The decision, which was first reported by NBC News, is a reversal for the president, who repeatedly said he would not use his authority to pardon his son or commute his sentence.
Well, first - I posted this yesterday, so it can’t possibly be the brain dead take of the day.
And second, my comment is a sardonic statement that discusses the need for reform of how the U.S. does presidential pardons. It pivots to imply the Supreme Court will do the exact wrong thing if someone sued about this, and implies Trump will imitate the Catholic Church, re: forgiving sins. It makes no mention of the DOJ, nor my thoughts of how Trump plans to use it, or even whether I think this pardon is valid.
So, if you’re going to incorrectly insult me, could you at least stay on topic?
But, but isn’t Hunter an example of Trump weaponizing the DOJ?
No, it is fucking not. It is an example of the Republican Party weaponizing the media and grabbing any lever they can get their hands on, be it congressional investigations or friendly DA’s, to create a primetime cable TV media circus in much the same fashion they weaponized the media against Hillary before Trump had political aspirations, and even against her husband in the 90’s. If it was merely the DOJ being weaponized, Hunter Biden’s dick pics wouldn’t have been shown to congress. The DOJ is secondary. If the DOJ was primary, we’d never hear about the trial, and it wouldn’t go on for years in full view of the press.
So, no. But it’s close enough that if you didn’t lead with an insult, I’d just shrug it off.
And what would Trump need with Biden so much that keeping his son as a political prisoner would come in handy?
Joe is out of politics. I’m pretty sure most people forgot he was president until yesterday. Yeah, yeah, currently at the wheel, but after he gets on that Amtrak in January, he’s out. I honestly don’t know how he could be of any help or support to the republicans. Maybe they could put him on stage as a set piece somewhere, but then he’s just a sad old man that reminds everyone that the Republican Party will throw your kid in jail, but we already fucking knew that because of the migrant kids in dog kennels.
And third - while I don’t disagree that the DOJ will be used punitively, you don’t seem like the kind of person I’d publicly agree with.
You lead with an insult because you can’t interact with humans normally. Following, what’s the point of the insult? Is there merit to it? Do you prove that whatever you think you read was “the braindead [sic] take” of yesterday? It looks like you switch topics and talk about something I didn’t discuss.
Which really seems more like you just have thoughts you want to share and cannot find an appropriate way to bring them up.
Fuck, dude. If you’re going to try to fight the good fight, could you do better in how you go about it?
Finally.
You’ll note I’ve not expressed thoughts about Hunter. Honestly, I don’t have clear thoughts on the matter. I think we should uphold rule of law. But I also think that’s bullshit given how inequitably the law is applied. I think that Hunter is a victim. Lots of parts of his story seem very much like other forces were involved than only his own bad choices. And I wouldn’t want Hunter in prison for a crime that rarely sees prison.
My ‘best’ thought about Hunter right now is that I think Joe should have waited until sentencing to see if the punishment was in line with other convictions of this type. If it was, then let the skewed and politicized rule of law prevail, and if it’s not, then step in.
Irrespective of this news story, but perhaps because of it, we may see a legal review of presidential pardon powers., and I welcome that.
Which is what the entirety of my first comment was about. Pardon powers are yet another area of the U.S. government that mostly runs on the honor system, and that is clearly not adequate anymore, lest we see a scenario as heinous as the joke scenario I outlined.
No one has any fucking nuance anymore, and must always “win” everything at any cost, up to and including completely disregarding morals and legal conventions, and that’s why every law, every email, and every online comment has to be a damned novel, full of definitions, trapping edge cases, and strict prognostications, because someone, somewhere, has got to be ‘that guy’ and ruin the fun.
I have so many thoughts.
Well, first - I posted this yesterday, so it can’t possibly be the brain dead take of the day.
And second, my comment is a sardonic statement that discusses the need for reform of how the U.S. does presidential pardons. It pivots to imply the Supreme Court will do the exact wrong thing if someone sued about this, and implies Trump will imitate the Catholic Church, re: forgiving sins. It makes no mention of the DOJ, nor my thoughts of how Trump plans to use it, or even whether I think this pardon is valid.
So, if you’re going to incorrectly insult me, could you at least stay on topic?
But, but isn’t Hunter an example of Trump weaponizing the DOJ?
No, it is fucking not. It is an example of the Republican Party weaponizing the media and grabbing any lever they can get their hands on, be it congressional investigations or friendly DA’s, to create a primetime cable TV media circus in much the same fashion they weaponized the media against Hillary before Trump had political aspirations, and even against her husband in the 90’s. If it was merely the DOJ being weaponized, Hunter Biden’s dick pics wouldn’t have been shown to congress. The DOJ is secondary. If the DOJ was primary, we’d never hear about the trial, and it wouldn’t go on for years in full view of the press.
So, no. But it’s close enough that if you didn’t lead with an insult, I’d just shrug it off.
And what would Trump need with Biden so much that keeping his son as a political prisoner would come in handy?
Joe is out of politics. I’m pretty sure most people forgot he was president until yesterday. Yeah, yeah, currently at the wheel, but after he gets on that Amtrak in January, he’s out. I honestly don’t know how he could be of any help or support to the republicans. Maybe they could put him on stage as a set piece somewhere, but then he’s just a sad old man that reminds everyone that the Republican Party will throw your kid in jail, but we already fucking knew that because of the migrant kids in dog kennels.
And third - while I don’t disagree that the DOJ will be used punitively, you don’t seem like the kind of person I’d publicly agree with.
You lead with an insult because you can’t interact with humans normally. Following, what’s the point of the insult? Is there merit to it? Do you prove that whatever you think you read was “the braindead [sic] take” of yesterday? It looks like you switch topics and talk about something I didn’t discuss.
Which really seems more like you just have thoughts you want to share and cannot find an appropriate way to bring them up.
Fuck, dude. If you’re going to try to fight the good fight, could you do better in how you go about it?
Finally.
You’ll note I’ve not expressed thoughts about Hunter. Honestly, I don’t have clear thoughts on the matter. I think we should uphold rule of law. But I also think that’s bullshit given how inequitably the law is applied. I think that Hunter is a victim. Lots of parts of his story seem very much like other forces were involved than only his own bad choices. And I wouldn’t want Hunter in prison for a crime that rarely sees prison.
My ‘best’ thought about Hunter right now is that I think Joe should have waited until sentencing to see if the punishment was in line with other convictions of this type. If it was, then let the skewed and politicized rule of law prevail, and if it’s not, then step in.
Irrespective of this news story, but perhaps because of it, we may see a legal review of presidential pardon powers., and I welcome that.
Which is what the entirety of my first comment was about. Pardon powers are yet another area of the U.S. government that mostly runs on the honor system, and that is clearly not adequate anymore, lest we see a scenario as heinous as the joke scenario I outlined.
No one has any fucking nuance anymore, and must always “win” everything at any cost, up to and including completely disregarding morals and legal conventions, and that’s why every law, every email, and every online comment has to be a damned novel, full of definitions, trapping edge cases, and strict prognostications, because someone, somewhere, has got to be ‘that guy’ and ruin the fun.