Blaze News original: Biden praised on CNN, MSNBC months ago for promise not to pardon Hunter. Now there's egg on a few faces.



It's indeed a salve for the conservative soul to watch numerous prominent voices against Donald Trump speak so glowingly months ago about President Joe Biden's promise that he wouldn't pardon his son Hunter — only to have that very thing come to pass Sunday.

Tom Elliott of news and video outlet Grabien posted a nine-minute supercut of anti-Trump pundits and cable news talking heads singing Biden's praises for his no-pardon pledge and using it to rip Trump to shreds, pointing out the "contrast" with Trump's complaints that the Justice Department was weaponized against him.

'It was a moment of just moral clarity on the part of Joe Biden and couldn't have been in starker contrast to the way Donald Trump has handled his own conviction.'

Blaze News took a deeper look at the clips, and one of the first things to stand out is how often the prominent elitists in them use the same words and phrases (such as "stark" and "contrast"and, for variety — "stark contrast") in their efforts to boost Biden and tear down Trump.

To wit: A guest of MSNBC's Joy Reid — Democrat U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida — told her in one clip that "the Democrats stand for the rule of law. Remember law and order. ... It is amazing to see the stark contrast between how Democrats handled today and how Republicans handled this whole thing over the last couple of weeks."

Another clip shows former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara telling MSNBC's Chris Hayes that Biden "could still pardon him; he said he won't do that ... given that it's his son. ... Pause for a moment and think about how unbelievable that is. In a million years, if the shoe were on the other foot."

Oh, how the worm has turned. Check out the carnage:

'One side: Democrats and Joe Biden protecting the justice system, and on the other, Republicans and Trump protecting Trump.'


CNN political commentator S.E. Cupp spoke during a segment titled "Biden says he won't pardon son Hunter if he's convicted" and attempted to draw a distinction between Biden and Trump: "The contrast is profound. To sit there and say, 'I'm not going to intervene in the legal process, and I wouldn't pardon my son.' ... One side: Democrats and Joe Biden protecting the justice system, and on the other, Republicans and Trump protecting Trump." You can view the clip here at the 40-second mark.

Cupp on Monday morning posted the following on X: "It doesn’t get said enough, but Trump’s enduring legacy will be convincing BOTH parties to lower the bar, and that possessing moral authority on anything is no longer a currency that matters."

Her statement was in response to the following post by never-Trump author Charlie Sykes: "Smart person texts me: 'Joe Biden has just removed the issue of pardons from the political arena for the next four years, and Trump probably once again can’t believe his own dumb f***ing luck at this point.' Sadly, I think he’s right."

'A current president of the United States has so much respect for the law that he has said he would not pardon his son ... again, it's all about the contrast.'


In another clip (1:06 mark), Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" stated that "a current president of the United States has so much respect for the law that he has said he would not pardon his son ... again, it's all about the contrast."

The clip cuts to Willie Geist of "Morning Joe" with this take: "President Biden saying, 'I will respect whatever this jury decides' versus Donald Trump after he was convicted on 34 counts saying the entire system is rigged against him."

Brzezinski pushed out an audible snicker after Geist's pronouncement.

'How can the Justice Department be weaponized against Trump when all of that is happening?'


Over a screen title that reads, "The right accuses the DOJ of weaponizing the justice system despite Hunter Biden's prosecution & guilty verdict," MSNBC's Joy Reid states that "the president said he won't touch it; he said he's not going to pardon his son, and it seems that [U.S. Attorney General] Merrick Garland let it go through. How can the Justice Department be weaponized against Trump when all of that is happening?"

Democrat U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida replied, "The Democrats stand for the rule of law. Remember law and order. ... It is amazing to see the stark contrast between how Democrats handled today and how Republicans handled this whole thing over the last couple of weeks."

You can view the clip here at the 3:47 mark. You can view the full June 11 segment here.

'Those words so completely contrast with his opponent.'


Katy Tur said in another MSNBC clip (7:36 mark) — with a screen title that reads, "Hunter Biden found guilty of 3 felony gun charges" — that the president insisted he would respect the outcome of his son's case and that "those words so completely contrast with what his opponent, now a convicted felon himself, continues to say about the U.S courts."

'The contrast to how Trump has behaved, how Trump has treated the rule of law ... this was a good day for the system.'


Chuck Todd — over an MSNBC screen title that reads, "Hunter Biden found guilty of 3 felony gun charges" — had the following to say: "The contrast to how Trump has behaved, how Trump has treated the rule of law ... this was a good day for the system, a good day for sort of America as an example of how the rule of law should work." You can view the clip here at the 7:58 mark.

'Joe Biden has very clearly said he would not pardon his son, he would not commute his sentence. How stark is this difference?'


Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC's "The Nightcap" — over a screen title that reads, "Hunter Biden convicted on gun charges" — said the following to her panel: "The latest attack is that Joe Biden has politicized and weaponized the DOJ, right? That was the whole argument around Donald Trump's conviction, and this week, of course, Hunter Biden was found guilty, and Joe Biden has very clearly said he would not pardon his son, he would not commute his sentence. How stark is this difference? I mean, how can Republicans keep making this argument now that Joe Biden has really put it out there?" You can view the clip here at the 1:28 mark.

'He is not pardoning his son ... he is not doing it because he is living what it means to have a rule of law in this country.'


Speaking to MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace over a screen title that reads, "Trump, GOP call on SCOTUS to respond to guilty verdict," former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann says the following: “He is not pardoning his son, which he could do. These are federal charges. He is not doing that. He is not doing it because he is living what it means to have a rule of law in this country.” After a cut in the clip, Weissmann adds, "If you want to know if he believes it, you can see what is actually happening with his own son." You can view the clip here at the 2:01 mark.

'There's an opportunity here for Biden to say, you know, "The jury found [Hunter] guilty. This is how it’s supposed to work. Period. Paragraph. End of story."'


Another MSNBC clip (3:09 mark) features political commentator Molly Jong-Fast — over a screen title that reads "Press [secretary] doesn't rule out potential that Biden could commute Hunter's sentence" — offering the following take: “I think Joe Biden has a chance here to stand up for the rule of law, to say ... the law is the law, no matter who it is, no matter if it’s Trump or Biden. And remember, part of Trump-ism’s dangerousness is that it tears down institutions, important institutions of our democracy. So there's an opportunity here for Biden to say, you know, 'The jury found [Hunter] guilty. This is how it’s supposed to work. Period. Paragraph. End of story.'”

Fox News reported that Jong-Fast — after learning Biden pardoned his son — told MSNBC, "I, so, I just heard it. I have to process it. I don’t have a take. I’m sorry."

'You heard the president say he would accept the outcome of the case; I know no other word for that but "presidential."'


An MSNBC clip (4:17 mark) — with a screen title that reads, "Hunter Biden found guilty in federal gun trial" — shows former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal saying the following to host Jonathan Capehart: "For years, these conservatives have been crowing about a politicized Justice Department, Biden politicizing it, and so on. What happened today? The Justice Department convicted the president’s own son — his only living son. You heard the president say he would accept the outcome of the case; I know no other word for that but 'presidential.'”

Capehart replied, "[Biden] even went so far as to say he wouldn’t pardon his son. That’s how much respect he has for the system.”

Interestingly, Katyal on Sunday night posted a link to an October Politico story titled, "Trump says he’s open to pardoning Hunter Biden." Katyal wrote above the link, "Just putting this out there ..."

'It was a moment of just moral clarity on the part of Joe Biden and couldn't have been in starker contrast to the way Donald Trump has handled his own conviction.'


CNN's Jim Acosta — over a screen title that reads, "Pres. Biden says he will not pardon his son" — asked author Chris Whipple for his take on Biden's declaration.

Whipple — author of "The Fight of His Life: Inside Joe Biden's White House" — replied by saying, "I thought it was extraordinary. I mean, it was a moment of just moral clarity on the part of Joe Biden and couldn't have been in starker contrast to the way Donald Trump has handled his own conviction."

You can view the clip here at the 4:45 mark.

'He could still pardon him; he said he won't do that ... given that it's his son ... pause for a moment and think about how unbelievable that is.'


In an MSNBC clip (5:05 mark) with a screen title that reads, "Biden: 'I accept the outcome' of Hunter Biden trial," former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara told host Chris Hayes the following: "He could still pardon him; he said he won't do that ... given that it's his son ... pause for a moment and think about how unbelievable that is. In a million years, if the shoe were on the other foot" — Hayes apparently uttered a dismissive huff off camera in this moment — "and Donald Trump was facing the prospect of his son being prosecuted by ... a Biden holdover or Obama holdover prosecutor, not in a million, million years would that have happened. So ... some of the people on the right, the people who support Donald Trump, are trying to cast this as some sort of clever ops program."

A longer clip of Bharara's statement was posted on the "All In with Chris Hayes" X account on June 11.

'It's a great reminder that one political party remains committed to the rule of law, and the other doesn't.'


In an MSNBC clip (5:43 mark), Democrat U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts stated the following on June 11: "Hunter Biden was found guilty by a jury of his peers, just like Donald Trump. Because this is our justice system at work. The divide here is stunning. It's a great reminder that one political party remains committed to the rule of law, and the other doesn't."

According to The Hill, McGovern also said, "The contrast today is just staggering. Apparently, when a Republican is convicted, it’s weaponization. But when a Democrat is convicted — the president’s son, no less — that’s justice. I mean, give me a break."

'One of the things that anybody who spends time around Joe Biden comes to know is that he's had this long-running focus on how much he is bothered by abuses of power.'


Over a CNN screen title that reads, "Biden, for first time, says he won't commute son's sentence," New Yorker writer Evan Osnos — who also authored "Joe Biden: The Life, the Run, and What Matters Now" — said that Biden is "really" saying that "I don't plan to use the powers of the office, the powers of the presidency, to provide private relief for my family." Osnos added that, "In a sense, he's staking out a pretty bright line between being, as he says, a president and a dad, and that's not just an emotional expression; he's in effect saying, 'I don't think that I should, I don't have a right, even though it's legal' — and God knows it must be tempting — 'to use this power in a way that is not available to so many other Americans facing similar kinds of struggles.'"

Osnos said in another cut, "There's a kind of old-school, sort of flinty core to [Biden's] conception of how you are to be in the system, how you are to be as a person — a moral person — and ultimately how to contend with questions of power. One of the things that anybody who spends time around Joe Biden comes to know is that he's had this long-running focus on how much he is bothered by abuses of power."

You can view the clip here at the 6:06 mark.

BONUS: 'They're not even his sons; they're just sons of b***hes.'


Another clip (2:30 mark) features Ana Navarro of "The View" and sports a CNN logo on the bottom right of the screen — however, the clip appears to be from the June 14 episode of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," which began airing Saturdays on CNN earlier this year.

Still, the clip is worth including in this rundown. In it Navarro stated: "Joe Biden has gotten asked if he would pardon his son; he has said no. ... On the other side, you've got Donald Trump who has said that he will pardon the January 6 insurrectionists. They're not even his sons; they're just sons of bitches."

You might be surprised (or maybe not) that Navarro posted a few X entries this week after hearing that Biden did, in fact, pardon his son — and she's backing him all the way.

"Good for @JoeBiden," Navarro noted Monday. "America elected a convicted felon. That convicted felon pardoned his son-in-law’s father and appointed him Ambassador to France. If you support that, I don’t want to hear jack-s**t about Biden pardoning his son."

She also posted Monday that "Woodrow Wilson pardoned his brother-in-law, Hunter deButts. Bill Clinton pardoned his brother, Roger. Donald Trump pardoned his daughter’s father-in-law, Charlie Kushner. And just appointed him Ambassador to France. But tell me again how Joe Biden 'is setting precedent'?"

Not to put too fine a point on it, Navarro posted the following on Tuesday: "Reading all these Trumpers offended Biden LIED! Trump lied about bone spurs, lied about his taxes, lied on his bank loan applications, lied to his wives, lied about hush-money payments, lied about the 2020 election results, lied about Haitians eating cats & dogs ... shall I go on??"

Could it be that she doth protest too much? Nah.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

What I Learned at the MSNBC 'Democracy' Festival

The line wraps around the block outside the Howard Gilman Opera House at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. We're here for the afternoon session of "MSNBC Live Democracy 2024." Everyone looks and talks like the sort of people who would pay hundreds of dollars to wait in line on a college football Saturday to watch Joy Reid and Alex Wagner giggle about potato chips.

The post What I Learned at the MSNBC 'Democracy' Festival appeared first on .

MSNBC host shocks panel with single question challenging the narrative celebrating $355 million ruling against Trump



MSNBC host Katy Tur surprised her show guests on Friday by questioning whether former President Donald Trump received a fair shake in New York.

On Friday, a New York judge ordered Trump to pay $355 million in a civil fraud case. The total penalty, when interest is calculated, is approximately $450 million. New York Attorney General Letitia James — a Democrat who campaigned on targeting Trump — celebrated the judge's unprecedented and highly controversial penalty.

To frame her question, Tur cited an Associated Press analysis that exposed the unprecedented nature of the case and how New York's treatment of Trump is incongruent with past cases. She explained:

They went back over 70 years and looked at all the cases that have been tried under this rule — [New York Civil Practice Law] 6312, which is used here — which doesn't have to show harm done. That's not the burden. You don't have to show that anybody was hurt by your practices. There's nobody you defrauded specifically.

They went back and they looked at cases over 70 years — I believe it's about 150 cases — and found there was no case where there was a ban on doing business where there wasn't harm shown. So even though the threshold is "harm shown," in the past, it has only been used to ban someone doing business when it's been shown that somebody was hurt — say you're selling cosmetics that are poisoning you. There's somebody that was hurt there; the cosmetics company gets banned.

"Is this fair to go after Donald Trump like this in this environment, is my question," Tur said.

The camera then panned to MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin and New York Times reporter Susanne Craig, both of whom appeared flabbergasted that Tur dared to ask that question.

Neither Rubin nor Craig answered Tur's question. Instead, Rubin directed Tur to ask former New York Assistant Attorney General Tristan Snell.

— (@)

Snell, who prosecuted Trump over Trump University, argued the evidence in the fraud cause "went way over" the legal threshold, which is why the judge issued high penalties.

Later, Craig defended big banks — which Trump allegedly defrauded — as the "victims." But Tur immediately made an inconvenient observation.

"Listen, I'm not arguing in anyone's defense; they have said they didn't feel like they lost," Tur pointed out of the banks with which Trump did business.

New York real estate developers are concerned about the implications of the ruling because it's an open secret that every business does what Trump did: get the highest possible value for your properties while, at the same time, trying to minimize tax liabilities.

It's why businessman Kevin O'Leary described the outcome as "un-American." O'Leary said if the court system were fair, they would punish "every real estate developer on Earth."

Fortunately for New York real estate developers not named Trump, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) has assured them that there is "nothing to worry about."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Hunter Biden's lawyer divulges alarming detail about role infamous laptop played in criminal case: 'I can't recall'



Christopher Clark, lead attorney for Hunter Biden, revealed Tuesday that he was never asked about the the infamous Hunter Biden laptop as part of the criminal investigation into the first son.

"I can't recall being asked about it, to be honest with you. But there's nothing about the situation that's being filed that has a thing to do with the laptop," Clark said on MSNBC.

Host Katy Tur followed up, "Why not?"

"I don't know. You'd have to ask the prosecutors," Clark responded.

TheBlaze did reach out to the Delaware U.S. Attorney's Office asking whether the laptop was part of U.S. Attorney David Weiss' five-year investigation. The office, however, declined to comment.

Hunter Biden's lawyer on guilty plea: 'Hunter feels happy to move on with his life youtu.be

The laptop publicly surfaced in October 2020. But the FBI knew about it long before then. In fact, with a grand jury subpoena in hand, federal authorities seized the laptop in December 2019 from the Delaware computer shop owner who purportedly assumed ownership of the laptop after it was dropped off and never picked up.

Contained within the laptop's hard drive was a treasure trove of personal information about Hunter Biden's life, including his drug use, business dealings, and relationships. It strains credulity, then, if the laptop was not part of Weiss' investigation.

There is at least one angle in which publicly revealed materials from the laptop would intersect with the present case.

Photos from the laptop showed Biden brandishing a handgun while he was a user of controlled substances. Under these circumstances, a defendant is typically disqualified from pretrial diversion.

The Justice Department explains on its website: "Any pretrial diversion program created by a U.S. Attorney’s Office shall exclude any individual who is ... accused of an offense involving brandishing or use of a firearm or other deadly weapon."

Still, prosecutors agreed to give Biden diversion for illegally possessing a firearm while being a user of illegal drugs, a felony crime. The argument for allowing pretrial diversion, then, may rest on the fact that prosecutors charged Biden with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), two federal statutes that do not specifically involve firearm brandishing or use.

A judge still needs to approve the plea deal. A court date has not yet been set for Biden's initial court appearance.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!