[mmooss]

I think the point is, Biden said he pardoned his son to prevent political persecution of him by Trump. Biden's fears have been borne out - the Trump administrationg is persecuting Trump's enemies. Does that change your opinion of Biden's pardon?

[dylan604]

Where's the preemptive pardons for Comey, James, Schiff? So no, it's not much of a move of the needle since it was only family members.

[cmurf]

It wasn't only family members. Biden granted clemency or pardons to over 4200 people. Notably for the same blanket pardon from 2014 to 2025 for family members, includes Dr. Anthony Fauci, and General Mark Milley.

And all of the members of Congress on the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack for anything having to do with their role on that committee.

Schiff was on that committee. He said the pardon was unnecessary and unwise.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-granted-president-jos...

[whatsupdog]

At that Biden was the only president who had used DOJ to persecute his predecessor. So basically he started this shit, and when it turned out the other guy won the election, he pardoned his obviously guilty son, and other obviously guilty party members.

[dylan604]

You say persecute yet those without an agenda say investigate. It was not persecution to look into the events of January 6. Conflating the investigation as persecution is not a very honest take on the events.

[whatsupdog]

I'm talking about the NY real estate bs. It was bs, everybody does it, including the prosecutor Letitia James, there were no victims, it was a selective enforcement of a law, the statute of limitations had expired and the prosecutor ran on the promise that she will find something to get Trump.

[spankalee]

You said Biden and DOJ, not NY State. Get your story straight.

[ModernMech]

Biden did not order his DOJ to prosecute anyone. Unlike Trump with Pam Bondi, Biden did not personally direct Merrick Garland, who promised to run the DOJ independently and did -- to the point Garland even prosecuted the President's own son.

The Trump prosecutions were not only warranted, they were insisted by Republicans; the Republican Senators explicitly declined to convict Trump in his second impeachment because they anticipated he would be prosecuted in a court of law for January 6. From Republican Leader Mitch McConnell when he explained his rationale during the 2nd impeachment trial:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-acqu...

  “Former President Trump’s actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty,” added McConnell. “Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.”

  “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one,” he said.

By labeling him as "practically and morally responsible" and then refusing to vote to impeach, explicitly citing our criminal justice system as the appropriate venue for recourse, Mitch McConnell essentially demanded that Biden's DOJ prosecute him for J6.

In refusing to convict Trump on J6, McConnell set the precedent that it is improper to impeach a President if he commits crimes between the Election and the Inauguration as Trump did. According to McConnell, accountability lies in the Courts. If it's true that the incoming administration also cannot prosecute those crimes, then POTUS is essentially immune from any and all accountability under the Constitution, which cannot be the case; POTUS would be able to commit or attempt to commit any crimes he wants between Nov and January 20 at the end of his term, up to and including high crimes like insurrection against the government.

Republicans shirked their Article I duty by refusing to impeach a man they publicly blamed for provoking events which led to the deaths of multiple people. Specifically it was Republican Senators who punted it to the Biden DOJ, which made them Constitutionally bound to prosecute.

[whatsupdog]

I'm talking about the NY real estate bs. It was bs, everybody does it, including the prosecutor Letitia James, there were no victims, it was a selective enforcement of a law, the statute of limitations had expired and the prosecutor ran on the promise that she will find something to get Trump.

[ModernMech]

That case was tried and adjudicated before a court of law, and Trump was convicted on the merits. Trump had the opportunity to argue that the prosecution was selective, vindictive, or otherwise unjust, and his arguments failed.

Obviously he's upset by this outcome, but even if you agree with him, his response has been to burn down the rule of law and the entire concept of justice. Even if you feel he was wronged by James, weaponizing the DOJ against James is not justified by "She started it".

[spankalee]

Are you trying to claim that it's never valid to investigate a former President? What the fuck?

[whatsupdog]

I'm talking about the NY real estate bs. It was bs, everybody does it, including the prosecutor Letitia James, there were no victims, it was a selective enforcement of a law, the statute of limitations had expired and the prosecutor ran on the promise that she will find something to get Trump.