President Biden was right to pardon his son, Hunter, after his conviction on gun and drug charges. Where President Biden went wrong was when he then failed to pardon everyone else who has been convicted on similar charges. People are sitting in prison today for the same acts. All such charges are bogus, regardless of who is facing them...read the rest...
-
Thank you for reading.
Show your support.
Show your support.
When someone is ‘convicted’ for a specious violation that is not a crime (I agree with your definition in the article for a real crime) I still believe that a pardon is not the appropriate manner to handle the matter precisely because it is not an act that ensures that justice is achieved. Such mistakes should properly be corrected by a rescinding of the accusation or conviction and with the precedent set to prevent its future occurrence against others as well as to alleviate the erroneous application of it in the past. If the supreme court was actually fulfilling the function it was created for, all such weapon related laws would have been struck down at their inception as they are clearly unconstitutional and as well, all drug laws as there is no specifically enumerated authority in the constitution for the federal government to be involved in any way with such matters. A pardon is a special act for the alleviation of punishment for a guilty person’s crime and conviction. If there is no guilt, then it is not the proper procedure for relieving legal errors. The absurdly broad extent of Biden’s pardon of his son indicates the usual and typical nature of this ‘special act’. Rather than being used to right a wrong it is instead employed to hide or excuse actual crimes and thus compound the wrong done.
ReplyDeleteIs there even a procedure for the "rescinding of the accusation or conviction and with the precedent set to prevent its future occurrence against others as well as to alleviate the erroneous application of it in the past"?
DeleteIf so, I've never heard of that happening. But it should.
Speaking of crimes and government overreach, did you read about Peanut the Squirrel? This is a classic case of government overreach. In upstate New York, a kindly couple (Mark & Daniela Longo adopted an orphaned baby squirrel whose mother had been run over by a car. They began to use him for educational videos and he became a local media celebrity. Not long ago, they took in a raccoon who was infested with ticks, planning to release him after he was healed.
ReplyDeleteYou may know where this is going. Some neighborhood Karens reported him to the authorities. His house was invaded by state wildlife control officers, who surrounded the property. They shook down the couple like a they were terrorists and spent 5 hours in the house chasing the terrified squirrel. The officer who caught him got bitten. They used this as an excuse to confiscate both animals and put them under on the grounds they needed to be tested for rabies (they didn't have them).
The Trump campaign caught this just before election day and made a Federal case out of it. This sounds like the epitome of government overreach that you write about.
The P'Nut (and Fred) crime made me almost lose my mind with anger. I wrote about it a couple of times.
DeleteHere: https://kentmcmanigal.blogspot.com/2024/11/about-squirrel.html
and here: https://kentmcmanigal.blogspot.com/2024/11/bad-judgment-used-to-enforce-bad-rules.html
In an earlier post, you inquired about the responsible parties to this government crime against two innocent owners of an animal sanctuary and their pets Peanut and Fred. This article names some names.
ReplyDeletehttps://nypost.com/2024/11/09/us-news/lead-investigator-behind-pnut-the-squirrels-death-idd-as-ny-state-probes-critters-demise/
The only upside is that it helped defeat Kamala Harris. The Trump campaign seized on it during the final week of the campaign.