It's OK when the crimes are fake or victimless.
You mean like lying about your drug use on a gun application, or evading taxes that you already paid back?
I don't see why you would assume that I thought these were victimless or fake...
I do think they're victimless so I don't mind Hunter being pardoned for them. I mean especially the tax thing.
However the crimes Hunter hasn't been charged with yet were included in the pardon had victims, the entire American people and probably a lot of people in Ukraine and China too.
It's not OK when the crimes are real with real victims.
Like inciting a mob attack on the US Capitol that resulted in 140 Capitol police officers getting their heads bashed in along with the death of one of the rioters?
Punching back isn't immoral. It takes quite a lot to get me to side with the government when it comes to violence.
Also lying to the public in order to cover up you stealing from the public is not OK.
You mean like running a fake university or stealing from your own charity?
Yes
That's the algorithm I'm using.
Clearly not
Not so clear.
And when Trump pardons people who committed crimes on his own behalf that’s also fine
So what do you make about the time period the pardon for Hunter was for?
What do you make of Trump pardoning people who were convicted for crimes they committed on his own behalf? You forgot to address that.
In general I doubt they committed immoral acts.
it makes perfect sense that he would take the time period republicans zeroed in on off the table.
Uh huh, and the crimes in that time they were zeroing in on would be the crimes of soliciting and facilitating bribery and various other conspiracy charges in service of the man who just pardoned him.
So therefore we don't hold Trump to any standards when assessing his egregious abuses of the pardon power.
So therefore Trump is not a hypocrite and a liar in the way Biden is.
Hunter was prosecuted only because his last name was Biden.
and suddenly you care about prosecutorial motivations, you didn't when it was Trump & friends.
It's when the orders are coming from the top, and we both know neither Joe Biden or Merrick Garland was orchestrating this.
The main reason that's plausible is because Joe Biden and Merrick Garland are probably not the top of the power structure they belong to.
It is entirely implausible that these kangaroo courts and witch trials spontaneously appeared in a temporal cluster before an election as opposed to in some way related to the timing of the supposed crimes and offenses. It is entirely implausible that lawyers who worked at the DOJ left high ranking high paying DC jobs to go to work for Fani Willis just before she went after Trump.
and even if it was a grassroots conspiracy to "get Trump" why the fuck should I care? It's still lawfare. You don't give a shit that no connection has been made between breaching the capitol and Trump besides Trump telling them what's on the line, why should I care if your guy's attacks were centrally planned?
That isn't warfare
I believe the phrase is "don't piss on me and call it rain".
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...
The first thing reason advises is to look at precedent. That is precisely what you people (and you in particular Double R) didn't give a shit about.
Provide one relevant example here
This is after demanding you find a precedent like five times:
I know you have not and will not produce a single precedent that anything DJT said about EJC was defamation.
[Double_R] If I have to explain to you what context means and the role it plays in communicating with other human beings, there's no way I'm about to waste my time citing legal precedent with you.
It is unclear how far Trump & friends will twist and distort the law, how little they will care about precedent; but I won't be weeping tears of blood if they do because...
Because you're an unprincipled hypocrite as this statement here demonstrates.
The principle in play is known as the golden rule.
