This is one of those rare instances where I disagree with you, Dan. Not with your historical analysis, but with your position on Hunter Biden's pardon. I look at this way: as you well know, pardons (pre-Harper) have been a part fo the Criminal Code of Canada for several decades (at least) and are automatic once certain conditions have been met. Aside from the obvious injustice of what happened with the DOJ pursuit of Hunter Biden, under the provisions relating to a pardon in Canada (pre-Harper) a conviction for a summary conviction offense (misdemeanor in the U.S.), is to be granted if the person has not been adjudged guilty of committing another offense in the 2 years following completion of the sentence; and if convicted of an indictable offense (felony in the U.S.) 5 years after completion of sentence. I say "per-Harper" because his government amended the Code to change that 5 and 10 years respectively, and change to the term from "pardon" to "record suspension".
Under the system in place in Canada, Hunter Biden would have automatically qualified for a pardon, if not now, then soon.
Recall that, as he was leaving office, President Obama pardoned hundreds of individuals who had been convicted of minor drug offenses and sentenced to disproportionate periods of incarceration. He did not receive the kind of approbation that Biden is now receiving, but of course, none of those he pardoned were related to him.
I submit that whether an individual who is deserving of a pardon is related (or closely associated) with the President is irrelevant - if they are deserving of a pardon it should be granted. and conversely, regardless of a relationship with the President, if they are not deserving of a pardon it should not be granted.
Canadian law is irrelevant. The whole point is that the power of presidential pardon, rather than being used fairly, accordingly to establish procedures -- whatever those procedures may be -- is exercised according to the whims of one man. Which makes a mockery of the rule of law. To put that more bluntly: In a society truly founded on rule of law, the son of the president should be subject to the existing laws and procedures, just as all other Americans are subject to the existing laws and procedures, and receive neither better nor worse treatment.
I sympathize with Biden but, sorry, it's still wrong. Trump threatens to destroy basic norms, including the rule of law. Those norms desperately need to be shored up and protected. This does the opposite, giving Republicans an easy way to belittle and dismiss any criticisms of the coming abuses.
Brad, I think the complaint is that Hunter was pardoned in advance for much, much more serious crimes that he has yet to be tried or even charged with. What Hunter "deserves" isn't a pardon, it is a life sentence or two, to be served consecutively.
Grant, you speak with iron certainty. Why? What are these crimes you speak of and why are you dead sure he committed them and belongs in prison for the rest of his life?
To answer your question more directly, the crimes Hunter should have been tried for include such things soliciting prostitution, drug use and drug trafficking, gun-law violations, child-support fraud, influence peddling, obstruction of justice, lying under oath, etc. I'm sure a creative prosecutor could come up with many others, such as the crimes they pressed against Trump associates in the Russian collusion hoax when there wasn't even any underlying crime... But I assume you have heard all of this many times before, otherwise how could you possibly think you have something valuable to contribute to the discussion? I took it to be common background information.
Unlike Trump's Russian collusion that preoccupied the American government for 4 or 5 years, there is a surfeit of publicly available evidence for Hunter's multiple realms of criminality. If you are unaware at this point, that says about all that is required to assess your credibility on the topic. Even demented Joe knows better than you: that's why he felt it was necessary to issue a proactive pardon, in spite of the serious political downsides that you note in this article.
For the record, I know nothing with iron certainty, Dan. I'm just telling you what I believe a fair and thorough investigation would conclude. If you are deluded enough to think that such an investigation has already been done and has concluded there is nothing to see here, there's no hope for you, I'm afraid. The Democrats have made *everything* in government political; they have politicized the DoJ along with every federal law-enforcement and intelligence agency. That's why 51 "top intelligence experts" lied about the laptop being "Russian disinformation." Do you still believe that lie, too? Oy vey!
Grant, the ratio of substance to insult in your comments is getting worse. Do you realize that time after time, to me and others, you insult and sneer at people simply for disagreeing with you? That helps no one, least of all you. Please stop or I'll block you.
As to the substance here, thank you for clarifying that this is what you think an investigation would reveal. Maybe try saying that next time instead of stating your beliefs as fact?
I'm not insulting anyone, Dan, I'm issuing a warning: if one doesn't know even the basics of the Hunter Biden laptop story - e.g. if one doesn't know how deeply involved the entire state apparatus was in suppressing, discrediting, and dismissing the story - then it is imprudent to comment on it, especially with comments along the lines that there is no there there. Gullibility is the most accurate descriptor I can think of.
Grant, here is a comment you just left here: "Hahahahahaha! Yeah, like the J6 insurrectionists were investigated, I'm sure! You are SO gullible. If what you claim were true, then a prospective pardon would have been pointless. Why did Joe pardon his son in advance if he were legally untouchable? You are SO gullible."
If I opened with sneering laughter and followed it with "you are SUCH a clown" would you agree that would constitute an insult, whatever other substance is in the comment?
I think you would. And you would be right.
Stop being an asshole, Grant. Just make your points.
My main concern is the way Joe Biden is being held to a higher standard than any previous (not to mention incoming) president If the fault is in the Constitution - remedy it. The next administration sure as hell won't. And I wonder why protecting Hunter is any more reprehensible than pardoning actual violent insurrectionists - which Trump has promised to do - especially since Trump and his acolytes have sworn to pursue the Biden family.
You outline here the critical error made by the Founding Fathers. In the president they created an elected monarch who served a fixed four-year term. Later the constitution was modified to make the monarch term limited. It would seem to them that the monarch was not excessively strong. And indeed the 18th century English monarchs WERE weak. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the monarch was clearly playing second fiddle to Parliament. After all, in the 17th century Parliament had deposed two kings and executed one of them.
As the 18th century ran on the powers of the monarch were gradually assumed by Parliament, until by 1837 the monarch was a figurehead. In a real sense George III was the last king of the UK as well as America.
The mistake the Founders made was not seeing that what created the opposition of Parliament and King, which had been a mainstay of the previous four centuries of English history, reflected their differing bases for legitimacy. Parliament became and increasingly elected body, while the monarch inherited their position. This gave the two different bases of power
In America the monarch and Congress were elected and so politicians. They would of course organize into parties as they did in Britain. The Founders, it seems, had naively thought that since they had booted the Tories out of America, leaving only Whiggish types like themselves there was no basis for parties to form and that Congress and the President would continue on the tradition of Parliament vs Monarch opposition allowing each to check each others' powers. In fact they built into the Constitution a whole set of largely useless "checks and balances" all base don the assumption that the three branches of government would be jealous of the other two. The idea of collusion between the branches appears to have not occurred to them. And yet as soon as the new government was established, the collusion began.
For a couple of lifetimes, the president has served as the head of their party, like the PM in Britian. Unlike the PM, he is NOT a creature of Congress and replaceable through an intraparty vote like the House Speaker. The president cannot be removed short of impeachment and conviction, tin which he must be found guilty of some sort of crime. Removal seems to be one of those Congressional powers (like issuing Letters of Marque) that Congress theoretically possesses, but in practice does not employ.
For a lifetime the president has established a program that his party will try to implement if they win. It's right out in the open, the president and members of Congress from his party working together just like the PM does. So much for checks and balances.
Unlike the PM, Congress cannot just replace them if they see it as political advantageous. Otherwise, it would be a no-brainer for Republicans to join Democrats in impeaching and removing Trump in late January 2027, assuming Democrats are stupid enough to fall for this. (I suspect they are)
Were Dems to take the bait, this would replace the lame duck Trump with a vigorous Vance who would be eligible for two more terms, giving the Republicans the three terms in a row that signal a successful Trump-Vance reboot of the Reagan order analogous to the McKinley-Roosevelt reboot of the Lincoln order. The last obstacle to plutocratic rule will have been overcome and the Democratic party cease to exist shortly after. Though I suppose its shards will continue to fight the long defeat.
Absolutely. The list of right-leaning think-tankers and theorists advocating for an imperial presidency, to use the term most often associated with the idea, is very long. It's all public. They're quite explicit. I think we can reasonably assume lots more are sympathetic but unwilling to say so publicly. Some of J.D. Vance's comments strongly suggest he's entirely in this camp. Taken together, there's plenty of reason to think that a significant chunk of what we might call the intellectual right wants an American Caesar.
I promise I’m going to read the rest of the article. Just have to pause here after the first 100 words and do another Victory Lap. Not tired of winning yet!
Joe Biden is a good Dad for pardoning his boy and the whole issue has nothing to do with Trump. Go ahead and shout, ‘Rapist, Racist, Fascist’, cry your eyes out and scream at a lake if that helps. Whatever helps you heal.
Great post as always. By coincidence I posted earlier today in my (much more modest) substack that not only is presidential immunity abominable but in constitutional monarchy ministers, including 1st ministers are merely agents of HMQ's gov't. And, by convention, HMQ's gov't obeys the law. So, to the extent ministers break the law they exceed their agency and their acts are not official. https://leadingmanagers.substack.com/p/trumped-2b-a-country-of-two-tales
If we had to pick which action undermined the rule of law and signaled that a president, his family, and cronies are above the law, would we choose:
a) Biden's pardon of Hunter;
b) Trump's pardon of his son-in-law's father, Charles Kushner, and making him ambassador to France;
c) the dropping of 44 federal criminal charges against Donald Trump in response to the election result and the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision
d) all of the above
e) none of the above
which would we choose? It's amazing to me that so-called conservatives who claim to believe in limited government now endorse the truly imperial presidency of Donald Trump and want him to live above the law. It's sad that partisan Democrats defend Biden's pardon of Hunter while wanting to throw Trump and his compatriots under the jail.
I think the words for this are "blind partisanship."
You either dont understand the Supreme Court ruling on immunity or are wilfully misrepresenting it. He has immunity for core functions, limited immunity for official functions and none for unofficial. We can be sure no one would find assassinating a political rival to fall within either of the first two buckets.
That was a direct reference to Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, which was supported by two other justices. In fact, she used stronger, more vivid language: "[Let's say he] orders the Navy's Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune."
The majority called Sotomayor's language hyperbolic but never denied the specific examples she cited would be covered by the immunity, which is quite extraordinary for such an explosive claim, and some legal scholars have taken that to be a tacit admission that, in fact, the dissenting justices are right.
I suggest you be a little more cautious about accusing others of ignorance or lying.
I am aware that this is her language. What legal scholars take this as an admission by the majority that her analysis is correct? If they thought she was right, the majority would not have ruled as they did. It is certainly false but can be safely tossed around because it’ll never occur. But there is zero chance that the President would be found to be immune for authorising a hit on an opponent since it’s neither a core function nor an official act.
Look, the majority didn’t define key terms. It’s a hopelessly vague ruling which you have simply interpreted not by the plain meaning of the words of the majority but by your own prejudices. Several times you’ve said “no way…” when the plain words suggest, “yes, way.” Which is why Sotomayor wrote what she did. (Eg, ordering the military to kill an opponent? He’s commander in chief. Designating enemies and giving orders to attack sure sounds like a core function of the office!)
The bottom line is it’s an awful ruling and any attempt to summarize it in a sentence invites lots of objections. Yours, for example, suggests a clarity (and reassurance) which is simply not there and does not support the claims you’ve made on that basis. Generalization is unavoidable in a brief reference. You think mine is wrong; I think yours is misleading. C’est la guerre.
No, the plain words don’t suggest ‘yes way’. Just read it. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. None. Hence, ‘no way’ for using Seal Team 6 to assassinate his or her political party opponents. It is the NOT the case that the President has lifetime immunity for anything done while in office.
« Along with that, the Supreme Court recently invented — out of whole cloth — a lifetime grant of immunity of presidents from prosecution for actions committed while in office. »
I don’t know how to quote from posts, but I am afraid it’s you who should be more cautious. The above is simply totally wrong. It’s not what the ruling says. Just read it.
Anyone who is surprised by Hunter's pardon isn't very bright. He was pardoned because Hunter is still liable to be charged with probably hundreds of criminal offenses, including some very serious ones, and his trial (if thorough) would no doubt expose the many way insiders abuse the system to their own financial gain. There is still a big appetite in America for justice to be served "pour encourager les autres."
Hahahahahaha! Yeah, like the J6 insurrectionists were investigated, I'm sure! You are SO gullible.
If what you claim were true, then a prospective pardon would have been pointless. Why did Joe pardon his son in advance if he were legally untouchable? You are SO gullible.
"Grant, you are an insufferable jerk." Do you agree that that would not be a civil comment in a serious and substantive discussion? Me, too. So please drop that crap here or go away. Thank you.
I'm less interested in whether a comment is civil than whether it is true, TBH. And yes, it is true that I can be an insufferable jerk sometimes, Dan. I don't disagree with that assessment at all. I just tend to be insufferable in a different way than the insufferables who believe and repeat obvious political bullshit. Insufferable in a different way than the ignorant and the misinformed and deliberately obtuse political sycophants. Truth-telling is insufferable to the deluded.
I agree with you about the trending towards autocracy in the form of an imperial President. And it's reasonable to argue that Presidents shouldn't have pardon powers, but actually that is a power consistent with the rule of law and it has to sit somewhere in the Executive.
However, I think the objection to Biden pardoning his son is misplaced. Every President has pardoned people for personal reasons (Roger Clinton, Jr.), political reasons (Armand Hammer, shortly after donating $110,000 to the RNC), and reasons of conscience (Vietnam War draft resisters).
I believe that Joe Biden would not have pardoned Hunter had Kamala won the election. The President seemed to have come to terms with allowing Hunter to serve whatever sentence that he receives.
In the current circumstances, however, the result of not pardoning Hunter Biden would be to allow Kash Patel's DOJ to further target him, to allow more Congressional inquiries about "the laptop" and to drag on for another four years the relentless pursuit of nothing while vilifying the Biden family. Regardless of the effect on Hunter Biden, this pardon saves us all the insanity of more Hunter Biden trials, inquiries, etc.
Compare this pardon to those of Scooter Libby, Roger Stone, the Hammonds, et al. This one is a moral and pragmatic response in a sea of venality.
Oh, brother, another Democrat pretending the that "the laptop" is a nothingburger. Please, go back to your Russian collusion hoax, it was more believable.
In Canada we have a figure head monarch represented by the head of state Governor General who can grant Royal Pardons via the Prime Minister.
This historically has not been used except in instances of historical or symbolic gestures of past injustices ( LGBTQ2 soldiers imprisoned - law changed, historic Chinese Head Tax, etc).
The independent Parole Board of Canada can suspend records of court decided wrongful convictions. Politicians in office and their families have never been pardoned but have never been convicted of anything?
I have often been surprised how Americans seem to love the British Royalty more than we do. Understandably, a father wants to defend his son. The problem is the law - we evolve- laws can change but where we are all treated equally.
We shouldn't be surprised. For a couple of decades, the "progressives" (in many regards terribly regressive) have become the new monarchs, abrogating themselves ultimate rights over us mere mortals, telling us who may work, who may not, who may leave our house, who may not, who may speak, who may not.
It is time for a revolution, the elites must be dethroned.
That is a great point. Today’s constitutional monarchs don’t even come close to having the power that the American president increasingly has. While constitutional monarchs around the world are seeing their old powers being granted to parliaments, the US president is increasingly turning into an elected king/emperor.
This is one of those rare instances where I disagree with you, Dan. Not with your historical analysis, but with your position on Hunter Biden's pardon. I look at this way: as you well know, pardons (pre-Harper) have been a part fo the Criminal Code of Canada for several decades (at least) and are automatic once certain conditions have been met. Aside from the obvious injustice of what happened with the DOJ pursuit of Hunter Biden, under the provisions relating to a pardon in Canada (pre-Harper) a conviction for a summary conviction offense (misdemeanor in the U.S.), is to be granted if the person has not been adjudged guilty of committing another offense in the 2 years following completion of the sentence; and if convicted of an indictable offense (felony in the U.S.) 5 years after completion of sentence. I say "per-Harper" because his government amended the Code to change that 5 and 10 years respectively, and change to the term from "pardon" to "record suspension".
Under the system in place in Canada, Hunter Biden would have automatically qualified for a pardon, if not now, then soon.
Recall that, as he was leaving office, President Obama pardoned hundreds of individuals who had been convicted of minor drug offenses and sentenced to disproportionate periods of incarceration. He did not receive the kind of approbation that Biden is now receiving, but of course, none of those he pardoned were related to him.
I submit that whether an individual who is deserving of a pardon is related (or closely associated) with the President is irrelevant - if they are deserving of a pardon it should be granted. and conversely, regardless of a relationship with the President, if they are not deserving of a pardon it should not be granted.
Canadian law is irrelevant. The whole point is that the power of presidential pardon, rather than being used fairly, accordingly to establish procedures -- whatever those procedures may be -- is exercised according to the whims of one man. Which makes a mockery of the rule of law. To put that more bluntly: In a society truly founded on rule of law, the son of the president should be subject to the existing laws and procedures, just as all other Americans are subject to the existing laws and procedures, and receive neither better nor worse treatment.
I would have pardoned my son as well, rather than allow him to be persecuted by Trump.
The president’s family should not be targeted by the opposition party in order to try to bring down the president.
The pardon power exists to correct injustices, and that’s what happened here. The fact that the president’s son was involved is simply bad optics.
I sympathize with Biden but, sorry, it's still wrong. Trump threatens to destroy basic norms, including the rule of law. Those norms desperately need to be shored up and protected. This does the opposite, giving Republicans an easy way to belittle and dismiss any criticisms of the coming abuses.
Brad, I think the complaint is that Hunter was pardoned in advance for much, much more serious crimes that he has yet to be tried or even charged with. What Hunter "deserves" isn't a pardon, it is a life sentence or two, to be served consecutively.
Grant, you speak with iron certainty. Why? What are these crimes you speak of and why are you dead sure he committed them and belongs in prison for the rest of his life?
To answer your question more directly, the crimes Hunter should have been tried for include such things soliciting prostitution, drug use and drug trafficking, gun-law violations, child-support fraud, influence peddling, obstruction of justice, lying under oath, etc. I'm sure a creative prosecutor could come up with many others, such as the crimes they pressed against Trump associates in the Russian collusion hoax when there wasn't even any underlying crime... But I assume you have heard all of this many times before, otherwise how could you possibly think you have something valuable to contribute to the discussion? I took it to be common background information.
Unlike Trump's Russian collusion that preoccupied the American government for 4 or 5 years, there is a surfeit of publicly available evidence for Hunter's multiple realms of criminality. If you are unaware at this point, that says about all that is required to assess your credibility on the topic. Even demented Joe knows better than you: that's why he felt it was necessary to issue a proactive pardon, in spite of the serious political downsides that you note in this article.
For the record, I know nothing with iron certainty, Dan. I'm just telling you what I believe a fair and thorough investigation would conclude. If you are deluded enough to think that such an investigation has already been done and has concluded there is nothing to see here, there's no hope for you, I'm afraid. The Democrats have made *everything* in government political; they have politicized the DoJ along with every federal law-enforcement and intelligence agency. That's why 51 "top intelligence experts" lied about the laptop being "Russian disinformation." Do you still believe that lie, too? Oy vey!
Grant, the ratio of substance to insult in your comments is getting worse. Do you realize that time after time, to me and others, you insult and sneer at people simply for disagreeing with you? That helps no one, least of all you. Please stop or I'll block you.
As to the substance here, thank you for clarifying that this is what you think an investigation would reveal. Maybe try saying that next time instead of stating your beliefs as fact?
I'm not insulting anyone, Dan, I'm issuing a warning: if one doesn't know even the basics of the Hunter Biden laptop story - e.g. if one doesn't know how deeply involved the entire state apparatus was in suppressing, discrediting, and dismissing the story - then it is imprudent to comment on it, especially with comments along the lines that there is no there there. Gullibility is the most accurate descriptor I can think of.
Grant, here is a comment you just left here: "Hahahahahaha! Yeah, like the J6 insurrectionists were investigated, I'm sure! You are SO gullible. If what you claim were true, then a prospective pardon would have been pointless. Why did Joe pardon his son in advance if he were legally untouchable? You are SO gullible."
If I opened with sneering laughter and followed it with "you are SUCH a clown" would you agree that would constitute an insult, whatever other substance is in the comment?
I think you would. And you would be right.
Stop being an asshole, Grant. Just make your points.
This has got to be satire.
My main concern is the way Joe Biden is being held to a higher standard than any previous (not to mention incoming) president If the fault is in the Constitution - remedy it. The next administration sure as hell won't. And I wonder why protecting Hunter is any more reprehensible than pardoning actual violent insurrectionists - which Trump has promised to do - especially since Trump and his acolytes have sworn to pursue the Biden family.
The hypocrisy here is not Joe Biden's
100%
You outline here the critical error made by the Founding Fathers. In the president they created an elected monarch who served a fixed four-year term. Later the constitution was modified to make the monarch term limited. It would seem to them that the monarch was not excessively strong. And indeed the 18th century English monarchs WERE weak. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the monarch was clearly playing second fiddle to Parliament. After all, in the 17th century Parliament had deposed two kings and executed one of them.
As the 18th century ran on the powers of the monarch were gradually assumed by Parliament, until by 1837 the monarch was a figurehead. In a real sense George III was the last king of the UK as well as America.
The mistake the Founders made was not seeing that what created the opposition of Parliament and King, which had been a mainstay of the previous four centuries of English history, reflected their differing bases for legitimacy. Parliament became and increasingly elected body, while the monarch inherited their position. This gave the two different bases of power
In America the monarch and Congress were elected and so politicians. They would of course organize into parties as they did in Britain. The Founders, it seems, had naively thought that since they had booted the Tories out of America, leaving only Whiggish types like themselves there was no basis for parties to form and that Congress and the President would continue on the tradition of Parliament vs Monarch opposition allowing each to check each others' powers. In fact they built into the Constitution a whole set of largely useless "checks and balances" all base don the assumption that the three branches of government would be jealous of the other two. The idea of collusion between the branches appears to have not occurred to them. And yet as soon as the new government was established, the collusion began.
For a couple of lifetimes, the president has served as the head of their party, like the PM in Britian. Unlike the PM, he is NOT a creature of Congress and replaceable through an intraparty vote like the House Speaker. The president cannot be removed short of impeachment and conviction, tin which he must be found guilty of some sort of crime. Removal seems to be one of those Congressional powers (like issuing Letters of Marque) that Congress theoretically possesses, but in practice does not employ.
For a lifetime the president has established a program that his party will try to implement if they win. It's right out in the open, the president and members of Congress from his party working together just like the PM does. So much for checks and balances.
Unlike the PM, Congress cannot just replace them if they see it as political advantageous. Otherwise, it would be a no-brainer for Republicans to join Democrats in impeaching and removing Trump in late January 2027, assuming Democrats are stupid enough to fall for this. (I suspect they are)
Were Dems to take the bait, this would replace the lame duck Trump with a vigorous Vance who would be eligible for two more terms, giving the Republicans the three terms in a row that signal a successful Trump-Vance reboot of the Reagan order analogous to the McKinley-Roosevelt reboot of the Lincoln order. The last obstacle to plutocratic rule will have been overcome and the Democratic party cease to exist shortly after. Though I suppose its shards will continue to fight the long defeat.
https://www.noahhuisman.com/newsletter/fight-the-long-defeat
“Sure it’s the end of liberal democracy but at least no one asks what my pronouns are.”
Your last two paragraphs - I’ve always suspected that was the long game for the Heritage Foundation cabal.
Absolutely. The list of right-leaning think-tankers and theorists advocating for an imperial presidency, to use the term most often associated with the idea, is very long. It's all public. They're quite explicit. I think we can reasonably assume lots more are sympathetic but unwilling to say so publicly. Some of J.D. Vance's comments strongly suggest he's entirely in this camp. Taken together, there's plenty of reason to think that a significant chunk of what we might call the intellectual right wants an American Caesar.
Better than "woke" though, right?
I promise I’m going to read the rest of the article. Just have to pause here after the first 100 words and do another Victory Lap. Not tired of winning yet!
Joe Biden is a good Dad for pardoning his boy and the whole issue has nothing to do with Trump. Go ahead and shout, ‘Rapist, Racist, Fascist’, cry your eyes out and scream at a lake if that helps. Whatever helps you heal.
Great post as always. By coincidence I posted earlier today in my (much more modest) substack that not only is presidential immunity abominable but in constitutional monarchy ministers, including 1st ministers are merely agents of HMQ's gov't. And, by convention, HMQ's gov't obeys the law. So, to the extent ministers break the law they exceed their agency and their acts are not official. https://leadingmanagers.substack.com/p/trumped-2b-a-country-of-two-tales
Do you mean HMK?
Sorry. Yes. Old habits!
As if tRump is any better
Who suggested he was? (And have you read anything I've written...?)
If we had to pick which action undermined the rule of law and signaled that a president, his family, and cronies are above the law, would we choose:
a) Biden's pardon of Hunter;
b) Trump's pardon of his son-in-law's father, Charles Kushner, and making him ambassador to France;
c) the dropping of 44 federal criminal charges against Donald Trump in response to the election result and the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision
d) all of the above
e) none of the above
which would we choose? It's amazing to me that so-called conservatives who claim to believe in limited government now endorse the truly imperial presidency of Donald Trump and want him to live above the law. It's sad that partisan Democrats defend Biden's pardon of Hunter while wanting to throw Trump and his compatriots under the jail.
I think the words for this are "blind partisanship."
https://jimbuie.substack.com/p/the-us-president-is-now-above-the
You either dont understand the Supreme Court ruling on immunity or are wilfully misrepresenting it. He has immunity for core functions, limited immunity for official functions and none for unofficial. We can be sure no one would find assassinating a political rival to fall within either of the first two buckets.
That was a direct reference to Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, which was supported by two other justices. In fact, she used stronger, more vivid language: "[Let's say he] orders the Navy's Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune."
The majority called Sotomayor's language hyperbolic but never denied the specific examples she cited would be covered by the immunity, which is quite extraordinary for such an explosive claim, and some legal scholars have taken that to be a tacit admission that, in fact, the dissenting justices are right.
I suggest you be a little more cautious about accusing others of ignorance or lying.
I am aware that this is her language. What legal scholars take this as an admission by the majority that her analysis is correct? If they thought she was right, the majority would not have ruled as they did. It is certainly false but can be safely tossed around because it’ll never occur. But there is zero chance that the President would be found to be immune for authorising a hit on an opponent since it’s neither a core function nor an official act.
Look, the majority didn’t define key terms. It’s a hopelessly vague ruling which you have simply interpreted not by the plain meaning of the words of the majority but by your own prejudices. Several times you’ve said “no way…” when the plain words suggest, “yes, way.” Which is why Sotomayor wrote what she did. (Eg, ordering the military to kill an opponent? He’s commander in chief. Designating enemies and giving orders to attack sure sounds like a core function of the office!)
The bottom line is it’s an awful ruling and any attempt to summarize it in a sentence invites lots of objections. Yours, for example, suggests a clarity (and reassurance) which is simply not there and does not support the claims you’ve made on that basis. Generalization is unavoidable in a brief reference. You think mine is wrong; I think yours is misleading. C’est la guerre.
No, the plain words don’t suggest ‘yes way’. Just read it. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. None. Hence, ‘no way’ for using Seal Team 6 to assassinate his or her political party opponents. It is the NOT the case that the President has lifetime immunity for anything done while in office.
« Along with that, the Supreme Court recently invented — out of whole cloth — a lifetime grant of immunity of presidents from prosecution for actions committed while in office. »
I don’t know how to quote from posts, but I am afraid it’s you who should be more cautious. The above is simply totally wrong. It’s not what the ruling says. Just read it.
Anyone who is surprised by Hunter's pardon isn't very bright. He was pardoned because Hunter is still liable to be charged with probably hundreds of criminal offenses, including some very serious ones, and his trial (if thorough) would no doubt expose the many way insiders abuse the system to their own financial gain. There is still a big appetite in America for justice to be served "pour encourager les autres."
Hunter Biden has already been thoroughly investigated, and the only charges which could be brought have been brought.
Hahahahahaha! Yeah, like the J6 insurrectionists were investigated, I'm sure! You are SO gullible.
If what you claim were true, then a prospective pardon would have been pointless. Why did Joe pardon his son in advance if he were legally untouchable? You are SO gullible.
"Grant, you are an insufferable jerk." Do you agree that that would not be a civil comment in a serious and substantive discussion? Me, too. So please drop that crap here or go away. Thank you.
I'm less interested in whether a comment is civil than whether it is true, TBH. And yes, it is true that I can be an insufferable jerk sometimes, Dan. I don't disagree with that assessment at all. I just tend to be insufferable in a different way than the insufferables who believe and repeat obvious political bullshit. Insufferable in a different way than the ignorant and the misinformed and deliberately obtuse political sycophants. Truth-telling is insufferable to the deluded.
I agree with you about the trending towards autocracy in the form of an imperial President. And it's reasonable to argue that Presidents shouldn't have pardon powers, but actually that is a power consistent with the rule of law and it has to sit somewhere in the Executive.
However, I think the objection to Biden pardoning his son is misplaced. Every President has pardoned people for personal reasons (Roger Clinton, Jr.), political reasons (Armand Hammer, shortly after donating $110,000 to the RNC), and reasons of conscience (Vietnam War draft resisters).
I believe that Joe Biden would not have pardoned Hunter had Kamala won the election. The President seemed to have come to terms with allowing Hunter to serve whatever sentence that he receives.
In the current circumstances, however, the result of not pardoning Hunter Biden would be to allow Kash Patel's DOJ to further target him, to allow more Congressional inquiries about "the laptop" and to drag on for another four years the relentless pursuit of nothing while vilifying the Biden family. Regardless of the effect on Hunter Biden, this pardon saves us all the insanity of more Hunter Biden trials, inquiries, etc.
Compare this pardon to those of Scooter Libby, Roger Stone, the Hammonds, et al. This one is a moral and pragmatic response in a sea of venality.
Oh, brother, another Democrat pretending the that "the laptop" is a nothingburger. Please, go back to your Russian collusion hoax, it was more believable.
In Canada we have a figure head monarch represented by the head of state Governor General who can grant Royal Pardons via the Prime Minister.
This historically has not been used except in instances of historical or symbolic gestures of past injustices ( LGBTQ2 soldiers imprisoned - law changed, historic Chinese Head Tax, etc).
The independent Parole Board of Canada can suspend records of court decided wrongful convictions. Politicians in office and their families have never been pardoned but have never been convicted of anything?
I have often been surprised how Americans seem to love the British Royalty more than we do. Understandably, a father wants to defend his son. The problem is the law - we evolve- laws can change but where we are all treated equally.
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe recently employed the royal prerogative to pardon his brother, albeit for a minor traffic violation.
Rule of law? That’s for suckers.
We shouldn't be surprised. For a couple of decades, the "progressives" (in many regards terribly regressive) have become the new monarchs, abrogating themselves ultimate rights over us mere mortals, telling us who may work, who may not, who may leave our house, who may not, who may speak, who may not.
It is time for a revolution, the elites must be dethroned.
That is a great point. Today’s constitutional monarchs don’t even come close to having the power that the American president increasingly has. While constitutional monarchs around the world are seeing their old powers being granted to parliaments, the US president is increasingly turning into an elected king/emperor.