Re: [OT] Biden pardons Hunter despite promise

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:33:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Dec 2, 2024 at 12:12:16 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 12/2/2024 2:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

 On Dec 1, 2024 at 9:34:52 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
 

 shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

 Sun, 1 Dec 2024 23:23:03 -0500, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

 

 Joe Biden has pardoned his son Hunter despite promising repeatedly to
 respect the rule of law.

 

 Pardoning  his son is part of what the rule of law allows.

 
 That's an absurd position to take. The pardon power is a power of the
 president and is NOT dependent on rule of law. The president is
 literally second-guessing criminal law. He stated that the prosecution
 was political. No, it fucking was not.

 
 I don't have much heartburn over Biden pardoning his own kid. Given the
abuse
 past presidents (and governors) have heaped on the pardon power, this is
 pretty small potatoes.
 
 What rubs me the wrong way is the months of fake denial and the feigned
 offense when asked about whether Biden would pardon Hunter that the whole
 administration-- from Biden to his spokeshole Jean-Pierre-- every time the
 subject came up.
 
 Jean-Pierre in particular was insufferable. Every time a reporter asked her
 about it, she didn't just deny Biden would pardon Hunter, she was rude,
 condescending, and acted like the reporter was being unethical and insulting
 for just asking the question. And now it turns out the reporters were right
 all along. I certainly hope there's at least one more press conference in
the
 waning days of this administration and someone throws that all back up in
her
 smug face and see what her response is.

 
Biden *said* he wouldn't pardon Hunter.  Repeated questioning of her
about it was tantamount to asking her if she thought her boss was lying.

>
And since it turns out he *was* lying, the reporters were right to ask about
it.

Or not. None of us know what Biden was thinking over the past few
years. He may have truly thought he should let the process play out
and reconsidered as his time as President was coming to an end.
Certainly it didn't appear that Hunter's time in the firing line was
coming to an end any time soon.

Now, if as you say, she was particularly rude in her response to the
repeated questions, that is another matter. It should be enough to
state that she's given the answer to the question and repeatedly
asking it isn't changing the answer.

 It was a dunning question, regardless of what later transpired.

>
>