After biden promised he wouldn't pardon his son, he pardoned him--and libs are making excuses

Ugly details on a story you vaguely heard about reveal total corruption of biden's DOJ.

"The Atlantic" is one of the dozens of liberal rags that are totally in the tank for the Democrat party.  If a terrorist group were ever to detonate an atom bomb on a container-ship in NY harbor when a Dem was prezzy, the woke rat-bastards at the Atlantic would claim it was the Republicans' fault, and would praise the Dem prezzy for "not over-reacting by ordering a counterstrike."
 
"See, we need to understand the complex 'root causes' that made 'em do dis!"  

Ooohhh, "root causes"!  Evah heard that one before?  Oh yeah: after 9/11.  And the Left's whine about why 11 MILLION illegal aliens have walked into the U.S. during biden's ghastly, lawless reign.

SO...Porridgebrain's pardon of hunty for any crimes, whether known or unknown, for the past nine years, has outraged normal Americans--and even a few million "ordinary" Democrat voters.  

So the Dems' top priority (well, after blocking as many of Trump's nominees as possible) is to praise the pardon, telling Americans that po' li'l crackhead tax-cheat hunty was unfairly prosecuted by duh eeeebil Orange Hitler, and the pardon was actually correcting that "injustice."

Oh, I see you don't believe that.  In that case take a look at the opening 'graf in an Atlantic shit-piece three days ago, titled 

Hunter Biden Was Unfairly Prosecuted

Sub-head: "His father did the right thing." 

Critics have argued that President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter was political nepotism—bad for the country, selfish, the height of privilege.  But the actual story is the very opposite of nepotism.

WTF?  The Atlantic is claiming the pardon is "the very opposite of nepotism"?  That's a brazen, outrageous lie: it's the very definition of nepotism!  Dumb people can argue that hunty shouldn't have been prosecuted (for trying to evade paying $1.4 MILLION in taxes and lying on a federal gun form), but it's staggering that the leftist shitheads at the Atlantic would claim pardoning ghastly, corrupt hunty is NOT nepotism, when it clearly IS.

Hunter Biden was treated worse than an ordinary citizen because of his family connections.

Utter horseshit.  Everyone--including the Democrat shills who run the Atlantic-- knows that half the American public has an attention span of about a week, and not a clue what happened before that.  So they want readers to think hunty was prosecuted for doing drugs, after endless pics surfaced from his abandoned laptop.

And of course everyone knows law enforcement doesn't prosecute people who merely use illegal drugs.  Well, unless you're Cackles Harris locking up California citizens for smoking pot--something Democrats carefully ignore.

But what hunty was prosecuted for--which most low-info voters never knew--was NOT drug use but tax evasion, failing to pay $1.4 MILLION in federal income tax.

Now if an "ordinary" American--someone not "connected," like you or your parents--failed to pay $1.4 million in income tax, do ya think the feds would charge an "unconnected" person with a crime?  Absolutely.

So Dem propaganda outlets like the Atlantic are trying to get low-info Dem voters--who don't follow politics--to believe hunty was prosecuted for drugs.  And since the feds don't prosecute simple personal use, it must mean po' hunty was UNFAIRLY PROSECUTED!!  See?

So Democrat voters totally sympathize!  Perfect!  Issue de-fused, Democrat party undamaged.  Mission accomplished.  And sure enough, here's the Atlantic again:

It’s good for the country when the president acts against injustice.  President Biden rightly condemned the injustice of his son’s prosecution.  Pardoning his son was necessary to prevent Donald Trump’s Justice Department from targeting Hunter for years to come.

The first sentence is a classic propaganda (and advertising) tactic:  Start by stating a universally accepted truth--in this case "It's good for the country when the president acts against injustice."  Readers nod--everyone agrees with that.  But in accepting the totally true premise, you unconsciously accept that whatever the writer mentions next must be an injustice-- because why else would the writer mention "injustice" in the premise, eh?

You may need to read that last sentence again because the principle is so subtle:  State a totally uncontested truth, and whatever's stated next is unconsciously accepted as falling under that truth--without the writer ever having to prove that, or even state it.  

Hell of a technique, eh?

The guest author of the Atlantic's propaganda piece is Kristy Greenberg, a Democrat shill who was "deputy chief" of the Criminal Division for the southern district of New York.  She claims she wouldn't have approved the felony gun and tax charges against po' hunty, cuz she bleats that "such charges are rarely if ever brought in similar circumstances."

That's a huge logical loophole: what do you mean by "similar circumstances"?  No president has ever had a son who tried to avoid paying a staggering $1.4 MILLION in taxes, so you're on solid ground there, shill.

The shill then claims that prosecuting po' li'l hunty for lying on the federal gun form (checking the box swearing he'd never used illegal drugs) was "addiction-shaming."  Literally, she wrote

In a gross display of addiction-shaming, prosecutors used Hunter’s own words...against him at trial.

"Addiction-shaming," y'say?  The Democrat editors at the Atlantic eagerly published it, and probably had a great laugh at her creativity.  

Imagine an ordinary kid--not "connected"--who crashes his car into a pole while high on coke.  Now imagine the local prosecutor writing "We decline to prosecute because that would be 'addiction-shaming.'"

And how mean of prosecutors to actually use hunty's own words against him at trial!  Democrat: "Doesn't that violate the fifth amendment or something?"

If you still doubt that Kristy is a Dem shill, writing lies to get Dem voters to praise Joe giving his corrupt son a blanket pardon and immunity, consider this line: 

They forced his former romantic partners to testify and dredge up details of his addiction.  The prosecution’s trial presentation was cruel and humiliating.

Ooohh, "the trial presentation was cruel and humiliating," eh?  Now *there's* some great Democrat propaganda for ya: She *implies* that lawbreakers shouldn't be prosecuted if they'd be "humiliated."  But note that she carefully avoids stating that *explicitly* because it's so utterly absurd.

And wait, it gets worse: Now, far down in the propaganda piece Kristy confirms that prosecutors charged po' hunty wif failing to pay $1.4 million in income taxes.  But in the very same sentence in which she finally admits this, she offers his excuse:

Nor should prosecutors have charged Hunter with failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes during the period when he suffered from drug addiction.

 SEE, citizen?  Being a drug addict isn't just a defense against all charges, it prevents you from even being prosecuted!  If you're charged with failing to pay $1.4 mill in taxes, just claim you're addicted to drugs and Dem shill Kristy sez you shouldn't be prosecuted!  And a bit later she writes

Felony tax charges are NOT warranted here, given that the tax amount is not exorbitant, his nonpayment occurred while he was using illegal drugs, and he fully repaid his taxes.

Wait...$1.4 million in unpaid federal income tax is NOT "exorbitant"?  Maybe in DC.  And if you do pay the amount later--after you're caught--it's "no harm, no foul, no prison."  See?  Try using that "Well it was only $1.4 million!  And I was on drugs! defense if you're not "connected" and let us know how that works out for ya. 

Horseshit.  There are hundreds of cases where non-connected citizens failed to pay even $10,000 in taxes and were jailed.  But Kristy bleats that prosecutors just don't do dat.  Or shouldn't.

Finally we get to the article's biggest lie of all:

There had been a fair non-felony plea deal between Trump-appointed Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss and Hunter, but congressional Republicans worked to crush it.

Kristy's description of the "non-felony plea deal" as "fair" is a brazen lie, but Kristy and the editors of the Atlantic know you've either forgotten the crucial details--or more likely never knew.  The corrupt prosecutor, David Weiss, is a total Dem shill.  Each state's senators nominate their U.S. Attorneys, and by convention the president just automatically approves those nominations.  

By writing that Weiss was "Trump-appointed," Kristy wants you to think Weiss is a conservative Republican.  But in fact he's a life-long Democrat who was nominated by Delaware's two Democrat senators.  So "Trump-appointed" is a cunning, deliberate mislead.

Weiss and his team conspired with hunty's lawyers to cunningly craft a "deal."   It was cleverly split into two parts, which were widely separated in the hundred-page agreement: one part of the agreement disposed of the tax charge--no jail.  

The other charge was for lying on a federal form to buy a gun.  This part of the plea bargain was in an entirely different "appendix" of the agreement and was called a "diversion agreement."  And unless you're a political junkie or in the criminal "justice system" you don't know anything about diversion agreements.  

The "diversion" part means it's designed to keep criminals out of prison.  Okay, logical.  But the kicker is, while a judge can modify the terms of regular plea deals, judges are NOT allowed to modify the terms of a "diversion agreement."  Accordingly, most judges wouldn't even bother to look at that part of the sweetheart deal, since the judge can't modify those terms, eh?

But in this case Judge Maryellen Noreika was curious enough to look--and found that the "diversion agreement," purported to just settle the charge of lying on a federal form, actually pardoned hunty for any and all crimes even if not charged--even if unknown.

The judge was stunned, and asked one of Weiss's prosecutors (Leo Wise) "Have you ever seen a plea deal structured like this in your entire career?"  He stammered and finally admitted he was unaware of any such precedent.

So back to the Atlantic's outrageous lies: Kristy says "congressional Republicans worked to crush" the sweetheart deal.

[Congressional Republicans ) opened an investigation into the DOJ’s plea negotiations, held hearings with testimony from IRS case agents and prosecutors, and attempted to intervene in the case before the plea.  Amid intense political pressure from Republicans, Weiss killed the deal...

That's a cunning mislead, designed to support the idea that the nasty ol' House majority wuz out to get po' li'l hunty, and forced Weiss to kill the "fair deal."  Weiss was forced to withdraw the carefully negotiated agreement because Judge Noreika exposed the brazen corruption-- total immunity for any crimes, known or not--cunningly hidden in a "diversion agreement" the judge was not allowed to modify, thus would not have been expected to even examine.

Noreika diplomatically described the corrupt deal as “These agreements are not straightforward.  They contain some atypical provisions.”

Ahhh, "atypical provisions."  Ya think?

Here's Politico, trying to whitewash the utter corruption:

Wise said in court that...the diversion agreement wouldn’t block the Justice Department from hypothetically charging Biden with illegally lobbying for a foreign government.

But of course the very precise wording of the open-ended immunity hidden in the diversion agreement would have done exactly that.  Lies, lies, lies...and by the prosecution, biden's corrupt DOJ--to shield the president's corrupt son from being charged with lobbying for a foreign government without being registered.

If you need more proof that biden's DOJ had deliberately crafted this "deal" to do exactly what it did, consider this:  Later in the hearing the judge pressed hunty's lawyers on whether hunty would accept the tax part of the plea deal if the "diversion agreement"--the total immunity deal for any and all crimes--was removed.  Hunty's lawyer (Christopher Clark) quickly said hunty would NOT agree to any plea deal unless it contained both agreements.

Starting to see how corrupt biden's DOJ has always been?  How brazen, how utterly outrageously they tried to hide the total-immunity provision--immunity for all crimes even if not charged or known--in an appendix they hoped the judge couldn't modify and thus likely wouldn't examine?

The pure, dripping corruption should shock every good American.  But you never heard the ugly details of this til now.

The Founders are weeping.  

Their descendants are buying more weapons.

Source: the Atlantic

https://archive.is/xCg2I#selection-771.0-771.549