Crime Joe pardons Hunter

[Darkballs]

The true and correct answer is that Hunter is the only guy who could directly tie Joe to the influence peddling in Ukraine and China. If Hunter has a blanket pardon, he can never be used to roll on his father.

Now the tricky thing is that now that he has an official pardon, if he were to testify in front of congress, he would not be allowed to take the 5th. If he insisted on taking the 5th anyway, he could still go to jail for contempt of congress.

If only that six-year investigation would have found anything.

Oh well. I guess you'll just have to cope and seethe.

 

[Confucamus]

Hey just checking in. Any thoughts on why it’s backdated?

I love the dancing around that issue.
Expect some more bbbut Trump replies.

This is kind of routine when trying to engage in a debate with Jack. While he is well versed in talking circles and deflecting, he will always run away when you pin him down on a point he doesn't want to address. He did it with me a few weeks ago when he was trying to claim the election wasn't a landslide. As soon as I scrutinized his logic even a little, he stopped answering and just laugh emoji'd at my post.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I think this illustrates the hack mindset perfectly. You're not trying to think through issues. You just see your role as enforcing GOP orthodoxy with social pressure. It's signaling to people who care that if they get out of line, they can expect organized harrassment.

Harassment*

What’s your theory? And what's your theory about how asking the same dumb question over and over makes sense? From my perspective, it just confirms my view that you have a learning disability.

I have no theory. I would love to hear yours.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Harassment*


I have no theory. I would love to hear yours.

Hmm. Neither of us has a theory, but only one is harassing the other about it. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Hmm. Neither of us has a theory, but only one is harassing the other about it. Why do you suppose that is?

Very good. Interesting you don’t have even a slight idea why it’s backdated. Thank you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Very good. Interesting you don’t have even a slight idea why it’s backdated. Thank you.

I notice you didn't answer the question. What else is new, I guess.

 

[Jesus X]

This is uncut pure corruption staight to the vein.

 

[koquerelle]

This is uncut pure corruption straight to the vein.

How is it corruption? The President has a lawful right to do it.

 

[King Joffery]

How is it corruption? The President has a lawful right to do it.

It falls into the Lawful Evil alignment. Technically legal but only the corrupt need to exercise this antiquated law.

 

[koquerelle]

It falls into the Lawful Evil alignment. Technically legal but only the corrupt need to exercise this antiquated law.

Every President uses it. Maybe it's time for a change.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I notice you didn't answer the question. What else is new, I guess.

You calling out when questions are ignored?

 

[Darkballs]

This is kind of routine when trying to engage in a debate with Jack. While he is well versed in talking circles and deflecting, he will always run away when you pin him down on a point he doesn't want to address. He did it with me a few weeks ago when he was trying to claim the election wasn't a landslide. As soon as I scrutinized his logic even a little, he stopped answering and just laugh emoji'd at my post.

You guys have asked the same question over and over and have had about half a dozen people answer it. It's a pretty dumb question, but I'll play along and answer it for the 30th time.

The reason it's "backdated," is because they want to prevent republicans who promised to retaliate with baseless investigations, from initiating any further baseless investigations.

This really wasn't a hard one to figure out guys.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Every President uses it. Maybe it's time for a change.

I don’t have a problem with pardoning for the conviction. I do have a problem with a 10 year blanket unconditional pardon for crimes he hasn’t even been investigated for yet.

 

[koquerelle]

I don’t have a problem with pardoning for the conviction. I do have a problem with a 10 year blanket unconditional pardon for crimes he hasn’t even been investigated for yet.

I do have questions about that, but Trump is a psycho who said he was going to take down people he doesn't like. I want to believe Biden's making sure his son is going to be alright. It might be naïve. I don't know anymore.

I wish I was as brilliant as @Jack V Savage and never had any doubts about my opinions.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

If only that six-year investigation would have found anything.

Oh well. I guess you'll just have to cope and seethe.

I am undecided but I tend to think something was going on and it's not as if tons of investigations fail to prove crimes that really did happen. So I think it's a disingenuous talking point.

If you want to say there's no proof that's completely legitimate, but if anybody tries to use that as a reason to castigate someone who suspects there was foul play, they're going too far.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I do have questions about that, but Trump is a psycho who said he was going to take down people he doesn't like. I want to believe Biden's making sure his son is going to be alright. It might be naïve. I don't know anymore.

I wish I was as brilliant as @Jack V Savage and never had any doubts about my opinions.

Says the guy who never feels compelled to explain his thinking or discuss anything except with personal insults and other thought-stoppers.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I am undecided but I tend to think something was going on and it's not as if tons of investigations fail to prove crimes.) that really did happen. So I think it's a disingenuous talking point.

If you want to say there's no proof that's completely legitimate, but if anybody tries to use that as a reason to castigate someone who suspects there was foul Play, they're going too far.

At one point do you think it's fair to conclude that the evidence doesn't back up your sleazy attacks, though? Is it just a permanent assumption of guilt as long as someone has the wrong letter next to their name, like with Hillary?

 

[koquerelle]

Says the guy who never feels compelled to explain his thinking or discuss anything except with personal insults and other thought-stoppers.

You need to stop the personal insults excuse, hack. You call people dishonest, retarded, etc. You do it every day and you're so delusional you act like you're not doing it.

 

[koquerelle]

At one point do you think it's fair to conclude that the evidence doesn't back up your sleazy attacks, though? Is it just a permanent assumption of guilt as long as someone has the wrong letter next to their name, like with Hillary?

Jack is going to hack. Never any doubt about that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You need to stop the personal insults excuse, hack. You call people dishonest, retarded, etc. You do it every day and you're so delusional you act like you're not doing it.

No, but you are really dishonest (and hateful), and I really think Rob is challenged (I didn't use the word "retarded" but I'd bet he was in special classes for slow kids).

But here I was pointing out that you never lay out your thinking or cite evidence like I do. You just virtually shout at people who dare to disagree with you about anything. I think that is indicative of an unhealthy and delusional level of certainty in your views. You think that me laying out my thinking clearly indicates too much certainty, but it's actually humility.