• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    The President assumed that his son would be treated fairly like any other first time offender.

    You’re aware Biden is in charge of the DOJ right?

    So he’s admitting his DOJ was fucked up and acting in bad faith…

    But rather than at any point since he realized that, he’s choosing to only save his son and still not do any actual justice reform?

    A regular person saving their son, ok. We get it

    The literal one person able to save millions of sons? He should do actual reform.

    He’d save his own son in the process too.

    Like, you realize there’s a shit ton of open judicial seats Biden is about to let trump seat as soon as he comes into office right?

    Are you implying Biden appointed such shit people to lead the DOJ that he now trusts Trump’s judgement more?

    Like I said:

    Like, if “nothing matters” why isn’t Biden doing more? Why isn’t he even appointing all the empty judges seats before Trump can?

    But if be really surprised if anyone actually explains why Biden not even appointing 30 judges is ok, let alone why the Senate not confirming 42 is bad.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Biden allowed the prosecution of Hunter to avoid the appearance of not being neutral.

      Now that Trump has won and a) is openly talking about pardoning anyone and everyone and b) wanting to prosecute his enemies list, it 100% makes sense to beat him to the punch and pardon Hunter.

      If Kamala had won, he would have let it all stand.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

        Biden allowed the prosecution of Hunter to avoid the appearance of not being neutral

        But the reality is he wasnt neutral…

        So, when you portray a situation falsely because you know the blowback would hurt your chances in an upcoming election (Biden was the candidate then)

        That is commonly referred to:

        Being a fucking liar

        And when you do that for something everyone knows you’re lying about, that’s going to hurt turnout for the entire party, even if you do eventually shuffle off the stage before the election.

        You may be 100% of with the only two parties only running liars

        But if you want a way to make Dems able to win again, fight for honest authentic candidates who will help Americans.

        You’ll never find a neoliberal as good as lying as a Republican. So why play that game.

        If Kamala had won, he would have let it all stand.

        My opinion is obviously he wouldn’t have. I’m not sure why your preventing your opinion as a fact, or even why you still think the next president somehow controls sentencing…

        Like, you get that right?

        That the entire premise for your argument about why this is ok has no factual basis?

        If you think I’m wrong, by all means explain how the incoming president co trolls that, and how Biden wasn’t able to control it now for a fair result and not an all or nothing like you’re presenting

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Oh, he definitely wasn’t neutral, no father could be, that’s why I say he was trying to avoid the APPEARANCE of not being neutral. ;)

          Now that Trump has won and is talking crazy shit, there’s no need to maintain appearances.

        • Snowflake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          So, when you portray a situation falsely because you know the blowback would hurt your chances in an upcoming election (Biden was the candidate then)

          Are you seriously upset that Biden pardoned his son’s charges of checking the no box to the do you use drugs question on his firearm application. And paying his taxes late?

          That’s gotta be every single weed smoker in a recreational state.

          And when you do that for something everyone knows you’re lying about, that’s going to hurt turnout for the entire party, even if you do eventually shuffle off the stage before the election.

          Oh he shuffled off stage all right. Right before the democratic wolve party beat him with a broomstick and replaced him with a pinata.

          • Burninator05@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            21 hours ago

            The Attorney General leads the DoJ and is a member of the president’s cabinet. The DoJ is also part of the executive branch. While it is “bad form” for the president to order the AG to do something, the president can fire the AG. Look up what Nixon did to find out more.

            • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Not just Nixon, if I remember right Trump tried to do something similar to stop the Mueller investigation. So why would Biden want to normalize weaponizing the DOJ like that?

              The only people who consider Biden “in charge” of the DOJ are people that want to normalize Nixon’s and Trump’s behavior.

              • Burninator05@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                Biden didn’t weaponize the DoJ. At no point did he use it to attack opponents who hadn’t committed crimes as decided by grand juries. During Trump’s trials he was, at least publicly, hands off and let the AG do his thing.

                Don’t confuse Biden giving his son a pardon after conviction with Nixon firing multiple AGs until he got to one that was fine with him being a literal criminal and Trump trying to find one (and succeeding) that wouldn’t release a report on how Trump is corrupt.

                This is not a both sides thing.

                • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 hour ago

                  Biden didn’t weaponize the DoJ. At no point did he use it to attack opponents who hadn’t committed crimes as decided by grand juries.

                  That was my point. The only thing Biden can do is fire the attorney general and threaten to replace them with an attorney general that will do his bidding. That is the only way Biden could control or be “in charge” of the DOJ.

                  During Trump’s trials he was, at least publicly, hands off and let the AG do his thing.

                  Trump wasn’t “hands off” in any way: Six Takeaways From Trump’s Threats Against Rod Rosenstein

                  If Biden were to use his position as president to control the DOJ by threatening the attorney general, he would be normalizing Trumps actions of weaponizing the DOJ.

                  Don’t confuse Biden giving his son a pardon after conviction with Nixon firing multiple AGs until he got to one that was fine with him being a literal criminal and Trump trying to find one (and succeeding) that wouldn’t release a report on how Trump is corrupt.

                  Not sure why you’re saying this. The person I responded to before you responded to me claimed Biden is in charge of the DOJ. I pointed out that he wasn’t because as we’ve both pointed out, the only way Biden can have any control over the DOJ is by replacing the Attorney General with someone that will do what he says. The same way Nixon and Trump did.