• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Crime Joe pardons Hunter

Jack is going to hack. Never any doubt about that.
See. Your post amounts to "I'm angry because Jack doesn't agree with me 100% of the time." It’s incredibly narcissistic of you to even think anyone would care about that. If you think I'm wrong about something, I always welcome a thoughtful response explaining why.
 
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?
What sleazy attack specifically?

Also what letter? I'm a Democrat ..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This topic is awesome to read. A bunch of democrat reps came out thinking it's wrong, but MSM can't go back on their words and drones lap it up <28>
 
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.
He just called it a sleazy attack that I said it's Ok to SUSPECT that he is guilty even though I said I'm unsure about it...


Soon he will castigate MY personal attacks.
 
See. Your post amounts to "I'm angry because Jack doesn't agree with me 100% of the time." It’s incredibly narcissistic of you to even think anyone would care about that. If you think I'm wrong about something, I always welcome a thoughtful response explaining why.
I'm not angry one bit. You make me laugh. You're a narcissistic asshole who thinks he's never wrong. You're condescending whenever anyone disagrees with you. I'd say look in a mirror, but your enormous ego doesn't allow it.

You're obviously very intelligent. Nobody can deny that. You're just not as intelligent as you think you are. It's an impossible goal because you think you're always right.

You insult sherbros every day, but take offense whenever someone does it. You even take offense when someone uses shades of grey. Why? Because you're a hack.

I once said Trump had a good day and you acted like I justify everything the creep does. How is that normal? Please explain it to me?
 
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.
Show me where I asked that.

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.
You are naive as fuck to believe that, although I'm pretty sure you're only saying that to defend this pardon. More likely there are things they know Hunter did that haven't come to light yet, but would once he had nobody in the White House to cover for him. It's the only reason for a blanket pardon. You don't give a blanket pardon to prevent "baseless" investigations.
 
Judge in Hunter Biden tax case calls president's pardon statement an attempt to 'rewrite history'
U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi said the president's characterization of the charges "stand in tension with the case record."

The judge who presided over the California tax fraud case against Hunter Biden called out the president for mischaracterizing and minimizing the charges against his son in announcing why he was pardoning him.

"The Constitution provides the President with broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history," U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi wrote in a ruling late Tuesday.

An attorney for Hunter Biden had asked the judge to dismiss the indictment against his client in light of President Joe Biden's pardon on Sunday night, but did not initially submit a formal copy of the pardon, and instead sent a link to the president's statement saying that his son had been "selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted" and was the victim of a "miscarriage of justice."

Scarsi said the president’s “representations” in the statement accompanying the pardon “stand in tension with the case record.”

"For example, the President asserts that Mr. Biden 'was treated differently' from others 'who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions,' implying that Mr. Biden was among those individuals who untimely paid taxes due to addiction. But he is not," the judge wrote.

He noted that Hunter Biden had said he “was severely addicted to alcohol and drugs” through "May 2019.”

"Upon pleading guilty to the charges in this case, Mr. Biden admitted that he engaged in tax evasion after this period of addiction by wrongfully deducting as business expenses items he knew were personal expenses, including luxury clothing, escort services, and his daughter’s law school tuition. And Mr. Biden admitted that he 'had sufficient funds available to him to pay some or all of his outstanding taxes when they were due,' but that he did not make payments toward his tax liabilities even 'well after he had regained his sobriety,' instead electing to 'spen[d] large sums to maintain his lifestyle' in 2020," the judge wrote.

Hunter Biden had argued in both cases that he was the victim of selective prosecution, but those claims were rejected by Scarsi and the judge in the Delaware case, Maryellen Noreika. Both are Trump nominees.

"According to the President, '[n]o reasonable person who looks at the facts of [Mr. Biden’s] cases can reach any other conclusion than [Mr. Biden] was singled out only because he is [the President’s] son.'" Scarsi wrote. "But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the President. And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges. In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people."

David Weiss, the special counsel who brought the cases against Hunter Biden, made a similar point in a court filing earlier this week, noting three appeals court panels had rejected the selective prosecution claims as well.

There has "never has been any evidence of vindictive or selective prosecution in this case,” his office's filing said. “In total, eleven (11) different Article III judges appointed by six (6) different presidents, including his father, considered and rejected the defendant’s claims, including his claims for selective and vindictive prosecution.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the judge's remarks.

The judge in Hunter Biden's tax evasion case is calling out Joe for this pardon.

Joe Biden is just trying to protect him and his family’s crimes.
 
Show me where I asked that.

Literally in the post I quoted.

You are naive as fuck to believe that, although I'm pretty sure you're only saying that to defend this pardon. More likely there are things they know Hunter did that haven't come to light yet, but would once he had nobody in the White House to cover for him.

Sure think Susan. You guys already investigated him for six years. Including two years where Trump was still in office and he didn't have anyone in the WH "covering for him." And you still found nothing to substantiate any of your claims. You had to settle for a weak as fuck tax and firearm registration charges, and showing us blown up pictures of his dick on the House floor.

And considering you guys are stepping over a two dozen trump pardons (including those for family members) to cry about pretend crimes that you can't show; no one is really buying this fake outrage.
 
I'm not angry one bit. You make me laugh. You're a narcissistic asshole who thinks he's never wrong. You're condescending whenever anyone disagrees with you. I'd say look in a mirror, but your enormous ego doesn't allow it.

You're obviously very intelligent. Nobody can deny that. You're just not as intelligent as you think you are. It's an impossible goal because you think you're always right.

You insult sherbros every day, but take offense whenever someone does it. You even take offense when someone uses shades of grey. Why? Because you're a hack.

I once said Trump had a good day and you acted like I justify everything the creep does. How is that normal? Please explain it to me?
so are you saying he's the guy at the bar in Good Will Hunting that Matt Damon kindly offered apples to?
 
Literally in the post I quoted.
It literally isn't. Here, I'll help you. Below is my quote that you quoted. Again, show me where I asked Jack that question.
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.

Sure think Susan. You guys already investigated him for six years. Including two years where Trump was still in office and he didn't have anyone in the WH "covering for him." And you still found nothing to substantiate any of your claims. You had to settle for a weak as fuck tax and firearm registration charges, and showing us blown up pictures of his dick on the House floor.

And considering you guys are stepping over a two dozen trump pardons (including those for family members) to cry about pretend crimes that you can't show; no one is really buying this fake outrage.
If they investigated him and couldn't find anything but "bullshit" like you claim, that goes against the notion of a blanket pardon. Do you not see how you're contradicting yourself here?
 
It literally isn't. Here, I'll help you. Below is my quote that you quoted. Again, show me where I asked Jack that question.

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.

Right there. The "point" you keep claiming no one could answer was "Then why as the pardons backdated derpa derpa do!"

Anyone can read the exchange themselves.

If they investigated him and couldn't find anything but "bullshit" like you claim, that goes against the notion of a blanket pardon. Do you not see how you're contradicting yourself here?

No. It cuts against the incoming administrations pledge to continue investigating everyone. Now trumpers can't go back and dig up some decades old shit, like not paying your taxes one year and since making restitution with interest.

This isn't complicated, and there is no need to make up horseshit partisan theories as to why it's happening. Trump investigated Hunter as revenge for his own indictments. And he's promised to do so again to others who've wronged him. So Biden's getting in front of it.

And unless you're going to say that Trump quashing all his criminal cases is proof that he's guilty in all of them, it's retarded to argue that we should be treating the Hunter pardons that way.
 
Right there. The "point" you keep claiming no one could answer was "Then why as the pardons backdated derpa derpa do!"

Anyone can read the exchange themselves.
No, it was not the only point I was referencing. I mentioned another one he avoided too. You made the accusation that I asked Jack that question about the pardon being backdated. Either back this up, or admit you were talking out of your ass. I won't jump all over you if you just man up, bud.


No. It cuts against the incoming administrations pledge to continue investigating everyone. Now trumpers can't go back and dig up some decades old shit, like not paying your taxes one year and since making restitution with interest.
They could actually. They could go back before the 11 year period. So, if what you're saying is true, why didn't Biden just give Hunter a full lifetime pardon then? Why THAT specific period of 11 years? Try answering this honestly.

This isn't complicated, and there is no need to make up horseshit partisan theories as to why it's happening. Trump investigated Hunter as revenge for his own indictments. And he's promised to do so again to others who've wronged him. So Biden's getting in front of it.
But your theory is the horseshit partisan one. It doesn't make sense and you contradicted yourself when trying to explain it away.

And unless you're going to say that Trump quashing all his criminal cases is proof that he's guilty in all of them, it's retarded to argue that we should be treating the Hunter pardons that way.
Trump didn't quash all his criminal cases. They were dropped by the prosecutors.
 
They could actually. They could go back before the 11 year period. So, if what you're saying is true, why didn't Biden just give Hunter a full lifetime pardon then? Why THAT specific period of 11 years? Try answering this honestly.

Well there's only two possible reasons:

1) Hunter and Joe were engaged in a decade of criminal activity that a six-year republican investigation failed to find any evidence of. Nonetheless, Joe decided to tip his hand and hint to the world the exact time period these crimes were committed; or,

2) We have statutes of limitations in this country, you fucking imbecile.
 
Well there's only two possible reasons:

1) Hunter and Joe were engaged in a decade of criminal activity that a six-year republican investigation failed to find any evidence of. Nonetheless, Joe decided to tip his hand and hint to the world the exact time period these crimes were committed; or,

2) We have statutes of limitations in this country, you fucking imbecile.
Your dick tuck is noted and was expected. Next time, just be a man and admit you lied about what I said. Move away from this coward bully role you play here.
 
I'm not angry one bit. You make me laugh.
No, but you're pretending to laugh and rage drips off every response to anyone who dares disagree with you.
You're a narcissistic asshole who thinks he's never wrong. You're condescending whenever anyone disagrees with you. I'd say look in a mirror, but your enormous ego doesn't allow it.
Right, right. I'm glue and you're rubber. Except you won't find any examples to back that stuff up, while you really are unable to just discuss issues like an adult.
I once said Trump had a good day and you acted like I justify everything the creep does. How is that normal? Please explain it to me?
I don't know what you mean by "acted like" but it's not something I said. You're almost as hateful toward Trump defenders as you are to normal people. It's just that anyone who disagrees with you in any direction deserves abusive language in your mind.

BTW, the thread you're referring to is one where you said a speech that included this:

But it is a tremendous thing. It’s a tremendous dinner. I’ve come here with my father. So it was three times, but it was also many times before that a long time ago. And it’s a very special dinner. And you’ve done a fantastic job, Cardinal. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

So I’d like to thank your eminence very much and members of the clergy, so many people I know. Speaker of the House Johnson, what a job you’re doing. He has done a great job. Senator Schumer, good. I supported him. I was, oh, I don’t know. I don’t know. He used to say that’s true, and now I’m not sure he will.

But I gave him his first check from an office in Beach Haven, and I was very proud of it. I don’t know about lately. Now I was. I was. It was his first check. He was running, and I said, he’s a good man. Senator Gillibrand, thank you very much. Thank you very much for working hard.

Was proof of Trump being really sharp. And anyone can look at the thread and see if your characterization of it is honest (hint: no).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top