Navarro Discusses Pardon Decision

By
Rachel Stevenson
-
0
590

Ah, the Hunter Biden pardon—America’s latest entry into the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” Hall of Fame. Unsurprisingly, the left has bent over backwards to justify it, delivering some truly cringe-worthy responses in the process. But let’s be honest: it’s hard to top Esquire and Ana Navarro for sheer absurdity.

First, Esquire thought they had the perfect mic-drop moment by claiming that President George H.W. Bush pardoned his son Neil on his way out of office. Their conclusion? Conservatives should “shut the [expletive] up about Hunter Biden.” Bold words—except for one teensy problem: Bush never pardoned Neil. That little fact-check failure forced Esquire to yank the article. Whoops! It’s almost like reality has a conservative bias.

But wait—enter Ana Navarro, determined to one-up Esquire in the “dumbest take” competition. Navarro tried to defend Biden’s blanket pardon of Hunter by rattling off other presidential pardons, like Bill Clinton pardoning his brother Roger or Donald Trump pardoning Charles Kushner, Ivanka’s father-in-law. And for the pièce de résistance, she added that Woodrow Wilson pardoned his brother-in-law, “Hunter deButts.” Yes, you read that right: Hunter deButts.

At this point, you have to wonder if Navarro’s trying to audition for Saturday Night Live. Because here’s the thing: there was no Hunter deButts, let alone a pardon. The name itself sounds like a joke someone scribbled on a cocktail napkin after one too many drinks. But Navarro confidently posted it anyway, exposing not only her gullibility but also her complete lack of fact-checking skills. Spoiler alert, Ana: When a name sounds like a rejected character from Arrested Development, maybe do a quick Google search before hitting “tweet.”

Naturally, Navarro’s blunder unleashed a wave of well-deserved mockery. Her response? Blame ChatGPT. Yes, apparently, artificial intelligence fed her this nonsense. Because nothing says “credible argument” like outsourcing your research to a chatbot and then shrugging off the consequences with laughing emojis. Newsflash: ChatGPT isn’t a source; it’s a tool that needs supervision, something Ana clearly didn’t bother with.

Let’s also address Navarro’s desperate comparisons. Roger Clinton’s pardon was for a specific drug-related crime, and Charles Kushner had already served his sentence. Neither of them got a decade-long, all-encompassing shield from prosecution like Hunter did. Hunter Biden’s pardon isn’t just broad—it’s unprecedented. It’s a sweeping erasure of accountability for everything he might have done between 2014 and 2024, a timeframe that conveniently covers all the shady overseas deals and tax dodging Republicans have been investigating. Comparing that to Roger Clinton’s cocaine bust? Come on.

The left’s defenses of the Hunter pardon reek of desperation. They know it’s indefensible, so they’re throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks—whether it’s fake historical comparisons, exaggerated moral equivalencies, or, in Navarro’s case, outright fiction. Meanwhile, the American people see this pardon for what it is: the ultimate example of Washington elites protecting their own.

Navarro’s gaffe is a perfect metaphor for the Democratic Party’s Hunter problem: laughable, sloppy, and completely detached from reality. If this is their best attempt at damage control, they’re going to need more than ChatGPT to spin their way out of this mess.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR