100%. I'm not buying into this bull shit "be outraged about this" campaign. Trump is a felon rapist and going into the WH again after a terrible first term and he's stacking his admin with unqualified loyalists. I don't care if Hunter was pardoned and no one else should either.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Indeed, it's just the Right Wing Media giving us more "It's only wrong when Democrats do it" bullshit.

The real story shouldn't even be "Biden protects son from Partisan Witchhunt" it should be "Trump returns to White House despite the 14th Amendment saying he can't."

[–] BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

it should be "Trump returns to White House despite the 14th Amendment saying he can't."

I agree, if only there had been someone in charge of a government agency with the mandate to go after people like that, using a system of laws and justice, administered in some kind of court... Ideally someone the offender didn't appoint themselves, with a time period of roughly, idk, 4 years to get it done?

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

TRUMP runs on ethnic clensing, claims he won't project 2025, wins, immediately puts authors of 2025 in every key position. Convicted of over 30 felonies, convicted rapist, says ''there will be some hardship'' while selling is economic strategies that will destroy US economy, wants to stop billions a day in trade from Mexico. Refuses to appoint anyone that can pass a background check. Decides he doesn't need to even PRETEND hell be lawful and ethical, caught on hot mic taking about disarming citizens. .

soft to no press coverage . Biden pardons his son. .
entire newscycle every day dedicated to the ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE this grievous crime is. Now the Presidential office is forever tainted.... . It's hard to even grasp how deeply loyal to Trump these institutions are.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago

Especially since Hunter Biden was unfairly targeted just for being Joe's son, and it's clear the things he's guilty of are clear examples of selective enforcement.

Anyone paying even the slightest attention just saw a father who was there for his son in his time of need.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It totally and completely is. I mean, it's immoral and shitty, it's a rich white person getting off because of connections, but that's par for the course. It is expected. The annoying thing though, is the hypocrisy of a lot of the posters here. If Trump did something like this, they would be up in arms about how undemocratic and banana republic-like this all is. And this childish Harry Potter morality which determines how bad a thing is not by looking at the thing itself and its consequences but by looking at who's doing the thing really gets to me.

[–] chimasterflex@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Seriously, who cares? Voting this year showed everyone no one fucking cares. If you really care about punishing those who committed crimes, go after the convicted felon that will never see a day in prison. Get over it

[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

And there are tens of thousands of people in that exact position but didn't get pardoned because they don't have that last name.

Like, he could have blanked pardoned that particular crime in general, but I presume that would have been too much paperwork and might have been too close to actually doing something good for his people.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

Like, he could have blanked pardoned that particular crime in general, but I presume that would have been too much paperwork and might have been too close to actually doing something good for his people.

I have nothing to add to this, I agree

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Find me a case of another person being charged with purchasing a gun while being addicted to a drug. Or better yet tens of thousands. You might find someone arrested for attempting to buy a gun while on drugs, but none that reviewed their past logs and tried to find out they were possibly addicted at the time of a purchase of a gun.

It was an investigation that I've never seen anywhere before. Any normal situation and a judge would have dismissed it completely as the person was not on drugs at the time of the charge, nor harmed/threatened anyone with the gun

Note: several judges stated such laws were unconstitutional during the years of the investigation, so any Republican supporting it must admit that States have the right to restrict any and all gun purchases for any and all reasons as the constitution states no such laws pertaining to addiction over lap and gun purchases... Or the law cannot support that case

Sidebar: whatever he did with taxes if it was unlawful and others do get charged with it, sure he should be charged