BadMoonRisin said:

---

AColunga07 said:

---

Comparing the number of pardons by one president to egregious ones like this one from another is ridiculous.

If you're going to play the whataboutism card, do it right. Find a case where someone was clearly guilty of a crime where they benefited financially (in the millions), openly bribed Obama via a "donation" and then was pardoned. A single case like this is worse than 100s of low level drug offenses committed by individuals with no history of violence that by today's standards would not even be tried.

Also, commutations are very different than pardons.

Between Obama and Biden, there are MANY cases to sift through. I'm sure are some good ones that would make a better comparison to this case.

---

Hunter Biden

---

And another one...

TommyBrady said:

---

Hopefully more will continue to be signed. The sentencing was insanely too long for the crime.

Prison should also only be used to separate those who are a danger to others and not housing people at taxpayer expense who are no real threat to anybody.

---

I'm sorry what? Prison should be deterrent for people to commit crimes, regardless if they are still a danger to society. Just like these people did. There's zero reason to pardon them, other than they said good things about Trump. We badly need an amendment to check this power. (Yes Biden's pardons were ridiculous too)

TommyBrady said:

---

Hopefully more will continue to be signed. The sentencing was insanely too long for the crime.

Prison should also only be used to separate those who are a danger to others and not housing people at taxpayer expense who are no real threat to anybody.

---

dmart90 said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

Hopefully more will continue to be signed. The sentencing was insanely too long for the crime.

Prison should also only be used to separate those who are a danger to others and not housing people at taxpayer expense who are no real threat to anybody.

---

---

Will this guy get the next pardon (don't know if he was convicted at the federal level though)...?

George Santos

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

Hopefully more will continue to be signed. The sentencing was insanely too long for the crime.

---

Believe this is the better take.

He is going through cases where Biden & friends got a slap on a wrist if they received anything at all and Trump & friends got lengthy jail sentences and hefty fines.

With the Chrisleys, I recall there was a co-conspirator involved and some alleging that the true wrongdoing was by their "partner". Regardless, they should have known better.

I think the more appropriate thing would have been to commute the sentences and leave the financial judgments in place.

But again, Trump is making a point to highlight the two-tiers of justice metered out in a court system that Obama weaponized and that Biden ordered into action on many, many occasions to "get Trumo".

---

It's because when you're dealing with white collar crimes, the penalties in the sentencing guidelines go up substantially once you get into seven and eight figures. In their case, it was a 20-level enhancement. Not saying it's right or wrong, just what it is.

Their co-conspirator, Peter Tarantino, was sentenced to 36 months, while Julie and Todd were sentenced to 84 and 144 months, respectively. Looks like he might have testified against them to get a better deal.

---

So Peter was the one at the center of it, may have actually been behind most all of it, and gets the lightest sentence because he "flipped" on the Chrisleys.

Evidently the prosecutors were intent on harassing conservatives and the Chrisleys fit the bill.

Hunter Biden's offenses were at least seven likely 8 figures… and he got offered a deal to walk.

Hence the pardon by Trump.

Fair is fair.

I've seen more spin from The Sizzler at the county fair.

Biden pleaded guilty to tax evasion and owed about $1.4 million. These clowns were found guilty of $20MM worth of fraud. But yes, they're exactly the same. FWIW, neither of them should have been pardoned.

4 said:

---

That Dude is as queer as a 3 dollar bill.

I've always wondered why a woman would marry and stay with an obviously gay man?

---

That's the real fraud ... amirite?

HTownAg98 said:

---

I've seen more spin from The Sizzler at the county fair.

Biden pleaded guilty to tax evasion and owed about $1.4 million. These clowns were found guilty of $20MM worth of fraud. But yes, they're exactly the same. FWIW, neither of them should have been pardoned.

---

But these clowns were not the son of a 40 year senator, a former VP and a sitting POTUS.

So I think CrackPOTUSbaby Hunters may be a little worse.

EclipseAg said:

---

4 said:

---

That Dude is as queer as a 3 dollar bill.

I've always wondered why a woman would marry and stay with an obviously gay man?

---

That's the real fraud ... amirite?

---

Met a couple of Todd Chrisleys in life. I remember the debate one time that if he never slept with a man, is he homosexual?

I mean, if he may prefer that with his desires but chooses to live a committed heterosexual life, is he ever really queer?

Now, let's be real and recognize this is like not the case here, but regardless it's and important point to consider.

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

I've seen more spin from The Sizzler at the county fair.

Biden pleaded guilty to tax evasion and owed about $1.4 million. These clowns were found guilty of $20MM worth of fraud. But yes, they're exactly the same. FWIW, neither of them should have been pardoned.

---

But these clowns were not the son of a 40 year senator, a former VP and a sitting POTUS.

So I think CrackPOTUSbaby Hunters may be a little worse.

---

Regardless of who your related to, I don't see how not paying your own income tax is somehow a more egregious crime than trying to defraud a bank for $30M. But, Hunter was pardoned by his dad and Trump pardoned these humps, so Trump is right and Biden is wrong...again. That's how it goes on F16.

Quote:

---

Regardless of who your related to, I don't see how not paying your own income tax is somehow a more egregious crime than trying to defraud a bank for $30M. But, Hunter was pardoned by his dad and Trump pardoned these humps, so Trump is right and Biden is wrong...again.

---

Okay, so just the $$ value is relevant? It's okay to steal up to $995 from the store but anything more and you gots to go to the clink?

It kind of is. When it comes to federal sentencing guidelines, the more you defraud money-wise, the harsher the penalty. And if you plead guilty, you often get at least a two-level reduction just for the plea itself. That doesn't count reductions for cooperation, when applicable.

HTownAg98 said:

---

It kind of is. When it comes to federal sentencing guidelines, the more you defraud money-wise, the harsher the penalty. And if you plead guilty, you often get at least a two-level reduction just for the plea itself. That doesn't count reductions for cooperation, when applicable.

---

Given trumps fraud in NYC and the 31 felonies, assume a drone strike on the family is in order if we talking half a billion dollars, no?

Solid logic.

Your logic is failing here, because a cursory glance at the penalties for bank fraud would show how ridiculous your "logic" is. You can ridicule it all you want, but the federal sentencing guidelines are what they are. You eventually hit a cap where everything over a certain amount is the same. Plus, with regard to the feds, bank fraud carries a maximum sentence of 30 years. So no matter how much you "steal," once you hit a certain level, the penalty is the same. Here are the guidelines the Chrisleys were sentenced under.

But since you want to be ridiculous, it's a 30-level enhancement for theft of $550MM or greater.

Got him?

I bet that F16 trope sounds better in your head. How it applies here, I don't know.

I think the trope of always finding a procedural references to fit a narrative and ignoring the issues of right, wrong, moral and immoral are what gets tiring.

But you be you and I'll be me.

It's always best when multiple viewpoints are involved.

Sam Bankman-Fried -- who ran one of the biggest frauds in the history of the world -- now has his playsheet in hand, ready to make the call.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

Sam Bankman-Fried -- who ran one of the biggest frauds in the history of the world -- now has his playsheet in hand, ready to make the call.

---

Pretty sure he prepaid his pardon in HUNDREDS of millions in campaign contributions, so one can argue he wrote a new script.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I think the trope of always finding a procedural references to fit a narrative and ignoring the issues of right, wrong, moral and immoral are what gets tiring.

But you be you and I'll be me.

It's always best when multiple viewpoints are involved.

---

I think what you are referring to is known as the law. He posted the sentencing guidelines for the Chrisley's, which were handed down based on the level of their crime and somehow, you disagree with them.

Anonymous Source said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I think the trope of always finding a procedural references to fit a narrative and ignoring the issues of right, wrong, moral and immoral are what gets tiring.

But you be you and I'll be me.

It's always best when multiple viewpoints are involved.

---

I think what you are referring to is known as the law. He posted the sentencing guidelines for the Chrisley's and somehow, you disagree with them.

---

you guys lawyers?

Nope, but a simple google search and reading their sentencing docs on courtlistener can point you to everything I posted here regarding their sentencing. It's all there. I even gave you the link to the federal sentencing guidelines, but you must not have bothered to read them.

No thanks.

That's all the info I need.

Now, if you want to really use Google, provide us with a list of all similar defraudments, the sentences, the level of money involved, political party affiliation, political party affiliation of the prosecutors, the judges, the appellate judges, the jurors and so forth and we can begin to have an actual discussion of whether the law was applied judicially and unbiased in this instance.

Reported back and let us know. Else, it's just biased Google noise meant to derail the discussion of whether its rules for thee and not mee.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

Sam Bankman-Fried -- who ran one of the biggest frauds in the history of the world -- now has his playsheet in hand, ready to make the call.

---

But does he have a wealthy benefactor that will write the 7 figure check

flown-the-coop said:

---

No thanks.

That's all the info I need.

Now, if you want to really use Google, provide us with a list of all similar defraudments, the sentences, the level of money involved, political party affiliation, political party affiliation of the prosecutors, the judges, the appellate judges, the jurors and so forth and we can begin to have an actual discussion of whether the law was applied judicially and unbiased in this instance.

Reported back and let us know. Else, it's just biased Google noise meant to derail the discussion of whether its rules for thee and not mee.

---

That in bold is what's called a "whataboutism." And I'm not going to do your work for you. But, for the sake of argument, I'll play along for a bit because I'm bored and the Astros game is over.
What you're asking for is a fool's errand, because there's a myriad of reasons why sentencing for a crime isn't even-handed. We all know justice is supposed to be blind, but we all know that isn't the case. You can find exceptions all the time when it comes to sentencing because of plea deals, prior crimes, and even things down to how big of a hardass the judge is or if the defendant is an ******* in court.

I have no idea if the Chrisley's sentence was "fair" or not. My whole point thus far has been to show how the more you defraud, the bigger the penalty. And if you're convicted of defrauding to the tune of $20MM, you're going to get the hammer, unless there are some exigent circumstances as to why you shouldn't.

I suspect this is just something to divert the headlines and talking heads from something else nefarious going on. Maybe the heat was starting to build around the crypto-grift of epic scale going on, and this was something to distract attention away from that for a day or two.

flown-the-coop said:

---

No thanks.

That's all the info I need.

Now, if you want to really use Google, provide us with a list of all similar defraudments, the sentences, the level of money involved, political party affiliation, political party affiliation of the prosecutors, the judges, the appellate judges, the jurors and so forth and we can begin to have an actual discussion of whether the law was applied judicially and unbiased in this instance.

Reported back and let us know. Else, it's just biased Google noise meant to derail the discussion of whether its rules for thee and not mee.

---

What are you babbling about? He cited the applicable law.

Ed Harley said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

No thanks.

That's all the info I need.

Now, if you want to really use Google, provide us with a list of all similar defraudments, the sentences, the level of money involved, political party affiliation, political party affiliation of the prosecutors, the judges, the appellate judges, the jurors and so forth and we can begin to have an actual discussion of whether the law was applied judicially and unbiased in this instance.

Reported back and let us know. Else, it's just biased Google noise meant to derail the discussion of whether its rules for thee and not mee.

---

What are you babbling about? He cited the applicable law.

---

And then said "I have no idea if it's fair or not".

So in a discussion about unfair, two-tiered justice system citing the speed limit in regards to one person getting a pass and the other getting a ticket, car towed and time in jail, it would seem just citing the infraction is not overly relevant.

The problem is not the law, it's the application of the law.

It's a real weak attempt to deflect the discussion from the actual issue.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

No thanks.

That's all the info I need.

Now, if you want to really use Google, provide us with a list of all similar defraudments, the sentences, the level of money involved, political party affiliation, political party affiliation of the prosecutors, the judges, the appellate judges, the jurors and so forth and we can begin to have an actual discussion of whether the law was applied judicially and unbiased in this instance.

Reported back and let us know. Else, it's just biased Google noise meant to derail the discussion of whether its rules for thee and not mee.

---

What are you babbling about? He cited the applicable law.

---

And then said "I have no idea if it's fair or not".

So in a discussion about unfair, two-tiered justice system citing the speed limit in regards to one person getting a pass and the other getting a ticket, car towed and time in jail, it would seem just citing the infraction is not overly relevant.

The problem is not the law, it's the application of the law.

It's a real weak attempt to deflect the discussion from the actual issue.

---

He was talking about having no idea whether the law itself is fair or unfair, not the application of it, which is what you're apparently (and incoherently) talking about. My point stands.

Arguing about what is "fair" is pointless, because one person's "fair" is another person's "we got hosed." You obviously don't think they received a fair sentence. That's fine, you can hold that position. Someone else might think they got off light. They can hold that position as well. Neither are correct, but neither are wrong either. What you keep deliberately ignoring is that there are varying degrees of recommended punishment depending on how much fraud you commit. I fail to understand why that is so hard for you to grasp.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Arguing about what is "fair" is pointless, because one person's "fair" is another person's "we got hosed." You obviously don't think they received a fair sentence. That's fine, you can hold that position. Someone else might think they got off light. They can hold that position as well. Neither are correct, but neither are wrong either. What you keep deliberately ignoring is that there are varying degrees of recommended punishment depending on how much fraud you commit. I fail to understand why that is so hard for you to grasp.

---

You fail to understand that just because there are different levels of punishment, that they are not applied fairly.

I don't ignore the what the law says are the prescriptive sentencing guidelines, what you ignore is the REALITY as to how they are applied.

That's fine, you prefer to disregard the actual circumstances of a two tiered justice system by going back to "well the law says" and then trying to abdicate your position of supporting leftist lawfare with "the law may not be fair" or "maybe they did t apply the law fair" but never a smidgen of "well, what they did is lawfare, not law fair".

You skirt a fine line in your posts, I respect that. But I think you need to take an honest position at times and I have not seen that.

Did you miss this part of my earlier post?

"We all know justice is supposed to be blind, but we all know that isn't the case."

I haven't really followed this case, but the Chrisleys used to crack me up because they were portrayed as such a wacky family (the boy's weird white teeth, that grandma, etc., etc.).

Anyway, here's Savannah Chrisley's response to Fauxchahontas' criticism of the pardon:

Senator Warren —

You forgot a few details:
✅ My parents were never convicted of tax evasion.
✅ The IRS admitted under oath they owed nothing.
✅ A federal agent lied on the stand and admitted it on audio.
✅ Prosecutors called us “The Trumps of the South” and put my dad’s face… https://t.co/nbY7SlUsBX

— Savannah Chrisley (@_ItsSavannah_) May 29, 2025

EclipseAg said:

---

I haven't really followed this case, but the Chrisleys used to crack me up because they were portrayed as such a wacky family (the boy's weird white teeth, that grandma, etc., etc.).

Anyway, here's Savannah Chrisley's response to Fauxchahontas' criticism of the pardon:

Senator Warren —

You forgot a few details:
✅ My parents were never convicted of tax evasion.
✅ The IRS admitted under oath they owed nothing.
✅ A federal agent lied on the stand and admitted it on audio.
✅ Prosecutors called us “The Trumps of the South” and put my dad’s face… https://t.co/nbY7SlUsBX

— Savannah Chrisley (@_ItsSavannah_) May 29, 2025

---

Her claims aren't exactly airtight there.

Savannah, some of your claims don't hold up. Court records confirm Todd and Julie were convicted of tax evasion in 2022, contradicting your statement. The IRS testimony dispute exists, but no evidence supports a clear admission they owed nothing. Claims of a federal agent lying…

— Grok (@grok) May 29, 2025