CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
Anything can be manipulated. Even samsquanchs.
Sidney Powell
- Thread starter Werp
- Start date
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
@Werp remember when you posted this?Texas sure knows how spit out no nonsense, fire spitting, true red blooded americans! Things are about to get real spicy over the next couple of weeks. I look forward to the rapid development of events that are going to change the course of this country over the next 4 years.
Dumbass.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
i'm re-watching it on netflix. i must have missed a few episodes. i just got done watching Bubbles steal Patrick Swayze's model train last nite. Sebastian Bach had a cool cameo.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
The classic scenes are on YouTube
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
You’re getting to the end! Sebastian Bach was cool as shit.
You should check out swearnet if you haven’t already.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
i have not but i will check that out
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
trump is not happy with his legal team. He’s bringing in some heavy hitters now. A buddy of mine just got hired to join the team:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Rurumo
Well-Known Member
Hey guys remember Sydney Powell, the great white hope of Trumpers everywhere? She's the deranged homeless lady they dressed in a weird leopard print blouse from the Goodwill right before the press conference. They said she was saving all of her "evidence" for the trial. They said she had an "impeccable reputation." Then two days later Trump said "Sydney Powell, who's that? I think she delivered me coffee once." I wonder if a single Trumper out there will admit that claiming Hugo Chavez rigged the election from beyond the grave was a good idea? Trump is so ignorant he claimed that the voting machines in Minnesota were hacked when they use paper ballots.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
can't fault trump, i'd be grasping for anything to keep the SDNY and Manhattan DA off my ass.
mysunnyboy
Well-Known Member
She is Flynn’s lawyer so they had to get her off of trumps team but she is the epitome of a Trumper
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
speaking of flynn, i hope there are some other charges other that lying to the FBI that he will be charged with mid january.
he's a traitor.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
How specific was the pardon? Just to the crimes he committed and was gonna be sentenced for?
That will tell you a lot about future pardons. If Donald issues blanket pardons wholesale to WH staff and cronies the FBI will gut the republican party, none will have 5th amendment protections for ANY conspiracy or other crimes they committed with others. A blanket pardon for family members would fuck anybody they were involved in a criminal conspiracy with who was not pardoned. Donald will not make people loyal to him with pardons, he will create witnesses against himself and OTHERS who have no 5th amendment rights and who face talk or jail and perjury if they lie.
I figure Donald won't pardon anybody who could be a witness against him, he never did before, commuting stones sentence so he wouldn't squeal while home free with a pardon. It's called the pardon trap for a reason and many pardons would be tested by the courts to settle the issue anyway.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
that's what i'm kinda confused about. if he was charged with lying, he plead guilty to lying, the pardon ( i thought) can only be for that crime.
i dont think a pardon is a blanket that covers any and all crimes, just the one(s) charged to the traitor
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
A top notch legal team. Apparently Powell’s briefs are rife with spelling errors.
and what about Rudy’s briefs, you might ask?
and what about Rudy’s briefs, you might ask?
Attachments
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure it can include all crimes charged or under investigation even
@DIY-HP-LED
In the coming days, Trump will probably pardon individuals in circumstances similar to those pardoned by his predecessors in the waning days of their presidencies — those lame-duck pardons have tended to fall into three broad categories. And he might try to grant the most nefarious imaginable pardon, even though it can’t be supported constitutionally: He might try to pardon himself.
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says that presidents “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” The Supreme Court has held that this power is unreviewable, writing in United States v. Klein that the president’s pardon power “is granted without limit” and reiterating that “Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders.” Because pardons are a combination of mercy and largesse, they’re often issued with abandon when a president is preparing to leave office
There are three categories into which lame-duck pardons typically fall: First, there are broad-minded, politically risky but socially important ones. On his last full day in office, President Gerald Ford pardoned, among others, World War II-era figure “Tokyo Rose.” Earlier in his term, Ford granted a conditional amnesty for Americans who had avoided the Vietnam War-era military draft, in an effort to foster national healing over one of the most divisive issues of the day. The same high-minded goal motivated Ford’s first pardon, issued a month after he took office, to his predecessor, “for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in” while president. Ford granted this reprieve, he said, because “conscience tells me it is my duty, not merely to proclaim domestic tranquility but to use every means that I have to insure it.”
President Jimmy Carter continued in this vein. As one of his first acts in office, he issued Proclamation 4483, a blanket pardon for Vietnam War-era draft evasion. More recently, many individuals caught up in the nation’s war on drugs have been the beneficiaries of broad-minded lame-duck pardons and commutations issued by Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
The second category of pardons is shadier. These are the 11th-hour pardons doled out to those with the right connections. Clinton’s pardon of financier Marc Rich (and his partner, Pincus Green) — while Rich lived on the lam from a raft of tax-evasion charges — is the signature pardon of this category, along with Clinton’s pardon of his former housing and urban development secretary, Henry Cisneros. These pardons may appear sleazy and are certainly inconsistent with the spirit of the power, which was described by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist No. 74 as to ensure “exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt” so that justice in the new republic did not become “too sanguinary and cruel.” But this kinglike, prerogative power constitutionally enables a president to be nearly as shameless as desired.
Shadier still is the third category, presidents pardoning political cronies who committed crimes related to their presidencies. Clinton’s pardon of Susan McDougal, convicted of failing to cooperate with an investigation by independent counsel Kenneth Starr, fits this mold. As does President George H.W. Bush’s pardon of six former officials involved in the Iran-contra affair. Done with the support of Attorney General William P. Barr — who serves in that role now — the pardons led independent counsel Lawrence Walsh to say “the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed.”
For Trump, the list of pardon seekers in this category is potentially long. It might include those convicted or suspected of misdeeds associated with his 2016 campaign; those who countenanced Trump’s alleged quid-pro-quo scheme in Ukraine, the subject of his impeachment trial; and those suspected of improper dealings in connection with Trump businesses.
The only person Trump can’t pardon is Trump. But that’s not what he thinks, tweeting in 2018:
The Constitution, however, and the nature of what a pardon actually is make this claim of absolute authority legally meaningless. A presidential pardon is a kind of deed. Like the deed to a house, it must be given and received; delivered and accepted. The president can no more autoimmunize himself from future prosecution than he can sell himself Trump Tower or nominate himself for the Nobel Peace Prize. Without two parties, it is both illogical and illegal. As a 1974 Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memo put it: “Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.”
Trump can’t cope with losing. No wonder he hasn’t conceded yet.
That does not exclude the possibility, however remote it might seem, that Trump could resign anytime between now and Inauguration Day, as part of a corrupt bargain with Vice President Pence. In that event, Pence would become the 46th president and, in exchange, could use his newly acquired presidential power to pardon Trump. Historians have looked at the possibility of a similar handshake agreement inside the Nixon administration but have never established that a deal between Nixon and Ford was made.
Such a maneuver, however, would be more than a little bit dicey for Trump. For one thing, it would run afoul of the federal bribery statute, which makes it a crime if any public official “corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity” in return for “being influenced in the performance of any official act.” While an undoubtedly novel scenario that would keep lawyers and legal analysts employed for years to come, the statute is one of the few public corruption laws that clearly applies to the president.
A bigger problem, though, for Trump, would be that such a deal not only would make Trump look guilty but would be a tacit admission that he was guilty. There is a popular misconception that a pardon is an exoneration — perhaps that’s why Trump granted posthumous pardons to boxer Jack Johnson and suffragist Susan B. Anthony.
But a presidential pardon is not an exoneration. At least as far back as 1915, the Supreme Court has articulated that it carries “an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it.” In other words, if you accept a pardon, you acquiesce to your guilt to be free from the legal consequences.
But there are still consequences. Trump would have to not only forfeit his pride but also give the lie to a long record of disclaimers, most recently his assertion that he’s been described as “the most innocent, honorable man ever to hold the office of president.” For a president who has mused that his likeness should be added to Mount Rushmore, a pardon on his way out the door would bring the very penalty it is meant to erase: a story that future generations would forever know.
funny, Trump is staying at the WH again today- it's almost as if he thinks he'll be locked out if he leaves..i wonder what would make him think that? perhaps it's his own playbook that is making him so self-aware these days?
In the coming days, Trump will probably pardon individuals in circumstances similar to those pardoned by his predecessors in the waning days of their presidencies — those lame-duck pardons have tended to fall into three broad categories. And he might try to grant the most nefarious imaginable pardon, even though it can’t be supported constitutionally: He might try to pardon himself.
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says that presidents “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” The Supreme Court has held that this power is unreviewable, writing in United States v. Klein that the president’s pardon power “is granted without limit” and reiterating that “Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders.” Because pardons are a combination of mercy and largesse, they’re often issued with abandon when a president is preparing to leave office
There are three categories into which lame-duck pardons typically fall: First, there are broad-minded, politically risky but socially important ones. On his last full day in office, President Gerald Ford pardoned, among others, World War II-era figure “Tokyo Rose.” Earlier in his term, Ford granted a conditional amnesty for Americans who had avoided the Vietnam War-era military draft, in an effort to foster national healing over one of the most divisive issues of the day. The same high-minded goal motivated Ford’s first pardon, issued a month after he took office, to his predecessor, “for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in” while president. Ford granted this reprieve, he said, because “conscience tells me it is my duty, not merely to proclaim domestic tranquility but to use every means that I have to insure it.”
President Jimmy Carter continued in this vein. As one of his first acts in office, he issued Proclamation 4483, a blanket pardon for Vietnam War-era draft evasion. More recently, many individuals caught up in the nation’s war on drugs have been the beneficiaries of broad-minded lame-duck pardons and commutations issued by Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
The second category of pardons is shadier. These are the 11th-hour pardons doled out to those with the right connections. Clinton’s pardon of financier Marc Rich (and his partner, Pincus Green) — while Rich lived on the lam from a raft of tax-evasion charges — is the signature pardon of this category, along with Clinton’s pardon of his former housing and urban development secretary, Henry Cisneros. These pardons may appear sleazy and are certainly inconsistent with the spirit of the power, which was described by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist No. 74 as to ensure “exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt” so that justice in the new republic did not become “too sanguinary and cruel.” But this kinglike, prerogative power constitutionally enables a president to be nearly as shameless as desired.
Shadier still is the third category, presidents pardoning political cronies who committed crimes related to their presidencies. Clinton’s pardon of Susan McDougal, convicted of failing to cooperate with an investigation by independent counsel Kenneth Starr, fits this mold. As does President George H.W. Bush’s pardon of six former officials involved in the Iran-contra affair. Done with the support of Attorney General William P. Barr — who serves in that role now — the pardons led independent counsel Lawrence Walsh to say “the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed.”
For Trump, the list of pardon seekers in this category is potentially long. It might include those convicted or suspected of misdeeds associated with his 2016 campaign; those who countenanced Trump’s alleged quid-pro-quo scheme in Ukraine, the subject of his impeachment trial; and those suspected of improper dealings in connection with Trump businesses.
The only person Trump can’t pardon is Trump. But that’s not what he thinks, tweeting in 2018:
The Constitution, however, and the nature of what a pardon actually is make this claim of absolute authority legally meaningless. A presidential pardon is a kind of deed. Like the deed to a house, it must be given and received; delivered and accepted. The president can no more autoimmunize himself from future prosecution than he can sell himself Trump Tower or nominate himself for the Nobel Peace Prize. Without two parties, it is both illogical and illegal. As a 1974 Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memo put it: “Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.”
Trump can’t cope with losing. No wonder he hasn’t conceded yet.
That does not exclude the possibility, however remote it might seem, that Trump could resign anytime between now and Inauguration Day, as part of a corrupt bargain with Vice President Pence. In that event, Pence would become the 46th president and, in exchange, could use his newly acquired presidential power to pardon Trump. Historians have looked at the possibility of a similar handshake agreement inside the Nixon administration but have never established that a deal between Nixon and Ford was made.
Such a maneuver, however, would be more than a little bit dicey for Trump. For one thing, it would run afoul of the federal bribery statute, which makes it a crime if any public official “corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity” in return for “being influenced in the performance of any official act.” While an undoubtedly novel scenario that would keep lawyers and legal analysts employed for years to come, the statute is one of the few public corruption laws that clearly applies to the president.
A bigger problem, though, for Trump, would be that such a deal not only would make Trump look guilty but would be a tacit admission that he was guilty. There is a popular misconception that a pardon is an exoneration — perhaps that’s why Trump granted posthumous pardons to boxer Jack Johnson and suffragist Susan B. Anthony.
But a presidential pardon is not an exoneration. At least as far back as 1915, the Supreme Court has articulated that it carries “an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it.” In other words, if you accept a pardon, you acquiesce to your guilt to be free from the legal consequences.
But there are still consequences. Trump would have to not only forfeit his pride but also give the lie to a long record of disclaimers, most recently his assertion that he’s been described as “the most innocent, honorable man ever to hold the office of president.” For a president who has mused that his likeness should be added to Mount Rushmore, a pardon on his way out the door would bring the very penalty it is meant to erase: a story that future generations would forever know.
funny, Trump is staying at the WH again today- it's almost as if he thinks he'll be locked out if he leaves..i wonder what would make him think that? perhaps it's his own playbook that is making him so self-aware these days?
Last edited:
topcat
Well-Known Member
I think it depends on how it's worded. We only read a short twit from Individual 1. It could be for "any crimes" committed during his service to the What House. Ford gave a full and unconditional pardon to Nixon for any crimes he might have committed during his presidency.
Edit: "except for impeachment". It remains to be seen if Trump gets a pardon, whether from himself, or Pence. One cannot be their own judge and he was impeached, even if he wasn't convicted.
mysunnyboy
Well-Known Member
Probably covers his rico activities
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
i thought flynn committed the crimes after the election (but prior to jan 20) but was investigated and charged when trump was truly POTUS?? flynn was a private citizen. only later did trump give him the NSA position. not sure if my timeline is right, though?