this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
41 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10192 readers
66 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
Gaywallet@beehaw.org
JuBe@beehaw.org
JCPhoenix@beehaw.org
kalanggam@beehaw.org
circularfish@beehaw.org
knokelmaat@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
41
Of Course Joe Biden Was Right to Pardon His Son (www.thenation.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by tardigrada@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

[When I read the title I was not sure whether to agree or disagree, but the rationale and arguments in the text are very valid imo.]

Archived version

People need to stop asking Democrats to play by different rules than Republicans, and they need to stop asking Biden to be a worse father than any of us would be in his place.

[...]

Biden’s detractors argue that his use of the pardon for Hunter somehow cedes the mythical “high ground” to Trump and clears the way for him to pardon the January 6 terrorists.

Fundamentally, these pundits are committing the same mistake that has plagued American media for at least a decade: demanding that Democrats play by a set of rules that Republicans have long rejected. And I am tired of it.

[...]

Trump will have all the power soon, and we don’t have to guess how he’ll use the pardon power, because he’s already used it for his own, corrupt ends. You know what’s “worse” and more corrupt than pardoning your family members? Pardoning your criminal coconspirators. That’s what Trump did [...] the list of Trump’s pardons from his first term [...]includes his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who lied for Trump to the FBI; former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, who lied for Trump to the Robert Mueller investigation; lawyer Alex Van Der Zwaan, who lied to Mueller; dirty trickster Roger Stone, who literally tampered with witnesses; and Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who was engaged in an international conspiracy to obstruct justice and commit tax fraud.

[The article goes on with some more 'Trump pardons'.]

The problem I’m supposed to care about is that Democrats have abandoned some ephemeral high ground that would have allowed them to object to Trump’s pardons of terrorists. Who are these people who think that bitching from a slightly elevated position is more effective at restraining raw political and military power? Do they also think there are magical bears out there who shit rainbows and that we can overcome authoritarian regimes with the power of friendship?

If institutionalists would really like to have an institutional solution to the problem, I have one: The pardon power is anachronistic bullshit and should be stricken from the Constitution.

[...]

Presidents (and governors) should not have the power to overturn convictions based on their feelings. If the justice system gets it wrong (as it does all the time), there should be a process freely and equally available to all to reverse convictions, without needing to have special access to the thought bubbles of the most powerful political figure in the land.

[...]

People need to stop asking Democrats to play by different rules than Republicans, and they for sure need to stop asking Biden to be a worse father than any of us would be in his situation.

This is a good pardon. Trump’s pardons were bad and will be again. If you can’t spot the difference between pardoning your son who was persecuted because of your job versus pardoning your criminal coconspirators or pardoning terrorists who attacked the Capitol at your request, you should take your head out of your ass.

all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] droporain@lemmynsfw.com 44 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't want them to play by the same rules as Republicans, I want them to fucking hold the Republicans accountable for not playing by the rules.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

This.

Your criminals are dragging our ratfuck conservatives down with them. It's shifting our politics toward a meaner, dirtier way of doing things, and I think we should avoid that.

It's hard to call out the selfish conservatives and hold them to an actual answer when they can whine about mean press and such rotten badgering for the smallest tidbit.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I've said this before, but this article is a complete straw man. I'm not saying he's ceding the moral high ground or whatever. I'm saying that if he's willing to do this, he should be going many steps further. The issue is that he's now shown that he's willing to go back on promises/use his office for personal gain (I don't care if you think it's justified, this is personal gain regardless). If he's willing to do that I'd love to see him try and make my life better before he lets his and his party's decisions ruin it. This is realistically the only way he or his family would suffer under Trump and he waves it away with a pen. I don't want him to suffer under Trump, but I also don't want ANYONE to suffer under Trump. He could be doing much more to make that the case. If he's garnering hate/no longer has the moral high ground, he could at least use it to fight dirty for OUR rights, since Trump will be so willing to fight dirty against our rights. People are making this seem like it's about something it's not so they can whitewash this act and treat anyone holding Biden accountable like a child. I don't want him to be a bad father. I'd just like him to be a better president.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The question is not whether it's personal gain. The question is whether pardoning someone after unjust prosecution is reasonable, and it is.

I also agree that he should be doing more, but nobody seriously expected he'd magically change on this topic, after all these decades in national politics.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 4 points 2 weeks ago

I literally just explained what "the question" is and yet you respond with a straw man. I am telling you right now I do not care if his actions are reasonable. I care if he only takes them to protect himself.

The media is making this about respectability politics, and if it's "reasonable". No one I know in real life or that I follow/speak with online cares that it was done. Only that he did it and stopped there. Kinda feels like you didn't read my comment?

Also, I would suggest that considering he said he wouldn't do it, it's relatively reasonable to hold him to his word. If he thought it was unjust prosecution he should have said as much before the pardon, instead of insisting he believes in our judicial system up until the last second. If you want to bring up that there was a plea deal that was changed, I will gladly remind you that unjust prosecution and unjust sentencing are different things.

I don't know what you mean by magically changing on this topic? He did change on this topic by going against his stated intention?

Regardless, this whole thing stinks of "the only moral abortion is my abortion". Plenty of people are unjustly prosecuted and sentenced and I would love to have seen him take this opportunity to at least remind people of judicial capture and that we have to stay vigilant to protect people from the harms that may come from that. But no he just said my son only. As though just that one person is suffering due to political stunts.

I know he doesn't actually care about Gaza or kids in cages, or people going hungry, but it would have been nice to get something from the guy while he's a lame duck making decisions that are politically unpopular, but since we're not related I guess not.

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

He’s an old man with no more fucks to give. 80 yr old energy is its own thing and it can be glorious. Biden wields it publicly on occasion. There is impulsivity to 80 yr old energy.

I think this act was simply that. Biden wanted to spend Christmas with his boy and had the means to make that happen. He’d just missed Thanksgiving with his boy. I can’t imagine that didn’t impact his decision.

[–] thebardingreen@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

80 yr old energy is its own thing and it can be glorious.

A buddy of mine has a story about how his great grandma told him "When you're old, you can do whatever you want," and then tripped his shitty, obnoxious cousin who'd been bullying him and picking on him all day and said "Stop being mean to your cousin dear."

When the cousin's mom came to see why he was freaking out, he said "Grandmom tripped me!" And his mom said, "Oh honey, you know Grandmom doesn't see very well..."

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

Exactly. There are many great stories like this.

[–] Midnitte@beehaw.org 6 points 2 weeks ago

Not just that, but it also wipes the slate clean.

Repungants can't go on and on about Hunters ~~fat dick pics~~ crimes if he's pardoned.

I'd also like to believe there's a difference between lying to yourself and the government about being addicted and tax fraud, versus trying to overthrow the government violently.

[–] ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What a great opinion piece. I couldn’t agree more with the author and hope democrats putting the gop feet to the fire. No reason why democrats have to be the “nice guys” always. Fuck that. I am just so tired of hypocrisy is this country and I’m even more sick of MAGA.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago

The reason is clear, of course. Corporate Democrats don't want substantive reform in Washington, so they act sad but never take real steps to solve the problems we elect them to solve.

[–] Eggyhead@fedia.io 6 points 2 weeks ago

Americans elected Trump, so of course they’re cool with this kind of behavior. They’ve proven it. Biden is all but free to pardon whoever he damn well pleases at this point. No one will stop Trump from doing it.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ten years ago, something this raw wouldn't have been published. This is a fascinating take on how far the media have moved, but also society in general. And this also feels like that rare time where a columnist wrote the hed.

We live in an era where Nazis feel free to go nazi-ing and a CEO can be killed in broad daylight. Fixating on a pardon that was only necessary because of who someone's dad is ... is frankly absurd.

But the pardon power granted by the Constitution is not the problem. Yes, Trump will use it in all manner of terrible ways, but the problem here isn't in the text, it's in the modern context. When you elect a convicted felon president, the system has already failed.

I'm reminded of the SNL ad where they said something like "and the NFL is on Fox." Pretty sure they also predicted Trump becoming president, and, well ... no, you cant have two different sets of rules. But for those who came in late, the justice system exists to protect the powerful from the measly plebs.

This is a conversation to have, but it isn't the right one.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Ten years ago, something this raw wouldn’t have been published. This is a fascinating take on how far the media have moved, but also society in general. And this also feels like that rare time where a columnist wrote the hed.

The Rolling Stone, Playboy (back in the day), and more modern publications like The Root have been publishing shit this raw for a long time.

Gonzo. Fucking. Journalism.

We need to bring it to the forefront again. Fuck the false equivalency bullshit and pretending to be unbiased in a world that is more biased and blatant than ever! Fuck the New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, and all of the other bullshitters that ride that moderate fenceline like it gets them off. Their opponents at NY Post, Fox News, Daily Fail, NewsMax, Daily Caller, and SuperEagleJesusConservativeNews.ru certainly do not give a shit about moderation or maintaining some form of unbiasedness. They only care about getting their propaganda out there to their base in the most consumable way possible.

HST figured this out 50 years ago. There's no such thing as "being unbiased". The best thing you can do is give out your raw, truthful opinion on the state of the world and hope that enough people listen to it.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's fair. Not a lot of people read Playboy for the articles.

I was more referring to this sort of coverage moving over to The Nation. When it hits The Economist, things will be set right, but even they will have to reconsider neoliberalism. What struck me is that I have written this sort of piece before ... I want to have a beer with this guy, as he speaks with my voice. Throat-clearing and all. The cadence is uncanny.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

I want to have a beer with this guy, as he speaks with my voice. Throat-clearing and all. The cadence is uncanny.

How do you think people like George Bush or Trump got elected?

The smarter and more-educated journalists out there need to figure out how not to always turn on their aloofness and find better ways to just relate to their audience.

Again, HST figured this out 50 years ago.