Loading ...“BIDEN” COMMUTES THE DEATH PENALTY SENTENCES OF 37 OF THE MOST HEINOUS CRIMINALS
From Jeff Childers
The New York Times ran another explosive pardon story yesterday headlined, “Biden Commutes 37 Death Sentences Ahead of Trump’s Plan to Resume Federal Executions.” This morning — before 5am Eastern Standard Time!— Biden (if you believe that Biden was up working that early) or more likely Biden’s Autopen, either one, pardoned the country’s most dangerous, most abhorrent criminals; monstrous men and serial killers who committed unspeakable crimes. Biden cleared the bench, pardoning the entire federal death row but three.
image.png
Somebody needs to put that Autopen back in its box. The Pen —or the Cabbage, I suppose it’s possible he signed them himself— commuted the sentences of 37 men whose heinous acts were so horrifying that the New York Times did not describe or even name a single one. It offered no examples whatsoever, and to make it harder to research for ourselves, did not name the men who received presidential mercy. The Times described them only in reassuringly generic and racially fair statistics: all men, 15 white, 15 black, a token Asian and six Latin-exes, or Latin-‘X’, or however you say it. Hispanic.
Biden curiously made no public statement. He released a crack-of-dawn written statement cynically saying his heart aches for the victims’ families, but he was “guided by my conscience and my experience as a public defender.” In the statement, invisible Biden explained “his conscience” guided him to thwart President Trump: “In good conscience, I cannot stand back and let a new administration resume executions that I halted.”
So, he pardoned the Biden 37 out of spite. He didn’t even try to hide it. It was a terrible reason.
I won’t get into the hair-raising specifics of the forgiven crimes either, but only because describing them is so troubling that I refuse to ruin your Christmas Eve Eve. Trust me: the list is a monstrous catalog of depravity and pure evil. But apparently, the list is not newsworthy; apparently, the pardoned crimes are not even worth mentioning by the sycophantic invertebrates who edit the New York Times.
Curiously though, the cowards at the Times meticulously described each of the three men who Biden did not pardon, telling readers their names, ages, race (all white), specific crime, home town, favorite last meal, ball team, eye color, and dream date location. One is a white antisemite synagogue bomber, one is a white supremacist who shot up a black church in Charleston, and the third is one of the two radical Muslim Boston Marathon bombers (white).
Behold the moral flexibility of the progressive worldview: Biden, the New York Times, and progressive Americans are totally against the death penalty unless, like, the person really really deserves it. (And don’t get me started about all the progressive triumphalism over UnitedHealthcare CEO’s killing.)
The Grey Lady was quick to mention, and repeated the point several times as though trying to offset the unbearable psychic burden of the manifest weight of this injustice, that Biden didn’t actually free 37 human demons, not per se, he just commuted their death sentences so that they can live out the remainder of their lives in prison at taxpayer-funded expense.
(Presumably, the option of gender-bending and then transferring to a more convenient women’s prison will be off the federal menu starting January 21st, but I digress.)
The backstory the Times offered was that Biden pushed a bill to kill the death penalty but couldn’t even get the Democrat votes for it. So he’s come up with a game called how much damage can I inflict before the end? In case you wondered who supported pardoning the Biden 37, it was, apparently, race-hustling black lesbians:
The Times’ article was the punchline to a bad joke about the death of journalism. The Nation’s leading newspaper failed to interview a single person who disagreed with or was troubled by the dramatic, unexpected rescue of the Biden 37. It didn’t quote a single victim’s family member. It forgot the death penalty is Constitutional and probably never even knew Biblical support for capital punishment exists. They turned off the comments.
In short, the Times was deeply embarrassed by Biden’s seemingly illogical partial pardon. But still they tried to make the best of it.
Like Hunter’s pardon, most sane Democrats probably disagree with this pardon. You can pile it on top of that unpopular Hunter pardon, and onto his unpopular group pardon of 1,500 inmates who already lucked into home confinement to avoid catching a cold. Now this. Joe Biden, or whoever is operating his animatronic dummy, seems to be pursuing a scorched-earth policy, bound and determined to do the most unpopular things possible before he is wheeled out of the office.
More on that intriguing possibility in a moment.
…….see the first comment for Jeff’s interesting theory …………..
Last week, James O’Keefe’s Media Group released the latest hidden-camera catfishing exposé video of the highest-level government employee to date. The unintentional leaker was Henry Appel, a spook and NSA advisor who reports directly to NSA Director Jake Sullivan and regularly speaks with Biden. But I smell a rat.
image 6.png
CLIP: James O’Keefe’s mind-blowing hidden video exposé (13:54).
Henry said all sorts of interesting things, most of which were critical of invisible Joe Biden and his vanishing mental acuity. Henry’s gabby disclosures were remarkably similar to this week’s Wall Street Journal’s Biden-Dementia exposé. For example, Chatty Henry admitted to his fake date, “Joe Biden is, like, dead. Not literally. Like, he, like, can’t say a sentence.”
Hmm.
Not only was it suspicious that Henry was parroting corporate media’s latest anonymously sourced limited hangout, but … well, just look at Henry’s dating profile, provided by O’Keefe:
image 7.png
Let’s conduct a thought experiment. If you were trying to “catch” an O’Keefe citizen swiper catfishing, by pretending to be a lonely government employee, what would you write on your dating profile? Would it perhaps be something like, “oversharing on the first date?” Or “I talk too much for my own good,” or “Don’t tell me, I can’t keep a secret?”
Isn’t a first-date oversharer literally what the citizen swipers are hoping for? One and done?
Watch it for yourself. To me, it looks like a high-ranking spook caught himself a citizen swiper, and used her to publish the deep-state’s newest narrative, giving the new narrative more credibility as an accidental disclosure.
It may be time for O’Keefe to start training his volunteers in counter-counter-espionage. Spy vs. Spy:
image 8.png
Either way, it doesn’t matter. What is much more interesting to consider is why the deep state is so enthusiastically throwing Biden under the dementia bus, and so quickly, too. I’m just a lawyer and not a double agent. Obviously, I don’t know. But for entertainment, I’ll throw out a possibility.
The guiding assumption is that the deep state only acts to defend or expand its power. Any working hypothesis must be consistent with that fundamental premise.
Here it is: We may be witnessing a secret war, a kind of intra-party color revolution, between the Obama and Biden camps. Biden, enraged at having been sabotaged for his second term, is off the reservation. He’s slyly sabotaging the progressives. Note how Biden ensured his “impeachment protection” —Ms. Harris, the most disliked politician in modern history— would be the party’s nominee. Witness Jill Biden’s brilliant red dress on election day, Biden’s invitation for “fascist” Trump to visit the White House to promise a smooth transition, his egregious pardon of Hunter, the pardon of the 1,500 (which excused the pardon of the J6 political prisoners), and today’s pardon of the worst of the worst criminals in America.
Biden is stirring up controversy. He is adding acrimony and exciting argument among progressives. And he is keeping them in disarray. No clear alternative leader has emerged for Democrats. Think about that. So far as the public is concerned, who is leading the party? Biden.
He’s leading them in circles.
Joe Biden, in the twilight of his career and the fading sunset of his public life, has gathered the scraps of his flagging energies and roused himself to rebellion, to a final pugilistic brawl, a Joe’s War to settle the scores with everyone — including his former progressive allies inside the party.
What’s a deep state to do? As we’ve seen several times with Ukraine President Zelensky, one of the deep state’s early tricks for corraling rebellious leaders is to withdraw media protection.
Therefore, my working hypothesis is that, ever since Biden was overthrown during the summer campaign, he and his handlers have been taking passive-aggressive revenge against all the Democrats who overthrew him. Hell hath no fury. It’s perfectly consistent with his fighting Irish personality. Who knows how else Joe has been using his presidential powers to retaliate against his real and perceived enemies; we can only see the public parts. One’s imagination reels.
To get this spiraling situation back under control, the deep state needs rapid and irresistible pressure. So the deep state is allowing corporate media to do the tiniest part of its old job, and tell on Joe’s senior moments and slipups. But it could get worse. This could all be part of a carefully calibrated and conspicuous defenestration threatening to disembowel Joe’s entire legacy. We made you, and we can take you out anytime.
But it can all stop if Joe just cuts it out. And helps transfer intra-party power to a new Democrat figurehead.
If I’m right, I don’t think the deep state’s pressure campaign will work. First of all, Joe’s cognitive impairment is too little, too late. Second, Joe is a fighter. He won’t quit until everyone is bloodied. Joe’s War is escalating.
What do you think? Is my theory too elaborate? What else could explain it?
Has there been any confirmation yet on why both Biden and Harris were rushed to DC at 4AM on the weekend?
The info broke — the motorcades were videotaped and then nothing, nada, zilch………??
Good question K2. It was likely either, just in case they needed her vote to break a tie or there was the possibility, that would be the moment Joe would step down. The former is no longer relevant, the later, still a remote possibility.