Joe Biden 2024 thread - Dark Brandon Where Art Thou?

[PRONG HORN 3166]

2 hours ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

biden just completely undid his legacy in my eyes. what a corrupt fuck face 

 

 

You mean it wasn't the endless child fondling or incest that did it for you?

 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13539]

There was always a zero percent chance that Biden wasn’t going to pardon Hunter.

what president is going to walk out of the office without protecting their child?

[PRONG HORN 3166]

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

There was always a zero percent chance that Biden wasn’t going to pardon Hunter.

what president is going to walk out of the office without protecting their child?

 

Joe was protecting himself just as much if not more.  The pardon starts Jan 1, 2014 up to today.  Everything illegal Joe did through Hunter is also protected now.  

 

 

[workswithseed 2139]

People will whip themselves over this, but this is just an obvious move. 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13539]

My main question is why now. It could just be a thought of “sooner rather than later” is preferred politically but I’m not sure I see the benefit. Or who knows, maybe Biden realizes that it’s not impossible that he could pass even within the next 2 months.

was something coming up soon with Hunters case that would put him in prison soon?

as far as why pardon Hunter, Hunter is a POS. I have no doubt he committed more crimes that could easily be discovered in the next few years under a Trump doj. 

[Enchubben 5555]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

There was always a zero percent chance that Biden wasn’t going to pardon Hunter.

what president is going to walk out of the office without protecting their child?

This. There was also no need to lie repeatedly about it for months. 

[Willfully Horn 8087]

A pardon carries the presumption of guilt, does it not? If Hunter is guilty, then fucking admit he is guilty, and underscore that accepting a pardon carries an admission of guilt. Drive that message, and roast Hunter while doing so.

[TwiceHorn 31677]

20 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

A pardon carries the presumption of guilt, does it not? If Hunter is guilty, then fucking admit he is guilty, and underscore that accepting a pardon carries an admission of guilt. Drive that message, and roast Hunter while doing so.

No.

As to January 2014, the most common and "default" federal criminal statute of limitations is five years.  The second most common is none, but reserved for homicides, sex crimes, and terrorism.  The third most common is between 5 and 10 years.

So this might seem to be calculated to snag all crimes for which limitations has not run.

Edited 24 minutes ago by TwiceHorn

[Willfully Horn 8087]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No.

You’re a bummer. I guess the SCOTUS saying, in 1915, that acceptance of a pardon carries the admission of guilt no longer makes the matter clear. Color me surprised.

[TwiceHorn 31677]

9 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

You’re a bummer. I guess the SCOTUS saying, in 1915, that acceptance of a pardon carries the admission of guilt no longer makes the matter clear. Color me surprised.

Well, it's a classic case of "obiter dictum."  The question presented in Burdick was whether an unconditional pardon needs to be accepted to be effective.  The prior case of Wilson had established that a conditional pardon must be accepted to be effective, that is, the conditions complied with.

So, the question of guilt, implied, assumed or presumed (presumed in law has a special meaning, it's a substitute for proof), was not before the court.

In speculating why a pardon recipient might wish to reject a pardon, and discussing how a pardon differs from other forms of "clemency," that are effective regardless of acceptance,  the court referred to the "imputation" of guilt and that acceptance might constitute admission or confession of guilt.   Wilson had similarly speculated that the conditions of compliance of a conditional pardon might be more onerous than the penalties for the crime, at least in the eyes of the defendant.

So, the language of the court was not needed to reach its holding and is thus "obiter dictum," and may be ignored.