True, Navarro’s statement on “The View” that Woodrow Wilson pardoned an imaginary son-in-law named “Hunter de Butts” was funnier than Charles P. Pierce’s declaration in Esquire that President George H.W. Bush pardoned his son Neil. But Navarro’s made-up precedent for Hunter Biden’s sweeping pardon by his father was only stated by a member of “The View’s” panel of opinionated dolts who has no credibility with anyone whose IQ tops that of the average sea sponge. “Esquire” is supposed to be at least somewhat more reliable and professional.
Pierce, a frequent contributor to the magazine and the author of 2009’s “Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free,” rushed to Papa Biden’s defense with a Esquire essay titled, “A President Shouldn’t Pardon His Son? Hello, Anybody Remember Neil Bush?” The subhead read, “Nobody defines Poppy Bush’s presidency by the fact that he pardoned his progeny. The moral: Shut the fuck up about Hunter Biden, please.”
The problem is that Neil Bush was never charged, indicted or implicated in any crimes that might require a pardon or clemency by his POTUS dad, and indeed never received either. Pierce’s obnoxious, insulting and smug essay was based on completely false information that he probably got from the same unreliable source that spat out the “Hunter de Butts” fiction to Ana: a chatbot. It didn’t take long for many to point this fake history out to “Esquire,” so the online piece was slapped with this disclaimer:
“Editor’s Note: This story has been updated. An earlier version stated incorrectly that George H. W. Bush gave a presidential pardon to his son, Neil Bush. Esquire regrets the error.”
However, the corrected article made no sense after its cornerstone, the lie that Bush I did what Biden did, was removed. So in short order, down came Pierce’s article, replaced by, “This Column Is No Longer Available” and “Editor’s Note: This column has been removed due to an error. The original article stated incorrectly that President George H. W. Bush gave a presidential pardon to his son, Neil Bush. Esquire regrets the mistake.”
Does Esquire also regret giving a platform to a partisan hack who wrote an entire article based on an A.I. hallucination that he didn’t bother to check, and having editors so lazy that they don’t require authors to provide citations when they make such assertions in Esquire’s pages?
Maybe Esquire should tell Charles Pierce to apply to join “The View.”
Ethics Alarms 
I am done with you, Jack!
Today you insulted sea sponges. Everyone knows sea sponges are far more intelligent than anything on the view. You should issue an apology to all sea sponges.
No, I think that he should wait until a sea sponge actually requests an apology. Then this would be appropriate.
Unless, of course, you’re identifying as a sea sponge? That would be a whole different pile of metazoans.
Then Jack could rank his apology on the EA apology scale.
Who knew “Esquire” was even still around. Isn’t “esquire” kind of out of favor as being toxically masculine and white supremacist?
I remember the first time I was referred to as an esquire when I received some mail addressed to me with an “Esq.” after my name. I’d just been admitted to the Arizona bar and presumably they’d sold my name and address to, wait for it, a bail bondsman.
Fortunately, theirs was never a service I needed to avail myself of. The only client I ever had to get released from custody (a distinguished Canadian Q.C.) was RORed to me by the Phoenix PD on the condition he tell me what he was doing when he was picked up.
“Pierce, a frequent contributor to the magazine and the author of 2009’s “Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free,”…
Well, at least he practices what he preaches.
Teed that one right up for you, didn’t I?
Yes, thank you.
Writing a book with that title is just begging for schadenfreude.