Hunter Biden GUILTY! Should Biden pardon his son?

[Lamb]

Hunter Biden was found Guilty...should his father, the President, pardon him?

 

[Josiah]

Hunter Biden was found Guilty...

An unavoidable verdict.

should his father, the President, pardon him?

No.


.

 

[Albion]

There's usually at least some kind of talking point suggesting that a pardon makes sense--advanced age, repentance, ignorance of the law, previous service to the nation, something.

What would it be in Hunter's case?

 

[Lees]

Hunter Biden was found Guilty...should his father, the President, pardon him?

He won't have to. Hunter will never be sentenced. Things have gone on under the table, and are going on under the table, to insure no prison time.

Biden cannot pardon Hunter as this is an election year. Plus, how can he pardon Hunter and not Trump? The hypocrisy would be too much.

This whole playing out shows that our judicial system is a joke. No matter what, it's always, 'how much justice can you afford?. Who do you know? Lady justice pulled off those blinders years ago.

My opinion.

Lees

 

[tango]

There's usually at least some kind of talking point suggesting that a pardon makes sense--advanced age, repentance, ignorance of the law, previous service to the nation, something.

What would it be in Hunter's case?

His surname, obviously

 

[tango]

Hunter Biden was found Guilty...should his father, the President, pardon him?

If he did pardon his son it would render the entire justice system more of a joke than it already is.

That said, in fairness, I think it would be appropriate for Hunter to face the lower end of the potential range of the available punishments. He is, it would appear, a first-time offender with no history of violence. We can't be sure why he bought the gun - it could have been for generally lawful self-defense purposes or to initiate violence - but in that regard he has to be granted the same presumption of innocence as the rest of us unless it could be proven that his intentions were to initiate violence.

 

[Albion]

That said, in fairness, I think it would be appropriate for Hunter to face the lower end of the potential range of the available punishments. He is, it would appear, a first-time offender with no history of violence.

That's probably so.

We can't be sure why he bought the gun - it could have been for generally lawful self-defense purposes or to initiate violence - but in that regard he has to be granted the same presumption of innocence as the rest of us unless it could be proven that his intentions were to initiate violence.

About that...

I didn't follow the court proceedings with any particular interest, but I did hear on some network that the law in question had been passed precisely in order to stop people from buying guns when they were on dope. So that would likely make the argument you have outlined here be moot. Hunter himself admitted that he was "using" at the time he bought the gun, as I understand it.

 

[NewCreation435]

No, I don't think he should pardon him. Though I am sure it is tempting to do so

 

[tango]

About that...

I didn't follow the court proceedings with any particular interest, but I did hear on some network that the law in question had been passed precisely in order to stop people from buying guns when they were on dope. So that would likely make the argument you have outlined here be moot. Hunter himself admitted that he was "using" at the time he bought the gun, as I understand it.

I don't dispute the point of the law was to stop people who are using drugs buying guns, and the jury clearly decided he was using drugs when he bought the gun. My point was that he's entitled to the same presumption of innocence regarding his intentions when buying the gun - unless there's specific evidence that he planned to initiate violence with it then he's entitled to be treated as a first-time non-violent offender the same way anyone else would be.

I didn't follow the court proceedings with any particular interest either, and going on headlines about it I'm assuming no evidence was presented beyond proving that he was a drug user at the time he declared he wasn't.

 

[Albion]

I don't dispute the point of the law was to stop people who are using drugs buying guns, and the jury clearly decided he was using drugs when he bought the gun. My point was that he's entitled to the same presumption of innocence regarding his intentions when buying the gun - unless there's specific evidence that he planned to initiate violence with it then he's entitled to be treated as a first-time non-violent offender the same way anyone else would be.

?? He had a presumption of innocence until a jury decided the matter or guilt or innocence.

That's already been decided.

Thus, the Prez cannot easily pardon him by saying that Hunter didn't do what the trial decided that he actually did--which was to buy the gun while using hard drugs. That's irrespective of the reason for him to want to have a gun. And then he also swore that he was acting in accordance with the law that outlawed doing this when he knew that he was not.

 

[tango]

?? He had a presumption of innocence until a jury decided the matter or guilt or innocence.

That's already been decided.

Thus, the Prez cannot easily pardon him by saying that Hunter didn't do what the trial decided that he actually did--which was to buy the gun while using hard drugs. That's irrespective of the reason for him to want to have a gun. And then he also swore that he was acting in accordance with the law that outlawed doing this when he knew that he was not.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here, but agree that Hunter is guilty as charged and shouldn't be pardoned so might as well leave it there.