
> I would have had two immediate questions. First: What’s the crime? Second: Don’t we have better things to do?
> and he lied about that when he filled out some forms to buy the gun
My cousin went to jail for 6 months for this exact crime and he’s neither famous nor connected to anyone. (Granted, they caught him at the time it didn’t take years.)
Oh come on. If Trump gets to plead lawfare, then Hunter certainly is a victim of it.
Just to be generous, I'll cite Hunter Biden's plea deal that almost went through, but got rejected at the final moment. That's lawfare, plain and simple, a consequence of Republicans trying to do a Benghazi on Biden.
Another reading would see this "lawfare" narrative as a device to fool the citizenry. Both sides know they will get pardoned but by having "lawfare" give the impression (to the impressionable and propagandized public) that we do not have in this nation a ruling class that protects its own and does as it pleases.
The democrats should be taking the higher ground, but instead have become just as bad as Trump, especially after Joe Biden pardoning his own son after repeatedly saying that he would not, even for crimes Hunter admitted and pleaded guilty of.
You're living in a different reality if you think taking the high ground is a winning strategy after watching the lies and insane conspiracies spread by MAGA for the past four years. Trump won the election. It's clear that campaigning on policy is not enough.
No, she lost because it was clear people were voting based on perception and not facts or stats. Inflation has gone down and the economy is relatively good. Yes, the cumulative effect of inflation won't go away but the rate has slowed down.
Now try explaining that to the voting population and see what kind of blank stares or angered responses you get. BUT PRICES ARE HIGH!!
That doesn't pass as an excuse to lie to the people because Trump or someone else is also doing it. We have fact checkers for this regardless.
The Democrats campaigned on being the better party, a new clean slate and to move on and persuaded voters to not vote for the convicted felon (Trump). Yet he still won the election.
My point is Biden should have just told the press that he will pardon his son, instead of repeatedly saying that he would not and then goes and does it anyway.
Is it fair to say that he lied to everyone and also what else are they lying to us about?
We're splitting hairs over something that was, in all reality, a targeted political attack on someone because their dad got elected. I would encourage you to read the press release. Hunter Biden got charged for something that almost no one else does (filling out a gun form incorrectly)
There is no reason to invest this much effort into something so miniscule. It pales in comparison to the dangerous lies and behavior exhibited by MAGA (see: January 6th)
That waters down the felony convictions and what they were related to. Trump paid off a pornstar and tried to hide it in his financials so his election chances weren't affected.
One is related to running for President of the United States and the other is someone who has a drug addiction and who isn't running for any sort of office.
> That waters down the felony convictions and what they were related to.
I don't think that's how it works. He wasn't charged with election interference or for violating campaign laws.
But, given your take here, I assume you must feel that Hilary Clinton should have faced potential jail time when she failed to fill out a form and interfered with her opposition's presidential campaign:
You're misinformed on everything you mentioned. Trump was convicted in the "hush money" case. His classified documents case was thrown out by a federal judge who has questionable ethics and she was also appointed by Trump himself.
Biden worked with the office that handles classified documents to return them. Trump and his legal team were hiding them and didn't respond to inquiries leading to the FBI raid.
Hillary I'll give to you because she shoud've faced consequences for the behavior involved in the email scandal. Using bleach bit on hard drives to hide evidence is criminal IMO.
> You're misinformed on everything you mentioned. Trump was convicted in the "hush money" case. His classified documents case was thrown out by a federal judge who has questionable ethics and she was also appointed by Trump himself.
Exactly how am I misinformed? I never said he was convicted in the classified documents case, I said that he faced 40 felony charges for it and potential jail time:
The grand jury indictment brought 40 felony counts against Trump related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents
> Biden worked with the office that handles classified documents to return them. Trump and his legal team were hiding them and didn't respond to inquiries leading to the FBI raid.
I know, and I figured you say this because this is how you're able to contort the facts to justify your world view, but Biden still did mishandle classified documents intentionally and he wasn't charged for it. And just because he gave them back when they asked doesn't reverse that fact. Remember, he wasn't let off the hook because he was innocent.
By the way, I have no dog in this fight. I dislike them all equally. I just find it frustrating that people can so easily jump through hoops to "explain" how their team's wrongdoings are ok but refuse to apply the same logic when the call is against the other team. And that normally comes with claims of "misinformation", just like you're accusing me of here.
Biden did not intentionally mishandle classified data. The government understands that as part of your job description at that level of government, you take documents with you. It only becomes a problem when you don't work with them to return those after you've been notified of the issue.
I'm not a fan of sane washing Trump's behavior and trying to draw parallels between him and the Dems when they're just not equal. It reeks of "but muh both sides" contrarinism style argument.
> able to contort the facts to justify your world view
There was a special counsel dedicated to Biden's document investigation and the person leading it was a Trump-appointed lawyer who said there was a clear difference between the two cases[0]. You should note that Biden was not charged by that counsel as there wasn't enough evidence that he willfully retained the documents.
> Hur’s report says the differences between the two cases are “clear.” Unlike Biden — who cooperated with investigators, agreed to searches of his homes and sat for a voluntary interview — the allegations in Trump’s case present “serious aggravating facts,” Hur wrote.
> For instance, prosecutors say, after the Justice Department issued a subpoena for the records in May 2022, Trump asked his own lawyers if he could defy the request and said words to the effect of, “I don’t want anybody looking through my boxes.”
> “Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” one of his lawyers described him as saying, according to the indictment.
I do not care about what Jon Stewart says either, lol.
I know what happened, and your link agrees with what I said.
From your link:
In Biden’s case, special counsel Robert Hur, a former U.S. attorney for Maryland nominated by Trump, concluded in a report released Thursday that the president should not face criminal charges, despite finding evidence that Biden willfully retained classified information.
They didn't charge him because his diminished mental state would have made it difficult to convince a jury that his actions were "willful". That's very different from them concluding that his actions were not willful.
> I do not care about what Jon Stewart says either
It was an example of how it's actually possible (but rare) to hate Trump and still have the capacity to see the world without blinders on. But good for you for not caring.
I guess we're both grasping then. Either way, these cases are not equivalent and there is no point in wasting time over something so miniscule. And, for people who aren't even running for office at that.
But Democrats didn't campaign on policy. Watch any interview with Kamala and you will struggle to fish out anything specific on any issue. Watch interviews with Trump and he speaks clearly and specifically on most issues. You can disagree with him or find his views abhorrent, unrealistic, wishful thinking or whatever but he campaigned on clear policies while Kamala's strategy was to never answer any question nor take any concrete position.
You lost me at "he speaks clearly and specifically on most issues", but I can agree at him being in the spotlight more. Any interview I watch on a podcast or a speech of his is hard to watch. Tons of rambling and vague answers or complete dodging. It was only clear to me recently he was serious about Tariffs.
From my perspective, Dems campaigned on reducing inflation (which they've done) and policies like the child tax credit or first time home buyer credit. Not that I necessarily agree with the last two, but...
Man, we are talking politicians here. Trump wants protectionism, border control, lower corporate taxes, less environmental and other regulations that makes doing business more difficult. Those are just a few clear policies he campaigned on.
Meanwhile Kamala avoided being specific on about any topic. She acted dumb and reverted to "but you remember what Trump said" at any point that required her to take a position. If you think Trump is painful to watch Kamala is unbearable, she was the definition of a politician playing dumb. Seriously her attitude .
wouldn't fly in elementary school where children are expected to answer questions and stay on topic.
>>Dems campaigned on reducing inflation
Did they? Reducing inflation requires increasing interest rates or removing trade bareers with cheaper manufacturers like China. Has Kamala supported any policy like that?
practically any person in the West, never mind just America, can name at least 2 Trump policies. is that true for Kamala? was it for Biden? the Democrats' platform is essentially "we're the good guys, don't vote for the bad man", plus some boring, centre-right drivel that may well help people, but excites precisely no one.
the Democrats need big, memorable ideas that will get people excited, and to supplement that with practical economic policy and abortion protections. they need to quit being pragmatic with their goals. Trump shoots for the stars. he isn't restricted by logic or realism. people like those policies, remember them, and it gives him a strong negotiating position.
Most Republican voters in a blind poll supported more of Kamala's policies than Trump's. It's pure "vibes" when it comes to voting. No research on policy platforms.
We need to acknowledge that half of the voter base are unserious people treating this like a sports match rather than an election which has real consequences on people's lives.
People are going to downvote this but it's the absolute truth. Trump's pardons of obvious criminals are as corrupt and transactional as you can get. In an alternate universe where rule of law actually mattered in the US, Biden should not (and probably would not) have done this, but I will not fault him for trying to protect his son from a fascist administration that's shrieking for revenge.
While I do see this as an clear conflict of interest, I do think that this was the correct thing to do. There's no world that Hunter receives a far trial in the midst of the hyper-polarized political world we're in.
