(12-03-2024 11:19 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 11:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 10:02 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 09:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Also, it would seem that this protects his father and uncle Jim, since now there is no pressure for Hunter to sing for a reduced sentence.

Actually just the opposite.

Since Hunter now has a pardon of that scope, Hunter cannot in any form invoke the 5th amendment in any criminal actions against others. Nor may he use the 5th amendment as a shield (albeit far more limited in this sense that in the criminal realm) in any civil action.

If Hunter refuses to testify via a grand jury -- his biggest shield to refuse to testify is now worthless, and now opens him up to fairly large perjury trap quests.

Bummer about that narrative above that the Hunter pardon is intended to stonewall any and all Biden prosecution, since that move is an utter failure in that regard with the action. It actually allows harder and much more immediate and direct pressure on Hunter in that regard.

He can be charged with obstruction if he refuses to testify. That's it. He's been pre-emptively pardoned of anything federal he might admit to while testifying. He effectively has complete and total immunity.

Uh.... no. He has immunity from acts *he* did in *that* timeframe. And you have the issues a tad incorrect.

He refuses to testify in front of a GJ -- contempt right out of the starts. Jail time *until* he testifies.

He testifies untruthfully -- 5 years for *every* item that is false. Maybe an added obstruction on top of that. On top of the contempt served until he testifies.

Sorry, you are just baldly incorrect in your comments and in your assessment. He has no worry about being charged for the items *since* 2014 to roughly the present.

Converse is Feds are absolutely free to utilize the GJ in any manner they please with him. And there is a *lot* of downside to not testifying, and still a whole world more for being *anywhere* near untruthful.

I said he has immunity for any federal crime he committed in the last ten years.

I did NOT say he would have immunity for perjury or obstruction committed from this day forward. I said he COULD admit during testimony that he committed crimes in the 2014-2024 timeframe with effective immunity from prosecution for what he admits.

What part of the above is "baldly incorrect?" Perhaps you misunderstood me?

More to my point: so what? A few posts ago you referred to this pardon as "horrendous". Now you're applying lipstick to the pig by holding out the possibility that maybe he'll be held for contempt or obstruction.

What is incorrect is bolded:
He can be charged with obstruction if he refuses to testify. That's it. He's been pre-emptively pardoned of anything federal he might admit to while testifying. He effectively has complete and total immunity.

For the first bolded -- no, that is not what it is limited to if he refuses to testify. In fact he cant be charged for obstruction for refusing to testify. The Fed judge overseeing the GJ can sentence him to a term in the proper holding jail for an indeterminate term until he actually does testify.

The second bolded is broader than what I now suspect you are trying to say. If you add the phrase 'from 2014 to the [whatever end date specified in the pardon]' -- that would be correct. But he does not have carte blanche to not testify, and does not have true 'complete and total immunity'.

My comment on 'horrendous' is the truly bad precedent it sets, and further, now gives cover to some unnamed persons to hand out pardons like cotton candy. That to me is horrendous.

Im not trying to apply lipstick to a pig. I am pointing out that Hunter now is forced to testify if called in front of GJ. And if he refuses, he goes into jail until he testifies. And sets himself up in front of the GJ for a ton of bad things such as perjury traps, obstruction, and litany of other items if called before a GJ and he is less than truthful. That was in response to OOs lamentations on the subject.

In a manner, Hunter is actually in equal danger (if not more) to prosecution than before. Honestly, previous to the pardon, Hunter could have sat and flipped the Feds the bird for any GJ issues. And fully utilized his active right under the 5th.

At first blush the issue might look better to Hunter. But opens him up far more in the future than he had faced previously. This isnt the panacea that OO noted that he read somewhere. Not even close.

(12-03-2024 11:20 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 11:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 09:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 03:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Hunter’s pardon covers anything he MAY have done or been a part of from 1-1-2014 to the end of 2024(?), eleven years. I believe the only pardon more sweeping in scope was Nixon. Conveniently covers his entire time at Burisma., Pretty much confirms that there was something dirty happening there.

Also, it would seem that this protects his father and uncle Jim, since now there is no pressure for Hunter to sing for a reduced sentence.

Also, there is reporting that it was always planned for Joe or President Harris to make this pardon, but it was decided to lie about it to the American people anyway, for obvious reasons.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Democrats are trying to explain it away, but I have lost any parental sympathy I had. Nothing but crooks avoiding justice.

And yet you still voted for Trump.... lol.

Trump was...and still is... the lesser evil. And this episode is just another brick in that wall.

Neither you nor anybody else has ever even tried to make a case to persuade me that Kamala was a better choice, and I do not see how you can. You have spent a lot of time on "Orange Man Bad", zero on "Black Woman Better".

And it WAS a binary choice - it was going to one or the other, no matter how many people made symbolic votes for their grandmother or Jill Stein or the dog next door, as I presume you did.

I chose to vote for the lesser evil, rather than stay home or cast a symbolic vote. Any other action accrues to the benefit of the greater evil.

Get over it. You lost. The lesser evil was elected. Only historians keep fighting old battles.

Please complain about the *horrendous* aspect 'crooks avoiding justice' some moar. It is quite humorous. Especially in light of your choice of the vote. I guess you fail to see the humor in that stark duality.

As for 'get over it', Im not the person constantly rehashing every iota of crap on one of the political opponents in the race, good sir. Just saying. Again the duality of the situtation is fairly humorous.

"Horrendous" was your own word for it!

My 'horrendous' was in terms of the precedent. In the above usage, am making a sarcastic aside about his horror at 'crooks avoiding justice' in light of his own vote.

(12-03-2024 11:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 11:19 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 11:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 10:02 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 09:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually just the opposite.

Since Hunter now has a pardon of that scope, Hunter cannot in any form invoke the 5th amendment in any criminal actions against others. Nor may he use the 5th amendment as a shield (albeit far more limited in this sense that in the criminal realm) in any civil action.

If Hunter refuses to testify via a grand jury -- his biggest shield to refuse to testify is now worthless, and now opens him up to fairly large perjury trap quests.

Bummer about that narrative above that the Hunter pardon is intended to stonewall any and all Biden prosecution, since that move is an utter failure in that regard with the action. It actually allows harder and much more immediate and direct pressure on Hunter in that regard.

He can be charged with obstruction if he refuses to testify. That's it. He's been pre-emptively pardoned of anything federal he might admit to while testifying. He effectively has complete and total immunity.

Uh.... no. He has immunity from acts *he* did in *that* timeframe. And you have the issues a tad incorrect.

He refuses to testify in front of a GJ -- contempt right out of the starts. Jail time *until* he testifies.

He testifies untruthfully -- 5 years for *every* item that is false. Maybe an added obstruction on top of that. On top of the contempt served until he testifies.

Sorry, you are just baldly incorrect in your comments and in your assessment. He has no worry about being charged for the items *since* 2014 to roughly the present.

Converse is Feds are absolutely free to utilize the GJ in any manner they please with him. And there is a *lot* of downside to not testifying, and still a whole world more for being *anywhere* near untruthful.

I said he has immunity for any federal crime he committed in the last ten years.

I did NOT say he would have immunity for perjury or obstruction committed from this day forward. I said he COULD admit during testimony that he committed crimes in the 2014-2024 timeframe with effective immunity from prosecution for what he admits.

What part of the above is "baldly incorrect?" Perhaps you misunderstood me?

More to my point: so what? A few posts ago you referred to this pardon as "horrendous". Now you're applying lipstick to the pig by holding out the possibility that maybe he'll be held for contempt or obstruction.

What is incorrect is bolded:
He can be charged with obstruction if he refuses to testify. That's it. He's been pre-emptively pardoned of anything federal he might admit to while testifying. He effectively has complete and total immunity.

For the first bolded -- no, that is not what it is limited to if he refuses to testify. In fact he cant be charged for obstruction for refusing to testify. The Fed judge overseeing the GJ can sentence him to a term in the proper holding jail for an indeterminate term until he actually does testify.

The second bolded is broader than what I now suspect you are trying to say. If you add the phrase 'from 2014 to the [whatever end date specified in the pardon]' -- that would be correct. But he does not have carte blanche to not testify, and does not have true 'complete and total immunity'.

My comment on 'horrendous' is the truly bad precedent it sets, and further, now gives cover to some unnamed persons to hand out pardons like cotton candy. That to me is horrendous.

Im not trying to apply lipstick to a pig. I am pointing out that Hunter now is forced to testify if called in front of GJ. And if he refuses, he goes into jail until he testifies. And sets himself up in front of the GJ for a ton of bad things such as perjury traps, obstruction, and litany of other items if called before a GJ and he is less than truthful. That was in response to OOs lamentations on the subject.

In a manner, Hunter is actually in equal danger (if not more) to prosecution than before. Honestly, previous to the pardon, Hunter could have sat and flipped the Feds the bird for any GJ issues. And fully utilized his active right under the 5th.

At first blush the issue might look better to Hunter. But opens him up far more in the future than he had faced previously. This isnt the panacea that OO noted that he read somewhere. Not even close.

Why would he refuse to testify, though? He can tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about anything between 2014 and 2024 (as long as he's careful not to admit to any state crimes). There's no need for him to insert his head into the noose.

(I did not realize you could not be charged with obstruction for refusing to cooperate with a prosecutor. Thanks for correcting that.)

(12-03-2024 11:53 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 11:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 11:19 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 11:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 10:02 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  He can be charged with obstruction if he refuses to testify. That's it. He's been pre-emptively pardoned of anything federal he might admit to while testifying. He effectively has complete and total immunity.

Uh.... no. He has immunity from acts *he* did in *that* timeframe. And you have the issues a tad incorrect.

He refuses to testify in front of a GJ -- contempt right out of the starts. Jail time *until* he testifies.

He testifies untruthfully -- 5 years for *every* item that is false. Maybe an added obstruction on top of that. On top of the contempt served until he testifies.

Sorry, you are just baldly incorrect in your comments and in your assessment. He has no worry about being charged for the items *since* 2014 to roughly the present.

Converse is Feds are absolutely free to utilize the GJ in any manner they please with him. And there is a *lot* of downside to not testifying, and still a whole world more for being *anywhere* near untruthful.

I said he has immunity for any federal crime he committed in the last ten years.

I did NOT say he would have immunity for perjury or obstruction committed from this day forward. I said he COULD admit during testimony that he committed crimes in the 2014-2024 timeframe with effective immunity from prosecution for what he admits.

What part of the above is "baldly incorrect?" Perhaps you misunderstood me?

More to my point: so what? A few posts ago you referred to this pardon as "horrendous". Now you're applying lipstick to the pig by holding out the possibility that maybe he'll be held for contempt or obstruction.

What is incorrect is bolded:
He can be charged with obstruction if he refuses to testify. That's it. He's been pre-emptively pardoned of anything federal he might admit to while testifying. He effectively has complete and total immunity.

For the first bolded -- no, that is not what it is limited to if he refuses to testify. In fact he cant be charged for obstruction for refusing to testify. The Fed judge overseeing the GJ can sentence him to a term in the proper holding jail for an indeterminate term until he actually does testify.

The second bolded is broader than what I now suspect you are trying to say. If you add the phrase 'from 2014 to the [whatever end date specified in the pardon]' -- that would be correct. But he does not have carte blanche to not testify, and does not have true 'complete and total immunity'.

My comment on 'horrendous' is the truly bad precedent it sets, and further, now gives cover to some unnamed persons to hand out pardons like cotton candy. That to me is horrendous.

Im not trying to apply lipstick to a pig. I am pointing out that Hunter now is forced to testify if called in front of GJ. And if he refuses, he goes into jail until he testifies. And sets himself up in front of the GJ for a ton of bad things such as perjury traps, obstruction, and litany of other items if called before a GJ and he is less than truthful. That was in response to OOs lamentations on the subject.

In a manner, Hunter is actually in equal danger (if not more) to prosecution than before. Honestly, previous to the pardon, Hunter could have sat and flipped the Feds the bird for any GJ issues. And fully utilized his active right under the 5th.

At first blush the issue might look better to Hunter. But opens him up far more in the future than he had faced previously. This isnt the panacea that OO noted that he read somewhere. Not even close.

Why would he refuse to testify, though? He can tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about anything between 2014 and 2024 (as long as he's careful not to admit to any state crimes). There's no need for him to insert his head into the noose.

The implication from the right is that the pardon was to keep Hunter from flipping on the Big Guy.

The underlying facts dont support that. Had I been the 'Big Guy' and 'guilty' -- I would have simply commuted Hunter's sentence. And allowed Hunter his 5th amendment privilege to shoot the finger at any GJ summons or at any GJ he gets put in front of.

Pops move here insulates Hunter for any Fed crimes in that time period. But it removes Hunter's ability to simply clam up. If the allegations from the right about the participation of Pop in the stuff, then Pop severely dented his own case by removing Hunter's privilege in full.

Quote:(I did not realize you could not be charged with obstruction for refusing to cooperate with a prosecutor. Thanks for correcting that.)

The more precise form that I was addressing would be you cannot be charged with obstruction for refusing to testify in front of a GJ.

And Hunter has no obligation to answer any questions from prosecutors as a normal matter of course not in front of a GJ -- with or without a 5th amendment right. It is completely legal to say to any prosecutor 'I prefer not to answer any questions, and prefer not to consent to a search.'

When a search warrant or subpoena shows up, and you perform deeds or instigate actions to circumvent those legal processes -- then that definitely flows right into obstruction. Sometimes destroying evidence prior to the legal processes can be sufficient for obstruction.

(12-03-2024 12:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 11:53 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 11:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 11:19 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-03-2024 11:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Uh.... no. He has immunity from acts *he* did in *that* timeframe. And you have the issues a tad incorrect.

He refuses to testify in front of a GJ -- contempt right out of the starts. Jail time *until* he testifies.

He testifies untruthfully -- 5 years for *every* item that is false. Maybe an added obstruction on top of that. On top of the contempt served until he testifies.

Sorry, you are just baldly incorrect in your comments and in your assessment. He has no worry about being charged for the items *since* 2014 to roughly the present.

Converse is Feds are absolutely free to utilize the GJ in any manner they please with him. And there is a *lot* of downside to not testifying, and still a whole world more for being *anywhere* near untruthful.

I said he has immunity for any federal crime he committed in the last ten years.

I did NOT say he would have immunity for perjury or obstruction committed from this day forward. I said he COULD admit during testimony that he committed crimes in the 2014-2024 timeframe with effective immunity from prosecution for what he admits.

What part of the above is "baldly incorrect?" Perhaps you misunderstood me?

More to my point: so what? A few posts ago you referred to this pardon as "horrendous". Now you're applying lipstick to the pig by holding out the possibility that maybe he'll be held for contempt or obstruction.

What is incorrect is bolded:
He can be charged with obstruction if he refuses to testify. That's it. He's been pre-emptively pardoned of anything federal he might admit to while testifying. He effectively has complete and total immunity.

For the first bolded -- no, that is not what it is limited to if he refuses to testify. In fact he cant be charged for obstruction for refusing to testify. The Fed judge overseeing the GJ can sentence him to a term in the proper holding jail for an indeterminate term until he actually does testify.

The second bolded is broader than what I now suspect you are trying to say. If you add the phrase 'from 2014 to the [whatever end date specified in the pardon]' -- that would be correct. But he does not have carte blanche to not testify, and does not have true 'complete and total immunity'.

My comment on 'horrendous' is the truly bad precedent it sets, and further, now gives cover to some unnamed persons to hand out pardons like cotton candy. That to me is horrendous.

Im not trying to apply lipstick to a pig. I am pointing out that Hunter now is forced to testify if called in front of GJ. And if he refuses, he goes into jail until he testifies. And sets himself up in front of the GJ for a ton of bad things such as perjury traps, obstruction, and litany of other items if called before a GJ and he is less than truthful. That was in response to OOs lamentations on the subject.

In a manner, Hunter is actually in equal danger (if not more) to prosecution than before. Honestly, previous to the pardon, Hunter could have sat and flipped the Feds the bird for any GJ issues. And fully utilized his active right under the 5th.

At first blush the issue might look better to Hunter. But opens him up far more in the future than he had faced previously. This isnt the panacea that OO noted that he read somewhere. Not even close.

Why would he refuse to testify, though? He can tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about anything between 2014 and 2024 (as long as he's careful not to admit to any state crimes). There's no need for him to insert his head into the noose.

The implication from the right is that the pardon was to keep Hunter from flipping on the Big Guy.

The underlying facts dont support that. Had I been the 'Big Guy' and 'guilty' -- I would have simply commuted Hunter's sentence. And allowed Hunter his 5th amendment privilege to shoot the finger at any GJ summons or at any GJ he gets put in front of.

Pops move here insulates Hunter for any Fed crimes in that time period. But it removes Hunter's ability to simply clam up. If the allegations from the right about the participation of Pop in the stuff, then Pop severely dented his own case by removing Hunter's privilege in full.

Quote:(I did not realize you could not be charged with obstruction for refusing to cooperate with a prosecutor. Thanks for correcting that.)

The more precise form that I was addressing would be you cannot be charged with obstruction for refusing to testify in front of a GJ.

And Hunter has no obligation to answer any questions from prosecutors as a normal matter of course not in front of a GJ -- with or without a 5th amendment right. It is completely legal to say to any prosecutor 'I prefer not to answer any questions, and prefer not to consent to a search.'

When a search warrant or subpoena shows up, and you perform deeds or instigate actions to circumvent those legal processes -- then that definitely flows right into obstruction. Sometimes destroying evidence prior to the legal processes can be sufficient for obstruction.

I've never liked the bolded. An innocent action of getting rid of old papers can become a federal crime ex post facto if it suits the prosecutor, with no recourse for the defendent since he's shredded his own exculpatory evidence.

I never thought that Joe Biden was trying to protect himself with the pardon. That doesn't fit the facts, as you say, and besides Biden is very unlikely to be prosecuted or sentenced to prison due to his age and infirmity.

I presumed that contempt or obstruction charges would follow a subpoena. What I didn't know is that refusing to testify after being called to the stand does not constitute obstruction.

Quirky, the federal laws on obstruction.

Once again, Democrats have proven themselves to be hypocrites... to CLAIM moral high ground without actually having it.

I don't care that he pardoned his son. I do find it a bit ironic that he did it before the sentencing.... even though he plead guilty. He can CLAIM not to be a felon, but then again, so can Trump until he is actually sentenced... which is in limbo right now. Didn't stop democrats from claiming he's a convicted felon.

Once again, democrats do not present an actual alternative to 'whatever' charge they hurl at Trump.

My issue is more how adamant he was that he wouldn't pardon him... trying to differentiate himself from Trump... claiming moral high ground. Had he said nothing or 'dodged' the question, it might have been different.... but he was ADAMANT...

and now they all seem to be admitting that the justice department targets political rivals, despite claiming for years that Trump was crazy to suggest that.

Hunter's finances and appointments are highly questionable. They may or may not be illegal, but they were certainly worthy of an investigation... even to his own words and the dozens of shell companies and financial maneuvers. It's ignorant to suggest that this was not worthy of being investigated and that it was all just 'made up'. The facts that we know and are admitted to are reason enough to investigate.

(12-03-2024 12:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's ignorant to suggest that this was not worthy of being investigated and that it was all just 'made up'. The facts that we know and are admitted to are reason enough to investigate.

Just part of the "democrats good, Republicans bad, Trump especially bad" mantra we hear from the left.

(12-03-2024 12:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

Quote:When a search warrant or subpoena shows up, and you perform deeds or instigate actions to circumvent those legal processes -- then that definitely flows right into obstruction. Sometimes destroying evidence prior to the legal processes can be sufficient for obstruction.

I've never liked the bolded. An innocent action of getting rid of old papers can become a federal crime ex post facto if it suits the prosecutor, with no recourse for the defendent since he's shredded his own exculpatory evidence.

The prosecutor would still have to show *what* the evidence was, and that one did it with intent to obstruct any investigation. That bolded one is a much harder cliff to climb.

Quote:I presumed that contempt or obstruction charges would follow a subpoena. What I didn't know is that refusing to testify after being called to the stand does not constitute obstruction.

If you refuse to testify, and you do not have a 5th amendment protection about implicating yourself (pardon, or the prosecutor immunizes you), the judge may very well jail you for contempt.

Quote:Quirky, the federal laws on obstruction.

Not really when you think about the subject matter. Obstruction is geared against hampering the investigation and the acts of the investigation. Stacked against the right of anyone to never have to answer.

You can literally tell the investigators to take a flying leap -- that is where your *individual* action on *your* response falls in.

If they tell you they are going to go get a subpoena for the documents in the boxes, and you have a burn pit party that night with the documents -- obstruction.

If you actively lie to them on a material matter -- obstruction.

Keeping silent, a passive non-action -- your right to do so. Until the judge tells you have to in front of a GJ or a trial jury. And that becomes a province of defying not the power of the investigators, but the power of the courts. And becomes contempt.

If you were having a backyard cookout, who do think would be the better guest: Trump or Hunter?

(12-03-2024 02:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If you were having a backyard cookout, who do think would be the better guest: Trump or Hunter?

Hunter would bring better strippers and better blow.

Trump might one up him with a porn star.

(12-03-2024 02:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If you were having a backyard cookout, who do think would be the better guest: Trump or Hunter?

Hint: Which one would bring his own booze, drugs, hookers, etc.? Is that the one you want in your backyard?

Fetterman says Trump case in NY was politically motivated, calls for pardon

video

22% approval