The federal possession forgiveness was a red herring. It only applies to people in federal prison who aren’t also in for “violent” offenses, which all the aggravated and intent charges count as.
And yes federal because that’s what he has jurisdiction over. And yes violent offences are a big and completely different step up. It was intended to be possession and that what it was, not other things. You’re doing a weird deflection on what was a good call. And plenty of advisors probably pointed out that many times some decently bad incidents get argued down to possession for plea deal.
Almost no one is in federal prison for “just” possession. Almost no one serves time in federal prison for possession when their case is plead down. Part of an attractive plea deal is avoiding federal prison. Lots of weird shit counts as violent crime even though we wouldn’t think it was. Felony murder is a thing.
A red herring, especially in a narrative, is some piece of information meant to be misleading.
Biden pardoning of people with possession charges amounted to very few actual pardons, didn’t account for the Byzantine legal system and didn’t have any effect for precursor crimes. The intent was to get some publicity and seem like he’s doing something while actually not doing anything. Purposely misleading information. A red herring.
Yeah it’s not many people because most convictions are from the states, which he does not have jurisdiction over. Ok? Got it? The president can not do anything about state convictions or sentences. So he did what he could with federal charges, because federal is what he has jurisdiction over.
Part of an attractive deal is pleading down more serious stuff down to simple possession.
Red herring:
Something that draws attention away from the matter being discussed or dealt with.
It’s not a red herring. What you are trying to do is closer (still not quite) to a red herring because you are trying to draw attention away from what he could do and trying to minimize it with the repeated “not many”. The number doesn’t matter, he did what he had jurisdiction over, You are the one much closer to a red herring. Ciao.
The federal possession forgiveness was a red herring. It only applies to people in federal prison who aren’t also in for “violent” offenses, which all the aggravated and intent charges count as.
So it ended up applying to like five dudes.
That’s not what a red herring is.
And yes federal because that’s what he has jurisdiction over. And yes violent offences are a big and completely different step up. It was intended to be possession and that what it was, not other things. You’re doing a weird deflection on what was a good call. And plenty of advisors probably pointed out that many times some decently bad incidents get argued down to possession for plea deal.
Almost no one is in federal prison for “just” possession. Almost no one serves time in federal prison for possession when their case is plead down. Part of an attractive plea deal is avoiding federal prison. Lots of weird shit counts as violent crime even though we wouldn’t think it was. Felony murder is a thing.
A red herring, especially in a narrative, is some piece of information meant to be misleading.
Biden pardoning of people with possession charges amounted to very few actual pardons, didn’t account for the Byzantine legal system and didn’t have any effect for precursor crimes. The intent was to get some publicity and seem like he’s doing something while actually not doing anything. Purposely misleading information. A red herring.
Yeah it’s not many people because most convictions are from the states, which he does not have jurisdiction over. Ok? Got it? The president can not do anything about state convictions or sentences. So he did what he could with federal charges, because federal is what he has jurisdiction over.
Part of an attractive deal is pleading down more serious stuff down to simple possession.
Red herring:
It’s not a red herring. What you are trying to do is closer (still not quite) to a red herring because you are trying to draw attention away from what he could do and trying to minimize it with the repeated “not many”. The number doesn’t matter, he did what he had jurisdiction over, You are the one much closer to a red herring. Ciao.