Crime Joe pardons Hunter

[koquerelle]

It was relevant regarding hacks, Ukraine and CTers. I assume he was talking about Rogan, tbh.

He's talking about anyone who has doubts about the Bidens' relationship with Ukraine.

Some people have questions about the years of the blanket pardon Joe gave his son. Jack is outraged because he's a hack. "You should never ask any question about your team."

I think Joe is not taking any chance because he knows Trump is a vindictive, petty asshole. Hunter was put under a microscope and they didn't find much. I think the Bidens were unethical with the phone calls, but they didn't do anything illegal.

The Republicans are whining, but they were quiet when Bush Jr, Cheney, Ivanka and Kushner did shady deals. Let's not forget Bush Jr was the idiot son with no qualifications who got high paying jobs with companies.

 

[KOByFootStomp]

As a Trump voter and a republican . I have zero issue with the Hunter pardon. A. I'm a father
B. I would of done same

I don't think most of us republicans would have had a big issue with the pardon if Biden didn't flat out lie about it and then have the left parroting that 'nobody is above the law', and trying to act like they had the moral high ground. If he would have just said "no comment" or "I won't speak on an ongoing investigation" when asked it would have come off as far less shady. The fact that he gave him a blanket pardon all the way back 10 years, right before Hunter started doing business in Ukraine makes it pretty obvious they are covering up something more that the gun and tax charges though. Democrats know that Trump was on to the Biden's, that's why they impeached him for looking into it. Democrat voters don't care about corruption though, as long as it's their side taking part.

 

[Darkballs]

Blah, blah, blah. You lied and were too much of a coward to say so. Not going to entertain your tantrum anymore.

Yeah, yeah. The guy giving the excuses and quitting the argument sure is the brave one.

Buddy one day you're going to puzzle out that I don't knock down your stupid questions for the purpose of having you admit defeat. It's enough for me just to educate the room and prevent your spread of any misinformation.

And to that effect, for the 20th time, the reason Joe backdated the pardon was for the very obvious reason of preventing trump from launching baseless investigations like the ones he's promised to launch.

And it doesn't matter if you asked that question 1st, 3rd, or 58th. You were still an idiot for asking it.

 

[White Whale]

Biden's 'Preemptive Pardons' Are an Assault on the Rule of Law | Opinion

If these are ultimately implemented, it would suggest that there is no crime imaginable that a high ranking Democrat could commit worthy of prosecution.

www.newsweek.com

Biden's 'Preemptive Pardons' Once Again Prove That the Democrats' Accusations Are Confessions

President Joe Biden's decision to pardon his son Hunter, after repeatedly promising that he wouldn't, has come under fire this past week. And now, a bombshell report out of Politico alleges that Biden's senior aides are contemplating issuing preemptive pardons to a slew of officials they think might be in the line of fire during President-elect Donald Trump's next term.

Citing senior Democrats familiar with the discussions, Politico reports that "Biden's aides are deeply concerned about a range of current and former officials who could find themselves facing inquiries and even indictments, a sense of alarm which has only accelerated since Trump last weekend announced the appointment of Kash Patel to lead the FBI."

The list of those reportedly being considered for a blanket, preemptive pardon includes Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and former Rep. Liz Cheney, who played active roles in Congress's Jan. 6 Committee, as well as Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was, of course, instrumental in implementing the most unpopular COVID-19 policies and who repeatedly contradicted himself in testimony before Congress.

The very idea of a preemptive pardon is shocking—the exact kind of norm breaking that the Democrats love to accuse Trump of. Think about what a preemptive pardon means: It is a tacit admission that the Democrats believe that Fauci or Schiff committed crimes—that there would be something to find if one went looking—but also that the Democrats will not and would never go looking there. In other words, if Biden issues these blanket pardons, he will be ratifying the idea that was so aptly laid out by Peru's General Óscar Benavides: "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."

It's a complete assault on the rule of law—an admission that the Democrats believe that justice not only is political but should be politicized. It sets an extremely dangerous precedent—from the side constantly yammering on about the dangers posed by Trump to our democracy. I guess we've arrived at the "doing away with the rule of law" stage of defending democracy!

Every accusation from the Democrats is a confession.

Democrats are admitting they committed crimes and used lawfare against Donald Trump with Joe Biden's blanket pardons.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You've said I'm making sleazy accusations against Biden when what I did was say that I think it's possible. Something happened but I'm not certain and it's reasonable to think something did or didn't.

So here you're repeating it. "Something happened." That can't be investigated or anything, and obviously no evidence is required in your mind. As I said, I think most people can instinctively tell that that is wrong, but you don't appear to have that sense.

You called that a sleazy attack and you tried to pretend that I've lies directly about Biden which I haven't.

No, you did, and you know it.

You should be embarrassed, but I understand, your entire world view just lost twice to the worst president in American history and I can see why you might be feeling insecure.

?? Aren't you claiming that you also opposed Trump's election. Couldn't you then make the same dumb attack on yourself?

You have lost a lot of credibility here. I always took you for a sophist but I didn't think you would lie directly and this is twice where you have. I have no respect for you whatsoever

I think it's rather that you do have a lot of respect for me, which is why you feel the need to go this route. But you're just showing more about your character.

 

[Jack V Savage]

These days, quite a lot of western conservatives are pro-Russian. It's a weird situation compared to the 20s-80s. Throughout time, most pro-Russians in the US were liberal commies, or commie-sympathizers. Now, its the complete opposite.

Funny how the world turns.

During that earlier period, leftists saw themselves as being on the fringes of American society, and so they saw our big leftist enemy as an ally (and the far-right had Hitler, Mussolini, and later and for a long time Franco to embrace). Now, it's rightists who are more likely to think that America is not their country and to either embrace an external enemy or want to use chaos as a ladder (though note that there is a contingent of leftists who are also pro-Putin).

 

[Deleted member 577981]

So here you're repeating it. "Something happened." That can't be investigated or anything, and obviously no evidence is required in your mind. As I said, I think most people can instinctively tell that that is wrong, but you don't appear to have that sense.

No, you did, and you know it.

?? Aren't you claiming that you also opposed Trump's election. Couldn't you then make the same dumb attack on yourself?

I think it's rather that you do have a lot of respect for me, which is why you feel the need to go this route. But you're just showing more about your character.

Why don't you quote directly specifically what the sleazy attack is in full and don't cut any words out like how you did above where you left out the thing where I said possibly.

You're such a hack.

Here is the original post in full. No reasonable person could possibly call this a sleazy attack.

"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]

Why don't you quote directly specifically what the sleazy attack is in full and don't cut any words out like how you did above where you left out the thing where I said possibly.

You accusing him of doing "something" or "money laundering" or various other things with no evidence at all.

You're such a hack.

Here is the original post in full. No reasonable person could possibly call this a sleazy attack.

"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".

There was more than one, but yeah, that's something a decent person would be ashamed to have written. And it's similar to you calling me a "hack." Based on what, exactly? In your previous post, you said that "my worldview lost." How is that not just vapor, and how are you not a sophist for saying it?

 

[Deleted member 577981]

You accusing him of doing "something" or "money laundering" or various other things with no evidence at all.

There was more than one, but yeah, that's something a decent person would be ashamed to have written. And it's similar to you calling me a "hack." Based on what, exactly? In your previous post, you said that "my worldview lost." How is that not just vapor, and how are you not a sophist for saying it?

So you are to cowardly to post the quote where I said possibly?

What a liar you are man. Here it is in FULL.

"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."

Go kick rocks man.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So you are to cowardly to post the quote where I said possibly?

What a liar you are man. Here it is in FULL.

No, it's been posting, and you've been saying it in multiple posts. You're still saying it. Your own posts confirm it. You're making false claims because you think it's OK as long as the person you're targeting is in your outgroup.

Go kick rocks man.

Look, I realize that expecting you to behave decently or in accordance with your claimed values is a waste of time. But I can show what you're doing and let you know that you're not actually fooling anyone with your sleazy approach. On that note, I also noticed that you ducked my questions.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

No, it's been posting, and you've been saying it in multiple posts. You're still saying it. Your own posts confirm it. You're making false claims because you think it's OK as long as the person you're targeting is in your outgroup.

Look, I realize that expecting you to behave decently or in accordance with your claimed values is a waste of time. But I can show what you're doing and let you know that you're not actually fooling anyone with your sleazy approach. On that note, I also noticed that you ducked my questions.

Well this will be the fourth time I invite you to quote every single place Jack instead of lying and hoping that some people are partisan and tribal enough to believe you because they want to and not because it's true.

This is the fourth time I've asked so I expect you to come up with those great examples right now.

You won't.

Here is the post you directly called a sleazy attack for everyone to see.

"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."

Go kick rocks man.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well this will be the fourth time I invite you to quote every single place Jack instead of lying and hoping that some people are partisan and tribal enough to believe you because they want to and not because it's true.

What do you even think is a lie? I understand that you're being weasely in your accusations to avoid being checked, but you're still making the accusations, and you have no basis for them. That's what decent people are going to object to. It's not right to just accuse people of horrible crimes because you have some political opposition to them.

Go kick rocks man.

Again, you have been ducking points, and I do not expect any decent behavior from you. I can still point out what you're doing.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

What do you even think is a lie? I understand that you're being weasely in your accusations to avoid being checked, but you're still making the accusations, and you have no basis for them. That's what decent people are going to object to. It's not right to just accuse people of horrible crimes because you have some political opposition to them.

Again, you have been ducking points, and I do not expect any decent behavior from you. I can still point out what you're doing.

I want everyone to notice that I have asked Jack four times to quote the post he is referencing and he jas refused because he's lying directly. He said I made a sleazy attack against Biden and Hunter (post in question quoted below).

All you left leaning people who support him for tribal reasons should stop. This is the post jack said is a sleazy attack. Once I started quoting it for him, he referenced other mysterious posts that he won't quote.


"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 want everyone to notice that I have asked Jack four times to quote the post he is referencing and he jas refused because he's lying directly.

What are you accusing me of lying about?

He said I made a sleazy attack against Biden and Hunter (post in question quoted below).

Yes. Which you did and continue to.

"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."

So even in the post where you are denying making sleazy accusations against Biden, you're making sleazy accusations against him.

And you keep ducking questions. Pure sophistry.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

What are you accusing me of lying about?

Yes. Which you did and continue to.

So even in the post where you are denying making sleazy accusations against Biden, you're

What are you accusing me of lying about?

Yes. Which you did and continue to.

So even in the post where you are denying making sleazy accusations against Biden, you're making sleazy accusations against him.

And you keep ducking questions. Pure sophistry.

this is the fifth time I've asked jack to post where I made a sleazy attack and he has been a coward and ducked it. this is because he is lying and knows it.

just like trump he just lies straight out and repeats it over and over again hoping someone will believe it.

 

[Rob Battisti]

this is the fifth time I've asked jack to post where I made a sleazy attack and he has been a coward and ducked it. this is because he is lying and knows it.

just like trump he just lies straight out and repeats it over and over again hoping someone will believe it.

@Jack V Savage that account bet is still on the table

 

[Deleted member 577981]

@Jack V Savage that account bet is still onis the table

is he backing out of a bet man? that he agreed to?

 

[Rob Battisti]

is he backing out of a bet man? that he agreed to?

No no. I bet him I didn’t personally attack him after he claimed I did

 

[Deleted member 577981]

No no. I bet him I didn’t personally attack him after he claimed I did

Let me guess. He doubles down but won't post the quote?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Let me guess. He doubles down but won't post the quote?

“Are you really denying it?”

Was his response. To which I reiterated my account bet.