tbergs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tbergs said:

Gern Blansten said:

cincybearcat said:

Gern Blansten said:

I know calling it a lie is politically convenient...Romney even made a comment saying that he lied and it was disgraceful or something but give me a break. Circumstances changed.

And, like I mentioned before, even Gowdy and Graham said that the charges wouldn't have happened if it weren't Biden's son.

He lied. Do you really not know what a lie is? He said he wouldn’t do something….then he did it. 

So you know for a fact that he intended to pardon at the point he was asked? Can I borrow your crystal ball? 

It doesn't matter what he was thinking internally, he lied by doing something he said he wouldn't do. The mental gymnastics he did later to take the action he said he wouldn't still makes it a lie based on his repeated public statements to the contrary. I'm not sure why you're trying to construct some new meaning of lying. Maybe his initial intent wasn't to lie, but he did the thing he said he wouldn't so it became a lie. People trying to project on his fear of what the incoming Trump admin will do are reaching in my opinion.

Let's go back to when he was still the candidate,  if he won relection, do you really think he wouldn't pardon his son in a 2nd term with nothing left to worry about? He just didn't think he'd have to go back on his word so quickly. I'd argue that at this point, he always knew he would do it unless Harris won and could do it for him.

cincybearcat said:

Gern Blansten said:

I know calling it a lie is politically convenient...Romney even made a comment saying that he lied and it was disgraceful or something but give me a break. Circumstances changed.

And, like I mentioned before, even Gowdy and Graham said that the charges wouldn't have happened if it weren't Biden's son.

He lied. Do you really not know what a lie is? He said he wouldn’t do something….then he did it. 

He changed his mind due to the increasingly unhinged comments by the opposition leader over the last three months, specifically related to going after the enemy within.

If you don't believe you would not make the same exact change of mind in this situation, imo you are not being honest with yerselves.


Edit, reading the comparison to USSC and abortion, if you have a specific example of a significant change in abortions, there could be a comparable there. But there is no such change. Biden is reacting specifically to the unhinged comments where 47 specifically threatened him and his family. Saying, "well they might see it differently under a new case" is not being specific. 

I think you're trying really hard to make something true that isn't. Biden, and pretty much all dems, have been spouting about Trump as a threat to democracy for years with it peaking the last 6 months to the point of comparisons to being fascist or nazi-esque. You're trying to convince me that even though Biden and his party were already saying stuff like that about Trump that he still wasn't sure he would pardon Hunter? I think what he really should have said is that he would only pardon Hunter if Trump was elected because of the threat he poses to unbiased justice and respect for the rule of law. I don't know though, maybe he didn't want to put himself in another political pickle by even saying that, but it's also been pretty clear for a long time what a 2nd Trump presidency would look like.

As for the abortion comparison, you don't agree that something changed, but others do, including the justices. I don't agree with them or their reasons because the support of their reasons is lacking. Same as it is for Biden. So is it only a "changed mind" instead of a lie if you agree with the reasons provided? I think we're wading in to some muddy waters if that's the standard. This isn't like me telling my wife I am coming straight home, but then I stop for gas because I didn't realize my tank was low. I think certain situations can be perceived in such a way that allow reasonable people to know when it's an intentionally misleading statement and when it truly is an unknown.

shecky said:

Federal judge accuses President Biden of attempting to 'rewrite history' in Hunter Biden pardon

Scarsi accused President Biden of 'rewriting history' with the pardon of his son, Hunter

 By Sarah Rumpf-Whitten Fox News

Published December 4, 2024 12:23am EST

The federal judge overseeing Hunter Biden’s tax case issued a sharp rebuke of President Biden's claim that his son was unfairly treated as well as the president's delivery method following the president's last-minute pardon.

U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi, who is based in the Central District of California and was nominated by President-elect Trump, accused President Biden in a scathing five-page order of "rewriting history" with the pardon and suggested that the breadth of the pardon granted to his son is unconstitutional.

"The Constitution provides the President with broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history," he wrote.

The judge voiced his displeasure that the president alerted the judicial system of his order to pardon his son via a White House press release.

"Rather than providing a true and correct copy of the pardon with the notice, Mr. Biden provided a hyperlink to a White House press release presenting a statement by the President regarding the pardon and the purported text of the pardon," he wrote.

"In short, a press release is not a pardon," he continued.

Scarsi continued, reacting to the president's statement on his son's tax case: "the President asserts that Mr. Biden ‘was treated differently’ from others ‘who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions,’ implying that Mr. Biden was among those individuals who untimely paid taxes due to addiction. But he is not."

"According to the President, ‘[n]o reasonable person who looks at the facts of [Mr. Biden’s] cases can reach any other conclusion than [Mr. Biden] was singled out only because he is [the President’s] son.’ But two federal judges expressly rejected Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the President. And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges," Scarsi wrote.

"In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people," he said.

The judge said he would dispose of the case once he receives the official pardon from "the appropriate executive agency." 

He also vacated Hunter Biden’s sentencing, which was scheduled for Dec. 16.  The charges carried up to 17 years behind bars, but the first son would likely have faced a much shorter sentence under federal sentencing guidelines.

"Subject to the following discussion, the Court assumes the pardon is effective and will dispose of the case. The Supreme Court long has recognized that, notwithstanding its nearly unlimited nature, the pardon power extends only to past offenses," he wrote.

Hunter Biden, 54, has had a busy year in court, kicking off his first trial in Delaware in June, when he faced three felony firearm offenses, before he pleaded guilty in a separate felony tax case in September. 

President Biden pardoning his son is a departure from his previous remarks to the media over the summer when he insisted he would not pardon the first son.

"Yes," President Biden told ABC News when asked if he would rule out pardoning Hunter ahead of his guilty verdict in the gun case. 

Days later, following a jury of Hunter’s peers finding him guilty of three felony firearm offenses, the president again said he would not pardon his son. 

"I am not going to do anything," Biden said after Hunter was convicted. "I will abide by the jury’s decision."

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.