I am appalled, but not surprised. Biden pardons and his own kith and kin while leaving everyone else (and their families) who has criticized TFG out in the cold wind to suffer TFG's wroth. MSNBC anchors beware, new outlets beware, any but maga-supplicants beware.
Biden ought to have pardoned us all, not just his own.
Going further - now that SCOTUS has crowned the Presidency with immunity, doesn't Biden realize that TFG, claiming national security, can penetrate Biden's family pardon, such as shipping Hunter Biden off to Guantanamo, without fear of punishment?
@karlauerbach you do realize what you're saying is crazy, right? You're just repeating these really nutty conspiracy theories that don't match the real world?
No, Trump can't ship Hunter Biden off to Guantanamo without fear of punishment. The Supreme Court specifically called for the prosecution of crimes, the prosecution of actions that are not authorized by law.
I don't know who you're listening to, but they are seriously misleading you about what's going on in the world.
@volkris SCOTUS provided an essentially impenetrable cloak of immunity for criminal prosecution for any act of POTUS that is performed within the "core function" of the presidency.
TFG can assert that based on the core function of protecting national security that Hunter B. is a threat and TFG thus can do what he wishes when exercising those core powers, including "extraordinary rendition" even of US citizens without fear of criminal consequences.
What SCOTUS did was to effectively make such acts not crimes when done by the Prez within those core functions.
Where did I get this? From SCOTUS.
Not just from the recent TFG vs US case but also from older cases that have never really been overturned, such as Korematsu v. United States.
In other words, SCOTUS has empowered TFG to say "national security" or "national emergency" and go out on 5th Ave and shoot someone - with immunity from criminal consequences.
@karlauerbach Right, and the court also actively promoted prosecution of misbehavior that is not within the core function of the presidency.
Since presidents are not authorized to violate civil rights by sending people to Guantanamo for, like, no reason, that would not be within the core function of the presidency.
So the Supreme Court ruling would encourage prosecution of a president who does such a thing.
@karlauerbach The Supreme Court said that presidents can be prosecuted when they break the law.
I don't expect that to be overturned anytime soon, and I think that's a good thing.
@volkris The impact of the SCOTUS decision was specifically to block the prosecution of a President (a former president, not even a sitting one) who took and handled classified documents in clear violation of laws. (I and others who have handled classified information know that we would have been prosecuted and convicted had we done such things.)
And SCOTUS decision clearly blocked the prosecution of the Jan 6 cases against TFG (who was a sitting Prez at the time.)
So I would put any words in the TFG vs US case about the possibility of prosecution into the category of dicta, not really part of the legal authority of the case.
It irks me even more that the TFG team has advocated application of TFG v US immunity onto state level crimes (and, as we see, onto even existing convictions.) That strongly suggests an intent to push this immunity.
Clearly Biden's pardons illuminate and underscore the fear that TFG will pay little attention to legal constraints.
@volkris I disagree.
SCOTUS allowed clear violations of civil rights under Korematsu - and that case has never been overturned. Frowned upon, yes, but never overturned. Nor have the violations of civil rights of those in Guantuanmo for 9/11 ever been subject to criminal inquiries, much less indictments.
And now that an iron curtain of immunity has been wrapped around official acts the only question is what is official (and whether it is a core function). And protecting national security is certainly part of Article II core powers.
An assertion that H. Biden is a risk to national security is not "no reason". It may be fabricated, but there are no means to inquire about that asserted fabrication and no criminal consequences for a President who uses a fabricated pretense.