Speaker 1: I've always thought the presidential pardon power was kind of
Speaker 1: an interesting little feature of our constitution. It's really this
Speaker 1: holdover from the monarch of Great Britain, where the monarch,
Speaker 1: the King or Queen of England, has the ability to
Speaker 1: pardon people for different kinds of criminal offenses, for criminal offenses,
Speaker 1: and it's this sense that yes, we have the laws,
Speaker 1: we have criminal law, we have the role of prosecutors,
Speaker 1: but the system it's sort of this admission that the
Speaker 1: system isn't always perfect, and it's this kind of fail
Speaker 1: safe for look, sometimes justice is done, but sometimes there
Speaker 1: are factors surrounding a given criminal prosecution that call for
Speaker 1: some measure of clemency, and that maybe the executive who
Speaker 1: oversees the enforcement of criminal law within the jurisdiction, who
Speaker 1: is the top level overseer, perhaps it makes sense that
Speaker 1: that person could step in to mitigate the strict application
Speaker 1: of justice in a given circumstance, or an application of
Speaker 1: justice that we think in retrospect was flawed or wrong.
Speaker 1: And as a result, the president has the ability to
Speaker 1: pardon or commute crimes. Pardon to pardon someone for crimes,
Speaker 1: to commute the sentence someone has received for a crime,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And it's a completely uncontestable, unreviewable power that
Speaker 1: a president that the president has over federal crimes, in
Speaker 1: which a governor has over state crime, over state crimes.
Speaker 1: So Gavin Newsom, for example, has exercised his pardon or
Speaker 1: commuting power. So if the governor has the power to
Speaker 1: completely pardon someone who has committed a crime. And most crimes,
Speaker 1: by the way, are not prosecuted at the federal level.
Speaker 1: They're prosecuted at the state level. So most of the
Speaker 1: time criminal law is enforced by state criminal prosecutors. Our
Speaker 1: prosecutor in Fresno County is Lisa Smith Camp. She's the
Speaker 1: elected district attorney and her job is to enforce California
Speaker 1: criminal law within the County of Fresno, and Sally Moreno
Speaker 1: does that for Madera County, and this person does it
Speaker 1: for this county, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The
Speaker 1: federal government has its federal prosecutors who prosecute people for
Speaker 1: federal crimes. And usually a federal crime is a crime
Speaker 1: that involves some kind of Usually it's a crime that
Speaker 1: involves some kind of interstate conduct or something that directly
Speaker 1: impacts a federal government role or something that is interstate.
Speaker 1: So a lot of drug crime prosecution is interstate. If
Speaker 1: someone is really cheating, really really badly on their federal
Speaker 1: income taxes, as Hunter Biden was, that's a federal criminal matter.
Speaker 1: If someone lies on a federal background check before they
Speaker 1: get a gun, as Hunter Biden did, that results in
Speaker 1: federal criminal prosecution. So let's talk about Hunter's pardon, and
Speaker 1: just so you guys get a sense of like, now,
Speaker 1: this is a bad dude. Not that any of you
Speaker 1: really need to be convinced of this. I think Hunter's
Speaker 1: general badness is fairly well established by this point. But
Speaker 1: the way that Joe Biden is rationalizing this pardon for
Speaker 1: his son is to say, look, Hunter would never have
Speaker 1: been prosecuted had it not been for the fact that
Speaker 1: I'm President of the United States. This is a politicized
Speaker 1: prosecution that's only being brought about by his last name,
Speaker 1: which seems kind of insane to me. First of all,
Speaker 1: a lot of these prosecutions finally came to be in
Speaker 1: the course of a Biden administration Department of Justice, under
Speaker 1: prosecutors who are inclined towards Biden. Why would they inclined
Speaker 1: towards prosecuting him. I could understand if it was if
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden had been convicted in twenty nineteen, after the
Speaker 1: Trump Justice Department had ruthlessly investigated him from twenty seventeen
Speaker 1: onward and had nailed him for some things. Okay, that
Speaker 1: would make sense. But Hunter didn't get convicted until this
Speaker 1: year for and by the way, only after for years
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice under both Trump and Joe Biden
Speaker 1: trying to pursue a kind of sweetheart plea deal and
Speaker 1: inexplicably not indicting Hunter for all kinds of crimes that
Speaker 1: he never even got indicted for. So let's give kind
Speaker 1: of the timeline here, all right, And it's very interesting,
Speaker 1: by the way, the things that specifically Hunter's been pardoned for.
Speaker 1: All Right, Hunter goes into his weird little influence pedaling business,
Speaker 1: because that's precisely what he was doing. He was pedaling
Speaker 1: to foreign investors access to his dad, and he was
Speaker 1: getting business deals in which people were paying him or
Speaker 1: other members of the Biden family millions and millions of
Speaker 1: dollars with no clear service being rendered back. And this
Speaker 1: started when Joe was the vice president. A lot of
Speaker 1: this seems to have happened sort of during the second
Speaker 1: Obama term, starting kind of twenty thirteen. Twenty fourteen seems
Speaker 1: to be the year when a lot of this stuff started.
Speaker 1: This is when Hunter started to be involved with that
Speaker 1: Ukrainian energy company Barisma. This is when Hunter was doing
Speaker 1: stuff with the Chinese. Is when Hunter had that weird
Speaker 1: flight on Air Force two for six hours going with
Speaker 1: Joe Biden to China where he had a business meeting
Speaker 1: with some Chinese tycoon who was tied in with Chinese
Speaker 1: intelligence and apparently never talked about his business once on
Speaker 1: a six hour plane flight with his dad. And the
Speaker 1: whole setup of the business, it's so completely implausible that
Speaker 1: by Joe Biden's oh, I didn't know anything about any
Speaker 1: of this. The whole idea of the business of what
Speaker 1: Hunter and Jim Biden, who's Joe's brother, were doing was
Speaker 1: basically intimating to these people, I will get you access
Speaker 1: to Vice President Biden and influence with Vice President Biden
Speaker 1: if you give me money. And that's just that's what happened.
Speaker 1: There is a lot of evidence that Joe was almost
Speaker 1: in controvertible evidence that Joe met with, interacted with talked
Speaker 1: on the phone with clients of Hunter Biden. And that's
Speaker 1: and that's the thing that makes this all so ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Joe knew that they were peddling this influence, but the
Speaker 1: explanation as well, he never actually did anything. It was
Speaker 1: only the appearance of influence from Joe Biden. But which
Speaker 1: if that's true, then Joe would have sat Hunter and
Speaker 1: Jim down after the first time he learned about it
Speaker 1: and said, hey, don't you ever dare sell to people
Speaker 1: this idea that I will do something for them if
Speaker 1: they give you money. I can't do that. That's a
Speaker 1: that's a quid pro that's a corrupt looking quid pro quo.
Speaker 1: Like it gives like this suspicion that we're engaging in bribery,
Speaker 1: that I'm doing legal favors for foreign governments in exchange
Speaker 1: for you guys getting money, Like you know this is
Speaker 1: benefiting me when I mean oftentimes, when a fraud scheme happens,
Speaker 1: one of the ways prosecutors can go after people is
Speaker 1: well one of the ways criminals will try to evade
Speaker 1: it is by having the dirty transaction happen, but having
Speaker 1: the money go to the criminal's family member to their son,
Speaker 1: to their daughter in law, et cetera. Well, that seems
Speaker 1: to be what Biden was doing to avoid the appearance
Speaker 1: of money going directly into his bank accounts, to avoid
Speaker 1: the appearance of money going directly to him. Biden knew
Speaker 1: this was all happening. He could have stopped this whole
Speaker 1: thing with a snap of his fingers, and he never
Speaker 1: did so. Hunter's engaged in all this activity twenty fourteen, fifteen,
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen. Well, the way that the statute
Speaker 1: of limitations works in America is that basically, if you
Speaker 1: have a claim or if the government has a criminal
Speaker 1: charge to bring against you, they have to bring it
Speaker 1: within a certain timeframe. They have to bring it within
Speaker 1: a certain window. You can't wait thirty years before you
Speaker 1: charge someone for ola. Thirty years ago, you stole a
Speaker 1: snickerbar from mister mister mcbuttersworth's convenience store. Now we're going
Speaker 1: to charge you with a misdemeanor theft. No, you can't
Speaker 1: do that. If you've committed theft, the government has a
Speaker 1: certain number of years within which they have to charge you. Similarly,
Speaker 1: for violations of federal tax law, the federal government has
Speaker 1: to charge you, has to indict you within six years.
Speaker 1: It's a six year statute of limitations. Hunter, for a
Speaker 1: lot of this money, was just basically not paying taxes,
Speaker 1: just not paying millions and millions and millions and millions
Speaker 1: of dollars of income he was getting, and he just
Speaker 1: was not paying taxes. When you're ten thousand dollars short
Speaker 1: on your taxes, I don't actually know the precise numbers,
Speaker 1: but I think this ballpark is accurate. When you're ten
Speaker 1: thousand dollars short on your taxes, the IRS is involved.
Speaker 1: When you're six million dollars short on your taxes, federal
Speaker 1: prosecutors get involved. This is a situation where you go
Speaker 1: to jail. Okay, it's not a question of the IRS
Speaker 1: dealing with it. This is where the DOJ Tax Division
Speaker 1: steps in. But what seems to have been happening. Here's
Speaker 1: Biden not paying his taxes for years and years and
Speaker 1: years and years and years. He then has this gun
Speaker 1: charge added on, which we talk about, and prosecutors seemed
Speaker 1: to instead of like treating this as hey, this is
Speaker 1: a criminal. This is a criminal who lied on a
Speaker 1: federal background check, got a gun. It was used in
Speaker 1: a dangerous fashion that you'd suspect a druggie would use it.
Speaker 1: And he has millions of dollars of back taxes. He
Speaker 1: only got the taxes paid by a bunch of Joe
Speaker 1: Biden for President donors who suspiciously swooped in and paid
Speaker 1: all of his tax debt for him, which should have
Speaker 1: raised more than the zero eyebrows that it did raise.
Speaker 1: And the prosecutors instead of charging indicting Hunter by twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: when Donald Trump was president, they didn't indict Hunter in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, they didn't indict Hunter in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: they didn't indict him in eighteen, twenty nineteen, twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, twenty twenty two, twenty twenty three. And
Speaker 1: guess what, that six year statute of Limitations just keeps moving.
Speaker 1: So all of the tax stuff that Hunter did, all
Speaker 1: of the violations of the law that Hunter may have
Speaker 1: committed in twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, twenty seven,
Speaker 1: I think, going ball to twenty seventeen, all of that stuff,
Speaker 1: basically the federal government couldn't charge him for anymore because
Speaker 1: the Statute of Limitations had passed. It had expired. Hunter
Speaker 1: was never actually charged with any of his federal crimes,
Speaker 1: either his gun crime or his tax crimes, his financial
Speaker 1: crimes until this year, or until about a year ago.
Speaker 1: So all the really juicy stuff about what Joe, what
Speaker 1: was Hunter doing with Barisma, the Ukrainian energy company in
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen, all the stuff that he was
Speaker 1: doing while Joe was vice president, none of that has
Speaker 1: been indicted. The idea that Hunter was treated with unfair
Speaker 1: hyper focus is insane. Of course, the federal prosecutors were
Speaker 1: looking into him. He like he didn't pay millions and
Speaker 1: millions and millions of dollars of taxes. The prosecutors, even
Speaker 1: in the Trump era, were treating him with kid gloves.
Speaker 1: They continued to treat him with kid gloves in the
Speaker 1: Buying era. They were gonna give him this sweetheart deal,
Speaker 1: a plea deal where he would serve no jail time,
Speaker 1: have only pled guilty to misdemeanor tax offenses. And the
Speaker 1: judge just sort of asks some basic elementary questions about it,
Speaker 1: like how is this being structured? So this is being
Speaker 1: structured where he's off the hook for absolutely everything he's
Speaker 1: ever done in connections, and it was so embarrassing to
Speaker 1: the prosecutors that they had to let the thing fall apart.
Speaker 1: So I understand the role that the pardon power plays.
Speaker 1: It's a legitimate thing. I think it's a wise mechanism
Speaker 1: within our constitution to mitigate the strict application of justice
Speaker 1: to a specific case or circumstance where the president, a
Speaker 1: little detached from the on the ground work of the
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors under his command, might say, Hey, I don't
Speaker 1: know here this. This doesn't seem like they're mitigating circumstances
Speaker 1: here that the prosecutor didn't seem to take into account
Speaker 1: where there's direct like, no, this just doesn't seem right,
Speaker 1: This doesn't seem fair. I think that's a legitimate power.
Speaker 1: But this notion that's being pedaled that Hunter was unfairly
Speaker 1: targeted only because he's the president's son. If anything, Hunter
Speaker 1: has been given a free pass and a free ride
Speaker 1: on everything for his entire life, and he's gotten away
Speaker 1: with everything his entire life because his dad was a senator,
Speaker 1: because his dad was the vice president, and now because
Speaker 1: his dad is the president. When we return explaining a
Speaker 1: little bit Hunter's gun thing and why it's really really
Speaker 1: bad and further about the implausibility of Biden's explanation. Next
Speaker 1: on The John Growardy Show, just to remind you guys
Speaker 1: about Hunter Biden's gun thing that he received a pardon
Speaker 1: for yesterday, President pardon which it's so hilarious, how I'm
Speaker 1: not Are you gonna pardon your son? No, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna pardon my son. And then the election's done, I'm
Speaker 1: going to pardon my son. Nothing changed, Absolutely nothing changed.
Speaker 1: There was no change in the circumstances other than the
Speaker 1: election was over, and it would have looked embarrassing before
Speaker 1: the election to have pardoned his son. Now after the election,
Speaker 1: who cares like that? There's no like President Biden issues
Speaker 1: this statement about it that he's like, Oh, I think
Speaker 1: this is a miscarriage of justice. And the more I've
Speaker 1: wrestled with this, the more I think, No, you don't
Speaker 1: want your son to go to jail. Okay, I understand it.
Speaker 1: But you were completely lying to everyone for the whole
Speaker 1: rest of this past year about whether you were going
Speaker 1: to pardon your son or not. You knew you were
Speaker 1: going to part like everyone with a working brain cell
Speaker 1: in their head knew what was going to happen. He
Speaker 1: was gonna wait until after the election, and then he
Speaker 1: was going to pardon them, especially if he lost, Like
Speaker 1: it was no doubt that he was going to pardon Hunter. Now,
Speaker 1: let's just remind everybody what Hunter did. I talked to
Speaker 1: the first segment about the tax stuff that you know, gazillions,
Speaker 1: gazillions of dollars of federal income tax that he just
Speaker 1: refused to pay for money that was pouring into him
Speaker 1: by influence pedaling that his dad was the vice president,
Speaker 1: would maybe do something for these foreign governments that they
Speaker 1: gave him money, and then he didn't pay any taxes,
Speaker 1: and then the taxes only got paid back once criminal
Speaker 1: investigations were initiated, and it was a bunch of Biden
Speaker 1: donors who all just all just cozied up to Hunter
Speaker 1: and were paying for his these millions of dollars of
Speaker 1: back taxes and interest that he owed. The money did
Speaker 1: get paid back, but it was paid back by various
Speaker 1: Biden political donors, which really I think nobody asked questions
Speaker 1: about this. But you know, for all the sterm and
Speaker 1: drown that you know, Trump paying Stormy Daniels to keep
Speaker 1: a non disclosure agreement, paying Stormy Daniels in exchange for
Speaker 1: a non disclosure agreement, that that was an unreported gift
Speaker 1: in kind and an unreported campaign contribution in kind campaign contribution.
Speaker 1: That was the whole theory behind the Stormy Daniels thing.
Speaker 1: The thing that people allege was wrong with Trump paying
Speaker 1: off Stormy Daniels, that people alleged was illegal was that
Speaker 1: that was a campaign expense to keep her from talking
Speaker 1: during the campaign, and that Trump never reported that as
Speaker 1: a campaign expense. That was the whole theory about why
Speaker 1: the Stormy danil Neel's thing was illegal, which was completely implausible.
Speaker 1: Not everything that helps your campaign is necessarily a campaign
Speaker 1: expense or needs to be reported as a federal campaign expense.
Speaker 1: So the idea that oh, Trump paying off Stormy Daniels
Speaker 1: all also campaign expense an on calculated campaign expense, But
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's own donors making his son's criminal problems go
Speaker 1: away by paying off or attempting to make his son's
Speaker 1: criminal problems go away by paying off his federal tax
Speaker 1: debt that raised no election hearing problems that raised no
Speaker 1: federal elections problems that didn't raise any sort of eyebrow
Speaker 1: raised impropriety of no, no, no, These Biden donors didn't
Speaker 1: want anything in return from the Biden administration for paying
Speaker 1: for his son's six million dollars worth of tax debt. No,
Speaker 1: they didn't want anything in return. They were just doing
Speaker 1: out of the kindness of their hearts. I don't know.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, let's talk about the gun thing real quick.
Speaker 1: All right, long story short? Did what did Hunter do
Speaker 1: with the gun thing? So you know what, It's long enough,
Speaker 1: We're going to save it to the next segment. Okay,
Speaker 1: So when we return Hunter got pardoned for the gun thing?
Speaker 1: Why it seems that the left doesn't take gun stuff seriously?
Speaker 1: And I'm going to talk about a little bit of
Speaker 1: Roman history in connection with all this that is next
Speaker 1: on the John Juwardy Show. I think Joe Biden pardoning
Speaker 1: Hunter specifically for the gun thing is a richly ironic tale,
Speaker 1: and I want to talk about the insanity of how
Speaker 1: the left has approached just Hunter's violation of this particular
Speaker 1: gun crime. The Democrats have they made a gun control
Speaker 1: a huge aspect of what they believe as a party.
Speaker 1: The fundamental position is that American gun laws are too loose,
Speaker 1: too permissive, too many people can buy guns, too many
Speaker 1: people can the wrong kinds of people can buy guns,
Speaker 1: the kind of guns, kinds of guns they can buy
Speaker 1: are too powerful. The federal government or state governments should
Speaker 1: have far more power to regulate guns than they do.
Speaker 1: They are furious at the courts who say that the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment is an individual right that Americans possess, and
Speaker 1: the broad latitude towards gun ownership that the courts have
Speaker 1: interpreted the Second Amendment as allowing. If Democrats completely had
Speaker 1: their way, I think they would eviscerate the Second Amendment
Speaker 1: to basically just me. Nope, the only people who can
Speaker 1: own guns really are militias. That's you know, the Second
Speaker 1: Amendment talks about a well regulated militia being necessary, that
Speaker 1: that's the only context. It's not an individual right. In
Speaker 1: spite of the fact that the whole idea of a
Speaker 1: militia was a militia was in eighteenth century America, a
Speaker 1: militia was a group of individual citizens who already had
Speaker 1: their own guns, who had just come together for you know,
Speaker 1: civil defense purposes. Now, gun control is a huge aspect
Speaker 1: of what they believe. It's a huge aspect of what
Speaker 1: Joe Biden has publicly believed and talked about and promoted,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Hunter violated federal gun control laws. He violated
Speaker 1: a federal Basically, what he did was he lied on
Speaker 1: a federal background check in order to get a gun.
Speaker 1: Federal background check asked questions about drug use. Hunter lied,
Speaker 1: indicated he didn't have a track record with gun with
Speaker 1: the drug use, and Hunter Biden has a rich and
Speaker 1: storied history of drug abuse. You could write whole novels
Speaker 1: about the enduring relationship Hunter Biden has with drugs. So
Speaker 1: there's also this aspect of it. It wasn't a lie
Speaker 1: and try case where someone falsifies something on a federal
Speaker 1: background check or on some federal document, lies to federal investigators,
Speaker 1: lies in some way, but doesn't accomplish the end goal
Speaker 1: for which the lie was made. No, this wasn't lie
Speaker 1: and try. This was lie and succeeded on the federal
Speaker 1: background check, and by lying successfully was able to obtain
Speaker 1: at least one gun. In fact, there's evidence there was
Speaker 1: a second gun. There's some evidence out there that there
Speaker 1: was a second gun. But Hunter was never charged with
Speaker 1: the second gun, just this one. And that's significant. You know,
Speaker 1: it's not like he was just it's not like this
Speaker 1: was a harmless thing altogether. He actually got a gun.
Speaker 1: We had the bad end result of a druggie who
Speaker 1: shouldn't be getting a gun getting a gun. Hunter's girlfriend,
Speaker 1: at the time, his dead brother's widow, was so alarmed
Speaker 1: at the combo of Hunter having this gun and being
Speaker 1: a druggie that she took the gun in a moment
Speaker 1: of desperation, seemingly and got rid of it, got it
Speaker 1: out of the house and put it into a garbage
Speaker 1: can near a school. That's a bad end result, all right,
Speaker 1: That this is, this outcome is the precise kind of
Speaker 1: thing that the federal background check is supposed to prevent.
Speaker 1: It's supposed to prevent a druggie from getting a gun,
Speaker 1: being a erratic with the gun, and some bad outcome
Speaker 1: with the gun happening, in this case, specifically a gun
Speaker 1: being put in a garbage can near a school where
Speaker 1: some kid could have grabbed it and shot somebody or
Speaker 1: shot himself or god knows what. It's the precise kind
Speaker 1: of thing that Joe Biden's whole career in public life
Speaker 1: has been pushing for preventing and writing laws to prevent,
Speaker 1: and the only response from the left seems to be well,
Speaker 1: you know, these kind of lying on federal background checks
Speaker 1: because it's it's prosecuted rarely. So why why would Hunter
Speaker 1: be prosecuted for it? Well, it's prosecuted rarely, orgo it
Speaker 1: should never be prosecuted. What is that? What kind of
Speaker 1: what kind of reasoning is that People on the right
Speaker 1: have also noted that if Hunt, if if Joe is
Speaker 1: going to pardon Hunter for crimes that are rarely for
Speaker 1: because he committed a crime that is quote rarely prosecuted,
Speaker 1: does this more or less give Donald Trump carte blanche
Speaker 1: to pardon most or maybe even all of the January
Speaker 1: sixth protesters. Right, Many of the January sixth protesters were
Speaker 1: prosecuted with the kinds of things that are rarely ever
Speaker 1: prosecuted by the federal government. Right, most of them were
Speaker 1: charged with I think the name of the charges is parading.
Speaker 1: It's basically trespath. It's a kind of species of trespass.
Speaker 1: It's being on a feat being on a piece of
Speaker 1: federal property that you're not authorized to be on. Right, So, yeah,
Speaker 1: the federal government owns some property that people are allowed
Speaker 1: to walk around on. Okay, you know the grounds of
Speaker 1: the Washington Monument are open to visitors, the grounds of
Speaker 1: the Lincoln Memorial or open to visitors, or you know,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. Certain areas of the Capitol are open
Speaker 1: to visitors, but you're not allowed to walk into places
Speaker 1: that are not open to visitors. If I try to
Speaker 1: walk onto a military base, they'll be like, hey, who
Speaker 1: the heck are you? You're not allowed to just walk
Speaker 1: in here. Okay, let's see some military ID on the
Speaker 1: authorized personnel. That's what a lot of the January sixth
Speaker 1: protesters were prosecuted for. And there's never been the kind
Speaker 1: of super ultra aggressive of prosecution that happened to a
Speaker 1: lot of the January sixth protests. Now, some of the
Speaker 1: January sixth protesters did assault police officers, assault the Capitol
Speaker 1: police officers. That's I think needs to be that probably
Speaker 1: should be viewed a little differently. But if we're making
Speaker 1: the argument, well, a hunter's gun thing, it was rarely charged,
Speaker 1: so therefore hunter should just be pardoned for it, well, boy,
Speaker 1: we're really setting things up for a pretty broad January
Speaker 1: sixth pardon in that case. But beyond that, it's also
Speaker 1: this like it makes me think of this Roman history
Speaker 1: example Titus Manlius Turquatas. Now, who was this guy? He
Speaker 1: was a Roman politician and general in the Roman Republic.
Speaker 1: He was elected to be the Roman consul three different years,
Speaker 1: three times in three forty seven, three forty four, and
Speaker 1: three forty BC. The highest level magistrate in the Roman
Speaker 1: state who had sort of judicial powers but also like
Speaker 1: military powers, was the consul. And every year there were
Speaker 1: two consuls elected, they could veto the actions of the other.
Speaker 1: So he was elected consul three times. This is obviously
Speaker 1: a very prominent Roman. Now, he was so far back
Speaker 1: in Roman history that a lot of the stories about him,
Speaker 1: probably many of them are true. Some of them are
Speaker 1: a bit legendary and a little sort of moralizing. A
Speaker 1: lot of old early Roman history stories or sort of
Speaker 1: history and legend gets mixed and a lot of it
Speaker 1: turns into sort of moralizing stories for younger Romans and
Speaker 1: Titus Manlius Torquatis was no exception. So he was part
Speaker 1: of the man family. I know it sounds like manly,
Speaker 1: but that's a different thing, the Manlius and LUs and
Speaker 1: he sort of his story one of the reasons why
Speaker 1: people kind of think it's legendary. His story was given
Speaker 1: as sort of an example of Roman adherence to the
Speaker 1: law and the sort of severe fidelity to the law
Speaker 1: and sacrifice for the state that the law required. His son, Manlius,
Speaker 1: was leading military operations and he and his the proconsul,
Speaker 1: who was sort of working with him, they were commanding
Speaker 1: these troops and they basically said, all right, we need
Speaker 1: to hold the line until the opportune time to attack.
Speaker 1: Manlius's son saw some opportunity that he could capture. Basically,
Speaker 1: there's some weakness in the enemy lines whatever, and he
Speaker 1: sprang out against orders to attack and actually helped defeat
Speaker 1: a bunch of the enemy. After the battle, Manlius followed
Speaker 1: the law, which the law in the Roman army is
Speaker 1: if you disobey an order to attack without leave without permission,
Speaker 1: the penalty was death, and so he executed his own son.
Speaker 1: And this example was held up to the Romans as
Speaker 1: basically like, really, nobody is above the law. I know,
Speaker 1: we've heard that again and again and again over the
Speaker 1: last you know, five or six years. Nobody should be
Speaker 1: above law. Donald Trump shouldn't be above the law. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump shouldn't be above the law. And what Joe is
Speaker 1: Biden is doing here is basically the opposite of that example.
Speaker 1: His son clearly violated a bunch of laws. His son
Speaker 1: clearly violated a bunch of laws that if his name
Speaker 1: weren't Biden, he probably would have gone to jail for
Speaker 1: at least one of these things. Okay, if it was
Speaker 1: only the gun charge, maybe not. If it was only
Speaker 1: some of the taxes, maybe not. But the combination of
Speaker 1: millions and millions of millions of dollars of unpaid taxes
Speaker 1: and lying on a federal background check to get a
Speaker 1: gun that he successfully obtained, Like think of Biden's whole career.
Speaker 1: Biden's whole career has been dedicated to a couple of principles.
Speaker 1: One the idea that the wealthiest one percent, those big
Speaker 1: rich fat cats, are not paying anything in taxes, and
Speaker 1: you poor, the poor little guy that I Joe Biden represent.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm just one of the regular guys down
Speaker 1: at the Knights of Columbus Hall. That's me, old, good
Speaker 1: old Joe, neighborhood scrant, and Joe, you know I'm for you.
Speaker 1: I'm not for those fat cats who don't pay their
Speaker 1: fair share of taxes. And I think gun control is necessary.
Speaker 1: The kinds of crazy lunatics out there getting guns and
Speaker 1: doing dangerous things with guns. We need federal background checks,
Speaker 1: We need that. His whole career has been dedicated to
Speaker 1: fighting against the exact kinds of things his own son did.
Speaker 1: And I guess I can't judge Joe too harshly because
Speaker 1: I think of myself in his shoes. And what would
Speaker 1: I do if my son was a complete screw up
Speaker 1: and I alone had the power to make him not
Speaker 1: have to go to jail? I mean, I'd probably be
Speaker 1: sorely tempted to do exactly what Joe did. And you know,
Speaker 1: maybe that human instinct isn't wrong. I don't know. I
Speaker 1: find it hard to criticize him too much. But this
Speaker 1: shameful way of acting, like, let I love my son,
Speaker 1: I am the president. I can't bear for him to
Speaker 1: face the music like this, honestly, is almost more understandable
Speaker 1: than trying to make some bs argument that oh, this
Speaker 1: wasn't really that serious of a crime, And well, your
Speaker 1: whole political career has been oriented around the idea that
Speaker 1: these are serious crimes, these are really serious issues. Pardoning
Speaker 1: Hunter for this specific stuff, that's what's that's what's almost
Speaker 1: the most galling thing about it. It's like two of
Speaker 1: the issues that he has spent his entire political career
Speaker 1: campaigning against. The rich don't pay their fair share of
Speaker 1: taxes and we need gun to control. And his own
Speaker 1: son didn't pay his taxes in millions of millions and
Speaker 1: millions millions of dollars of income that he did pay
Speaker 1: taxes in, and he lied on a federal background check
Speaker 1: resulting in dangerous mishandling of a gun. It's again, I'm
Speaker 1: not saying he has to execute his own son, but
Speaker 1: I think a commuting of his son's sentence or something
Speaker 1: would have been a more fitting thing than complete a
Speaker 1: complete and utter part. It's just me when we return
Speaker 1: how the real story about the Hunter Biden pardon is
Speaker 1: Republicans noticing Next on the John Girardi Show, It's amazing
Speaker 1: how Politico didn't even wait twenty four hours before coming
Speaker 1: out with the headline, this headline that you all know.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a joke at this point, and yet
Speaker 1: the media just keeps doing it. Anytime a liberal does
Speaker 1: something bad, anytime a liber does something stupid, anytime a
Speaker 1: liberal does something hypocritical, anytime a liberal does something politically
Speaker 1: damaging or embarrassing. The problem is not the liberal doing
Speaker 1: it the way the media constantly frame it, frames it,
Speaker 1: frame it, frames it the way media outlets constantly frame
Speaker 1: it is with the phrase Republicans pounce Politico. Republicans pounce
Speaker 1: on Biden pardoning his son Hunter. Oh, I'm sorry. We
Speaker 1: shouldn't have noticed that. Joe Biden said for a solid
Speaker 1: year he wasn't going to pardon his son, he was
Speaker 1: gonna let the DOJ's process happen, and then he just
Speaker 1: bardened his son. Come on, whoa, we're just not supposed
Speaker 1: to notice. We're the problem. Yes, we're the problem for
Speaker 1: having any issue whatsoever with Joe Biden just completely lying
Speaker 1: to the American people on something he clearly intended to
Speaker 1: do the whole time. That everyone could have seen this
Speaker 1: coming a mile away. Man, No, it's it's our fault.
Speaker 1: The Republicans are pouncing, staying pouncing Republicans. That'll do it
Speaker 1: for John Die already, Show see you next time on
Speaker 1: Power Talk.