SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Remember the whole debate we just had on presidential immunity?! We were told how dangerous any immunity would be! Even SCOTUS limited immunity to core official acts. So now Biden team doing blanket immunityofficial and unofficial actsfor themselves? Sets a dangerous precedent…

---

The fundamental problem is that this is a bunch of gaslighting bulsh**. There is no equivalence, no hypocrisy, no "dangerous precedent".

Trump literally spent his entire campaign insisting that he would use the Justice Department to get revenge on those who crossed him... which of course IS the dangerous precedent, blowing 90 miles past any sane norm in our country's history. After winning the election he then nominates a guy to head the DoJ who has laid out the MAGA hit list he intends to "go after", include haranguing Hunter Biden as much as possible.

Unless you're a mouth breather who actually believes that Dr. Fauci tried to kill everyone with his Illuminati vaccine, or that January 6th was a peaceful stroll though the Capitol and Liz Cheney should be jailed for investigating it, everyone knows there is zero merit to going after any of these guys and none of them will be tried for anything. All it will do is make their lives miserable for the next 4 years while they're "investigated"... which is Trump's entire goal. Retribution.

So if Biden can put a stop to that then hell yeah he should. Fu** them. An no, there's no equivalence between a rogue Supreme Court deciding to give Trump blanket immunity to make all of his impending convictions go away (and allow him to do god knows what this time) and Biden deciding to use the pardon to defend people from Trump's perversion of the Justice Department.

---

LOLOLOL-what a raven lunatic^

Gulfstream4 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Remember the whole debate we just had on presidential immunity?! We were told how dangerous any immunity would be! Even SCOTUS limited immunity to core official acts. So now Biden team doing blanket immunityofficial and unofficial actsfor themselves? Sets a dangerous precedent…

---

The fundamental problem is that this is a bunch of gaslighting bulsh**. There is no equivalence, no hypocrisy, no "dangerous precedent".

Trump literally spent his entire campaign insisting that he would use the Justice Department to get revenge on those who crossed him... which of course IS the dangerous precedent, blowing 90 miles past any sane norm in our country's history. After winning the election he then nominates a guy to head the DoJ who has laid out the MAGA hit list he intends to "go after", include haranguing Hunter Biden as much as possible.

Unless you're a mouth breather who actually believes that Dr. Fauci tried to kill everyone with his Illuminati vaccine, or that January 6th was a peaceful stroll though the Capitol and Liz Cheney should be jailed for investigating it, everyone knows there is zero merit to going after any of these guys and none of them will be tried for anything. All it will do is make their lives miserable for the next 4 years while they're "investigated"... which is Trump's entire goal. Retribution.

So if Biden can put a stop to that then hell yeah he should. Fu** them. An no, there's no equivalence between a rogue Supreme Court deciding to give Trump blanket immunity to make all of his impending convictions go away (and allow him to do god knows what this time) and Biden deciding to use the pardon to defend people from Trump's perversion of the Justice Department.

---

LOLOLOL-what a raven lunatic^

---

Speaking of the mouth breathers.

By the way, it's "raving".

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Remember the whole debate we just had on presidential immunity?! We were told how dangerous any immunity would be! Even SCOTUS limited immunity to core official acts. So now Biden team doing blanket immunityofficial and unofficial actsfor themselves? Sets a dangerous precedent…

---

The fundamental problem is that this is a bunch of gaslighting bulsh**. There is no equivalence, no hypocrisy, no "dangerous precedent".

Trump literally spent his entire campaign insisting that he would use the Justice Department to get revenge on those who crossed him... which of course IS the dangerous precedent, blowing 90 miles past any sane norm in our country's history. After winning the election he then nominates a guy to head the DoJ who has laid out the MAGA hit list he intends to "go after", include haranguing Hunter Biden as much as possible.

Unless you're a mouth breather who actually believes that Dr. Fauci tried to kill everyone with his Illuminati vaccine, or that January 6th was a peaceful stroll though the Capitol and Liz Cheney should be jailed for investigating it, everyone knows there is zero merit to going after any of these guys and none of them will be tried for anything. All it will do is make their lives miserable for the next 4 years while they're "investigated"... which is Trump's entire goal. Retribution.

So if Biden can put a stop to that then hell yeah he should. Fu** them. An no, there's no equivalence between a rogue Supreme Court deciding to give Trump blanket immunity to make all of his impending convictions go away (and allow him to do god knows what this time) and Biden deciding to use the pardon to defend people from Trump's perversion of the Justice Department.

---

LOLOLOL-what a raven lunatic^

---

Speaking of the mouth breathers.

By the way, it's "raving".

---

Thank you. I stand corrected. You're a raving lunatic, soy boy.

Talk about a banana republic.

BigBarryWood said:

---

Talk about a banana republic.

---

Bo Hines would pop his collar

El Lobo Loco said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Remember the whole debate we just had on presidential immunity?! We were told how dangerous any immunity would be! Even SCOTUS limited immunity to core official acts. So now Biden team doing blanket immunityofficial and unofficial actsfor themselves? Sets a dangerous precedent…

---

The fundamental problem is that this is a bunch of gaslighting bulsh**. There is no equivalence, no hypocrisy, no "dangerous precedent".

Trump literally spent his entire campaign insisting that he would use the Justice Department to get revenge on those who crossed him... which of course IS the dangerous precedent, blowing 90 miles past any sane norm in our country's history. After winning the election he then nominates a guy to head the DoJ who has laid out the MAGA hit list he intends to "go after", include haranguing Hunter Biden as much as possible.

Unless you're a mouth breather who actually believes that Dr. Fauci tried to kill everyone with his Illuminati vaccine, or that January 6th was a peaceful stroll though the Capitol and Liz Cheney should be jailed for investigating it, everyone knows there is zero merit to going after any of these guys and none of them will be tried for anything. All it will do is make their lives miserable for the next 4 years while they're "investigated"... which is Trump's entire goal. Retribution.

So if Biden can put a stop to that then hell yeah he should. Fu** them. An no, there's no equivalence between a rogue Supreme Court deciding to give Trump blanket immunity to make all of his impending convictions go away (and allow him to do god knows what this time) and Biden deciding to use the pardon to defend people from Trump's perversion of the Justice Department.

---

LOLOLOL-what a raven lunatic^

---

Responding to Gulfstream4's post, but only because he's the reason I saw the previous drivel.

1. My recollection is that Trump promised to prosecute those who broke the law. Apparently some folks are not a fan of that.

2. Fauci didn't try to kill people with the vaccine. He tried to do it with the coronavirus.

3. If Liz Cheney should be jailed, it isn't for investigating. It would be for the corruption of the investigation which included covering up facts and destroying evidence that did not fit the narrative.

4. No reason for Biden not to pardon all of his criminal friends. We already know he's only in it for himself and his family. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out since Hunter can now be compelled to testify without the ability to assert 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

---

I'm not a historian of Presidential Pardons; however, I think the area of concern should be these blanket Pardons, per se. I don't have an issue with Hunter getting a pardon for actions that have been indicted. I think the problem with this is the blanket pardon on actions that haven't been indicted.

For instance, Trump gives a blanket pardon to Steve Bannon for anything that's been said and/or done over the last 10 years and into the next two years. That would cause me great concerns.

I guess my understanding has been a pardon is used to give leeway to a person that being criminally investigated with indictments. If not, why not blanket pardon everyone in the country for anything that's been done or about to be done.

Again, I have no issue with Biden giving his son a pardon. If I had the power, vested in my position, I would do the same thing for my family member…

The pardon Hunter got was the same Ford gave Nixon. So it's an unprecedented pardon for a non President

hokiewolf said:

---

The pardon Hunter got was the same Ford gave Nixon. So it's an unprecedented pardon for a non President

---

Yes it is. It also spans 11 years (unprecedented), where Nixon's pardon spanned his presidency (5 years).

hokiewolf said:

---

The pardon Hunter got was the same Ford gave Nixon. So it's an unprecedented pardon for a non President

---

Cool! Unless you're suddenly neck-deep in MAGA conspiracy world, do you think what Trump is planning to do with the Justice Department is unprecedented?

Bockwinkle said:

---

So the guys that used congress, the FBI and the CIA to fabricate charges against Trump are worried that Trump is going to investigate them?

Boy, that would be such an abuse of power. Almost as bad as using the office to enrich your family, then pardoning them.

Projection, it's not just for watching movies anymore.

---

I mean if you're a 12 year old who believes the nonsensical con that Dems somehow took complete control of the FBI and CIA (which is packed to the ceiling with conservatives) and orchestrated a grand conspiracy then sure, I can see why this is all very disorienting.

Of course the other possibility, that Trump is just a crook, is just too hard to believe. Q Anon pizza pedophile rings, sure, but that? No way!

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

The pardon Hunter got was the same Ford gave Nixon. So it's an unprecedented pardon for a non President

---

Cool! Unless you're suddenly neck-deep in MAGA conspiracy world, do you think what Trump is planning to do with the Justice Department is unprecedented?

---

let's not do the whataboutism thing. Two things can be true:

1). I can understand why Biden pardoned his son

2) it was an unprecedented pardon in the nations history. That's can be debated without pointing at other shiny objects and yelling "look at that!"

---

Hokie, he/she is unable to do that. It's why so many have put him/her on ignore. No need to debate an imbecile.

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

The pardon Hunter got was the same Ford gave Nixon. So it's an unprecedented pardon for a non President

---

Cool! Unless you're suddenly neck-deep in MAGA conspiracy world, do you think what Trump is planning to do with the Justice Department is unprecedented?

---

let's not do the whataboutism thing. Two things can be true:

1). I can understand why Biden pardoned his son

2) it was an unprecedented pardon in the nations history. That's can be debated without pointing at other shiny objects and yelling "look at that!"

---

This isn't whataboutism at all... it's totally disingenuous to pretend that the two aren't completely connected. You're separating cause and effect, and then hyperventilating about the effect.

If Harris had won, it's extremely unlikely you would have seen an "unprecedented" blanket pardon. At most he would have sprung Hunter out of jail, and even that is debatable given his previous promise.

But Trump won, and made it clear that he would continue to drag Hunter through the mud in any way he could. How exactly can you debate an "unprecedented" pardon without acknowledging the obvious circumstances?

You clearly don't seem particularly bothered by Trump's stated plans for the DoJ. Why is that? And why shouldn't Biden blanket pardon literally everyone to protect them from that bullsh**?

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

The pardon Hunter got was the same Ford gave Nixon. So it's an unprecedented pardon for a non President

---

Cool! Unless you're suddenly neck-deep in MAGA conspiracy world, do you think what Trump is planning to do with the Justice Department is unprecedented?

---

let's not do the whataboutism thing. Two things can be true:

1). I can understand why Biden pardoned his son

2) it was an unprecedented pardon in the nations history. That's can be debated without pointing at other shiny objects and yelling "look at that!"

---

Hokie, he/she is unable to do that. It's why so many have put him/her on ignore. No need to debate an imbecile.

---

Oh please. You've never been able to debate anything, which is why you desperately try to convince other people to ignore anyone with scary words about Dear Leader.

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Bockwinkle said:

---

So the guys that used congress, the FBI and the CIA to fabricate charges against Trump are worried that Trump is going to investigate them?

Boy, that would be such an abuse of power. Almost as bad as using the office to enrich your family, then pardoning them.

Projection, it's not just for watching movies anymore.

---

Democrats always accuse others of doing exactly what they're doing.

---

True. The things they accuse others of reveals what's in their hearts and their behavior.

Remember the Clintons harping on GOP greed and corruption in their presidential run? Then it was revealed that Hillary miraculously turned a $1k futures bet into $100k. I'm not sure she ever traded before or after.

The current group accuses Trump of wanting to be a dictator. But it's Biden that subverted immigration law and attempted to give every college loan recipient a free pass. It's Biden that bypassed congress several times to provide munitions and military aid to various nations.

Listen to their concerns about the GOP and you'll know what they believe and often what they are up to.

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

The pardon Hunter got was the same Ford gave Nixon. So it's an unprecedented pardon for a non President

---

Cool! Unless you're suddenly neck-deep in MAGA conspiracy world, do you think what Trump is planning to do with the Justice Department is unprecedented?

---

let's not do the whataboutism thing. Two things can be true:

1). I can understand why Biden pardoned his son

2) it was an unprecedented pardon in the nations history. That's can be debated without pointing at other shiny objects and yelling "look at that!"

---

This isn't whataboutism at all... it's totally disingenuous to pretend that the two aren't completely connected. You're separating cause and effect, and then hyperventilating about the effect.

If Harris had won, it's extremely unlikely you would have seen an "unprecedented" blanket pardon. At most he would have sprung Hunter out of jail, and even that is debatable given his previous promise.

But Trump won, and made it clear that he would continue to drag Hunter through the mud in any way he could. How exactly can you debate an "unprecedented" pardon without acknowledging the obvious circumstances?

You clearly don't seem particularly bothered by Trump's stated plans for the DoJ. Why is that? And why shouldn't Biden blanket pardon literally everyone to protect them from that bullsh**?

---

We have to set new, terrible precedents so Trump won't set other equally awful precedents!

---

Lol, "equally"... the bothsides-ism that perpetually normalizes these MAGA clowns is truly a marvel.

For the record, Trump issued a couple of "preemptive" pardons himself. Steve Bannon hadn't even gone to trial yet when he was pardoned. And Sheriff Joe Arpaio was preemptively pardoned for "any other offenses that might be charged." So this teeth gnashing about a "terrible precedent" is a little over done. If you're just mad at pardons (which are legal) because a Dem is using them, then maybe call for an end to Presidential pardons.

But yes, apparently we do need preemptive pardons to sidestep Trump setting the ACTUAL awful precedent of a President openly weaponizing the Justice Department. Do you want that to be the new norm?

Have any of these people asked Biden for a pardon? Democrats assume they'll need a pardon because they know what these people have done and they should be investigated. If the judicial system is good enough for President Trump, it's good enough for these people too.

Why does the pardon go back to 2014? What happened then?

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

The pardon Hunter got was the same Ford gave Nixon. So it's an unprecedented pardon for a non President

---

Cool! Unless you're suddenly neck-deep in MAGA conspiracy world, do you think what Trump is planning to do with the Justice Department is unprecedented?

---

let's not do the whataboutism thing. Two things can be true:

1). I can understand why Biden pardoned his son

2) it was an unprecedented pardon in the nations history. That's can be debated without pointing at other shiny objects and yelling "look at that!"

---

This isn't whataboutism at all... it's totally disingenuous to pretend that the two aren't completely connected. You're separating cause and effect, and then hyperventilating about the effect.

If Harris had won, it's extremely unlikely you would have seen an "unprecedented" blanket pardon. At most he would have sprung Hunter out of jail, and even that is debatable given his previous promise.

But Trump won, and made it clear that he would continue to drag Hunter through the mud in any way he could. How exactly can you debate an "unprecedented" pardon without acknowledging the obvious circumstances?

You clearly don't seem particularly bothered by Trump's stated plans for the DoJ. Why is that? And why shouldn't Biden blanket pardon literally everyone to protect them from that bullsh**?

---

We have to set new, terrible precedents so Trump won't set other equally awful precedents!

---

Lol, "equally"... the bothsides-ism that perpetually normalizes these MAGA clowns is truly a marvel.

For the record, Trump issued a couple of "preemptive" pardons himself. Steve Bannon hadn't even gone to trial yet when he was pardoned. And Sheriff Joe Arpaio was preemptively pardoned for "any other offenses that might be charged." So this teeth gnashing about a "terrible precedent" is a little over done. If you're just mad at pardons (which are legal) because a Dem is using them, then maybe call for an end to Presidential pardons.

But yes, apparently we do need preemptive pardons to sidestep Trump setting the ACTUAL awful precedent of a President openly weaponizing the Justice Department. Do you want that to be the new norm?

---

ah, this would be the same argument Ive heard every 4 years since 2008. So, I think his 2nd AG pick is good and considering the alternative of Gaetz or Paxton I'm confident we will have a competent leader there. Lash Patel is a nutcase. You have to understand the bureaucracy in order to fix it and he's not patient enough or smart enough to have an effect

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

The pardon Hunter got was the same Ford gave Nixon. So it's an unprecedented pardon for a non President

---

Cool! Unless you're suddenly neck-deep in MAGA conspiracy world, do you think what Trump is planning to do with the Justice Department is unprecedented?

---

let's not do the whataboutism thing. Two things can be true:

1). I can understand why Biden pardoned his son

2) it was an unprecedented pardon in the nations history. That's can be debated without pointing at other shiny objects and yelling "look at that!"

---

This isn't whataboutism at all... it's totally disingenuous to pretend that the two aren't completely connected. You're separating cause and effect, and then hyperventilating about the effect.

If Harris had won, it's extremely unlikely you would have seen an "unprecedented" blanket pardon. At most he would have sprung Hunter out of jail, and even that is debatable given his previous promise.

But Trump won, and made it clear that he would continue to drag Hunter through the mud in any way he could. How exactly can you debate an "unprecedented" pardon without acknowledging the obvious circumstances?

You clearly don't seem particularly bothered by Trump's stated plans for the DoJ. Why is that? And why shouldn't Biden blanket pardon literally everyone to protect them from that bullsh**?

---

We have to set new, terrible precedents so Trump won't set other equally awful precedents!

---

Lol, "equally"... the bothsides-ism that perpetually normalizes these MAGA clowns is truly a marvel.

For the record, Trump issued a couple of "preemptive" pardons himself. Steve Bannon hadn't even gone to trial yet when he was pardoned. And Sheriff Joe Arpaio was preemptively pardoned for "any other offenses that might be charged." So this teeth gnashing about a "terrible precedent" is a little over done. If you're just mad at pardons (which are legal) because a Dem is using them, then maybe call for an end to Presidential pardons.

But yes, apparently we do need preemptive pardons to sidestep Trump setting the ACTUAL awful precedent of a President openly weaponizing the Justice Department. Do you want that to be the new norm?

---

ah, this would be the same argument Ive heard every 4 years since 2008. So, I think his 2nd AG pick is good and considering the alternative of Gaetz or Paxton I'm confident we will have a competent leader there. Lash Patel is a nutcase. You have to understand the bureaucracy in order to fix it and he's not patient enough or smart enough to have an effect

---

Don't underestimate Kash Patel's experience with the bureaucracy.. He is the guy that completely dismantled the Russia hoax debacle…

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

The pardon Hunter got was the same Ford gave Nixon. So it's an unprecedented pardon for a non President

---

Cool! Unless you're suddenly neck-deep in MAGA conspiracy world, do you think what Trump is planning to do with the Justice Department is unprecedented?

---

let's not do the whataboutism thing. Two things can be true:

1). I can understand why Biden pardoned his son

2) it was an unprecedented pardon in the nations history. That's can be debated without pointing at other shiny objects and yelling "look at that!"

---

This isn't whataboutism at all... it's totally disingenuous to pretend that the two aren't completely connected. You're separating cause and effect, and then hyperventilating about the effect.

If Harris had won, it's extremely unlikely you would have seen an "unprecedented" blanket pardon. At most he would have sprung Hunter out of jail, and even that is debatable given his previous promise.

But Trump won, and made it clear that he would continue to drag Hunter through the mud in any way he could. How exactly can you debate an "unprecedented" pardon without acknowledging the obvious circumstances?

You clearly don't seem particularly bothered by Trump's stated plans for the DoJ. Why is that? And why shouldn't Biden blanket pardon literally everyone to protect them from that bullsh**?

---

We have to set new, terrible precedents so Trump won't set other equally awful precedents!

---

Lol, "equally"... the bothsides-ism that perpetually normalizes these MAGA clowns is truly a marvel.

For the record, Trump issued a couple of "preemptive" pardons himself. Steve Bannon hadn't even gone to trial yet when he was pardoned. And Sheriff Joe Arpaio was preemptively pardoned for "any other offenses that might be charged." So this teeth gnashing about a "terrible precedent" is a little over done. If you're just mad at pardons (which are legal) because a Dem is using them, then maybe call for an end to Presidential pardons.

But yes, apparently we do need preemptive pardons to sidestep Trump setting the ACTUAL awful precedent of a President openly weaponizing the Justice Department. Do you want that to be the new norm?

---

ah, this would be the same argument Ive heard every 4 years since 2008. So, I think his 2nd AG pick is good and considering the alternative of Gaetz or Paxton I'm confident we will have a competent leader there. Lash Patel is a nutcase. You have to understand the bureaucracy in order to fix it and he's not patient enough or smart enough to have an effect

---

Lol, so you think the FBI needs to be "fixed"? And that Trump's retribution talk is just the same old thing?

I think I get it now.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

The pardon Hunter got was the same Ford gave Nixon. So it's an unprecedented pardon for a non President

---

Cool! Unless you're suddenly neck-deep in MAGA conspiracy world, do you think what Trump is planning to do with the Justice Department is unprecedented?

---

let's not do the whataboutism thing. Two things can be true:

1). I can understand why Biden pardoned his son

2) it was an unprecedented pardon in the nations history. That's can be debated without pointing at other shiny objects and yelling "look at that!"

---

This isn't whataboutism at all... it's totally disingenuous to pretend that the two aren't completely connected. You're separating cause and effect, and then hyperventilating about the effect.

If Harris had won, it's extremely unlikely you would have seen an "unprecedented" blanket pardon. At most he would have sprung Hunter out of jail, and even that is debatable given his previous promise.

But Trump won, and made it clear that he would continue to drag Hunter through the mud in any way he could. How exactly can you debate an "unprecedented" pardon without acknowledging the obvious circumstances?

You clearly don't seem particularly bothered by Trump's stated plans for the DoJ. Why is that? And why shouldn't Biden blanket pardon literally everyone to protect them from that bullsh**?

---

We have to set new, terrible precedents so Trump won't set other equally awful precedents!

---

Lol, "equally"... the bothsides-ism that perpetually normalizes these MAGA clowns is truly a marvel.

For the record, Trump issued a couple of "preemptive" pardons himself. Steve Bannon hadn't even gone to trial yet when he was pardoned. And Sheriff Joe Arpaio was preemptively pardoned for "any other offenses that might be charged." So this teeth gnashing about a "terrible precedent" is a little over done. If you're just mad at pardons (which are legal) because a Dem is using them, then maybe call for an end to Presidential pardons.

But yes, apparently we do need preemptive pardons to sidestep Trump setting the ACTUAL awful precedent of a President openly weaponizing the Justice Department. Do you want that to be the new norm?

---

ah, this would be the same argument Ive heard every 4 years since 2008. So, I think his 2nd AG pick is good and considering the alternative of Gaetz or Paxton I'm confident we will have a competent leader there. Lash Patel is a nutcase. You have to understand the bureaucracy in order to fix it and he's not patient enough or smart enough to have an effect

---

Lol, so you think the FBI needs to be "fixed"? And that Trump's retribution talk is just the same old thing?

I think I get it now.

---

no, that is Patels stated goal is to "fix" the FBI. Do I think there have been some questionable things happening? Yes. Do I think we should get rid of the agency or there's this rotten to the core deep state evil in the FBI? That's a big no.

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

The pardon Hunter got was the same Ford gave Nixon. So it's an unprecedented pardon for a non President

---

Cool! Unless you're suddenly neck-deep in MAGA conspiracy world, do you think what Trump is planning to do with the Justice Department is unprecedented?

---

let's not do the whataboutism thing. Two things can be true:

1). I can understand why Biden pardoned his son

2) it was an unprecedented pardon in the nations history. That's can be debated without pointing at other shiny objects and yelling "look at that!"

---

This isn't whataboutism at all... it's totally disingenuous to pretend that the two aren't completely connected. You're separating cause and effect, and then hyperventilating about the effect.

If Harris had won, it's extremely unlikely you would have seen an "unprecedented" blanket pardon. At most he would have sprung Hunter out of jail, and even that is debatable given his previous promise.

But Trump won, and made it clear that he would continue to drag Hunter through the mud in any way he could. How exactly can you debate an "unprecedented" pardon without acknowledging the obvious circumstances?

You clearly don't seem particularly bothered by Trump's stated plans for the DoJ. Why is that? And why shouldn't Biden blanket pardon literally everyone to protect them from that bullsh**?

---

We have to set new, terrible precedents so Trump won't set other equally awful precedents!

---

Lol, "equally"... the bothsides-ism that perpetually normalizes these MAGA clowns is truly a marvel.

For the record, Trump issued a couple of "preemptive" pardons himself. Steve Bannon hadn't even gone to trial yet when he was pardoned. And Sheriff Joe Arpaio was preemptively pardoned for "any other offenses that might be charged." So this teeth gnashing about a "terrible precedent" is a little over done. If you're just mad at pardons (which are legal) because a Dem is using them, then maybe call for an end to Presidential pardons.

But yes, apparently we do need preemptive pardons to sidestep Trump setting the ACTUAL awful precedent of a President openly weaponizing the Justice Department. Do you want that to be the new norm?

---

ah, this would be the same argument Ive heard every 4 years since 2008. So, I think his 2nd AG pick is good and considering the alternative of Gaetz or Paxton I'm confident we will have a competent leader there. Lash Patel is a nutcase. You have to understand the bureaucracy in order to fix it and he's not patient enough or smart enough to have an effect

---

Lol, so you think the FBI needs to be "fixed"? And that Trump's retribution talk is just the same old thing?

I think I get it now.

---

no, that is Patels stated goal is to "fix" the FBI. Do I think there have been some questionable things happening? Yes. Do I think we should get rid of the agency or there's this rotten to the core deep state evil in the FBI? That's a big no.

---

Defang them if they're not abolished. Strictly limit their arrest powers and force them to go through state and county law enforcement for most arrests. Completely abolish ATF, their purposes are redundant, the the alcohol and tobacco thing can be rolled under the IRS, since that's revenue related.

Oldsouljer said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

The pardon Hunter got was the same Ford gave Nixon. So it's an unprecedented pardon for a non President

---

Cool! Unless you're suddenly neck-deep in MAGA conspiracy world, do you think what Trump is planning to do with the Justice Department is unprecedented?

---

let's not do the whataboutism thing. Two things can be true:

1). I can understand why Biden pardoned his son

2) it was an unprecedented pardon in the nations history. That's can be debated without pointing at other shiny objects and yelling "look at that!"

---

This isn't whataboutism at all... it's totally disingenuous to pretend that the two aren't completely connected. You're separating cause and effect, and then hyperventilating about the effect.

If Harris had won, it's extremely unlikely you would have seen an "unprecedented" blanket pardon. At most he would have sprung Hunter out of jail, and even that is debatable given his previous promise.

But Trump won, and made it clear that he would continue to drag Hunter through the mud in any way he could. How exactly can you debate an "unprecedented" pardon without acknowledging the obvious circumstances?

You clearly don't seem particularly bothered by Trump's stated plans for the DoJ. Why is that? And why shouldn't Biden blanket pardon literally everyone to protect them from that bullsh**?

---

We have to set new, terrible precedents so Trump won't set other equally awful precedents!

---

Lol, "equally"... the bothsides-ism that perpetually normalizes these MAGA clowns is truly a marvel.

For the record, Trump issued a couple of "preemptive" pardons himself. Steve Bannon hadn't even gone to trial yet when he was pardoned. And Sheriff Joe Arpaio was preemptively pardoned for "any other offenses that might be charged." So this teeth gnashing about a "terrible precedent" is a little over done. If you're just mad at pardons (which are legal) because a Dem is using them, then maybe call for an end to Presidential pardons.

But yes, apparently we do need preemptive pardons to sidestep Trump setting the ACTUAL awful precedent of a President openly weaponizing the Justice Department. Do you want that to be the new norm?

---

ah, this would be the same argument Ive heard every 4 years since 2008. So, I think his 2nd AG pick is good and considering the alternative of Gaetz or Paxton I'm confident we will have a competent leader there. Lash Patel is a nutcase. You have to understand the bureaucracy in order to fix it and he's not patient enough or smart enough to have an effect

---

Lol, so you think the FBI needs to be "fixed"? And that Trump's retribution talk is just the same old thing?

I think I get it now.

---

no, that is Patels stated goal is to "fix" the FBI. Do I think there have been some questionable things happening? Yes. Do I think we should get rid of the agency or there's this rotten to the core deep state evil in the FBI? That's a big no.

---

Defang them if they're not abolished. Strictly limit their arrest powers and force them to go through state and county law enforcement for most arrests. Completely abolish ATF, their purposes are redundant, the the alcohol and tobacco thing can be rolled under the IRS, since that's revenue related.

---

Lol, so defund the police? Man, your Mob-Boss-in-Chief has done a number on you guys.

#Nappy and #Sieve's fight for the castration of minor children continues before the SCOTUS.

Sterilizing minor children before the age of consent is deeply wrong and many who had surgery now greatly regret it. https://t.co/kQPVrVO8AW

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 4, 2024

That sphincter seems to be tightening up for ole Obama........not so smooth and confident anymore. Might have some concerns now. But what the heck he's had that sphincter hit hard by the 'hung like a mule' BIG Mike a number of times so I be the can handle it.

Joe Biden seems to be rubbing off on Obama.. 😬 pic.twitter.com/YKbsJkwzLG

— Shipwreck (@shipwreckshow) December 6, 2024

Let this sink in...Trump was impeached for trying to investigate all the crimes that Joe Biden just pardoned Hunter over.

— The Thrill 🇺🇲 (@PhinPhil) December 2, 2024

What does #daNappy think about the benefits of his Biden/Kamala open borders? He's all good with it, certainly.

How boucha #SIeve?

Wow- sounds like Democrat New York City Mayor Eric Adams feels freed from the Biden/Harris coercion now that Trump has won.

“We should all be angry at what happened to our city under this administration.” pic.twitter.com/cAp1REBtJY

— 👉M-Û-R-Č-H👈 (@TheEXECUTlONER_) December 6, 2024