Press: Trump's final presidential pardon: himself

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abrosz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have disputed Trumps “lies”, mainly in threads where “fact checkers” say he is lying but in reality it is petty nit picking, being unable to detect hyperbole, and lies from the checkers. feel free to check my posting history.
 
fact checkers” say he is lying but in reality it is petty nit picking, being unable to detect hyperbole, and lies from the checkers. feel free to check my posting history.
No need. I accept your contention…but his lying being “petty nit picking” is hilarious.
 
Lament? i would not go that far. just pointing out that the press lies to produce the story they want people to believe is true. something you don’t seem to dispute.
The same was going on when Hillary was complaining about a “vast right-wing conspiracy”. It was a ridiculous claim, just like the idea the deep state and the “librul” media formed a conspiracy to spread lies about po’, innocent Twump, the paragon of honesty, of good will and of politeness! A super, admirable gentleman, who would never engage in locker-room talk about grabbing the p*** of women. Surely they are all hoaxes invented by the media.
 
but his lying being “petty nit picking” is hilarious.
No, some of his statements which are not a lie get nit picked so they can be claimed to be a lie. Some people are very good at nit picking in order to twist statements into “lies”. the press would do much better for themselves if they stuck to calling balls and strikes instead of fabricating the story.
 
40.png
dscath:
but his lying being “petty nit picking” is hilarious.
No, some of his statements which are not a lie get nit picked so they can be claimed to be a lie. Some people are very good at nit picking in order to twist statements into “lies”. the press would do much better for themselves if they stuck to calling balls and strikes instead of fabricating the story.
Exactly. Remember when Trump said he was wire tapped, they accused him of lying because they didn’t use wires on their surveillance.
 
It’s actually just speculation that a President can pardon himself for any federal crimes committed. Personally, I don’t believe that could happen. Nobody can point to documents that prove this. All we get are some opinions of individual lawyers but you get many others with opposite opinions.

For the sake of argument let’s say he could pardon himself. A pardon cannot be given unless he is a convicted felon. Pardons cannot be given in advance so he would actually have to have committed a crime and be convicted.
If he is convicted of a crime after he is no longer President there is no authority of an ex-President to pardon anyone.

If I were in the process of investigating with a view to prosecuting Trump I would ensure the trial outcome would only take place after he is no longer President.
 
For the sake of argument let’s say he could pardon himself. A pardon cannot be given unless he is a convicted felon. Pardons cannot be given in advance so he would actually have to have committed a crime and be convicted.
Yes. They. Can.

Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon was before any charges or trial.
 
Yes. They. Can.

Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon was before any charges or trial.
" After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision that suggested that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that its acceptance carries a confession of guilt."
 
Last edited:
Thank you. I was not sure about that. So can serve jai
If Biden wins, I would be willing to bet Trump will be prosecuted. But it won’t need to be for anything real. The Russia “collusion” was bogus, as was the “Ukraine” thing. But he has spent his entire presidency defending against false charges, and there’s no reason to think he won’t be falsely charged again and again after he leaves office or before, for that matter. Some Democrat committee is already drafting the indictments, I’m sure.

But the real point will be to frighten any would-be opponents of Dem rule away from opposing them in any manner.
 
What about when he used that sharpie to, very obviously, doctor that hurricane impact map? That wasn’t only a lie, it was bizarre. Been a lot of that…
 
If Biden wins, I would be willing to bet Trump will be prosecuted. But it won’t need to be for anything real. The Russia “collusion” was bogus, as was the “Ukraine” thing.
Bogus? The evidence is/was crystal clear, but Barr, his crony declared it to be inadmissible. If Biden wins, all the suppressed evidence can come out to the light of day.
But he has spent his entire presidency defending against false charges, and there’s no reason to think he won’t be falsely charged again and again after he leaves office or before, for that matter. Some Democrat committee is already drafting the indictments, I’m sure.
Actually he spent his presidency watching Sean Hannity and his ilk, using coarse language to denigrate women and anybody who dared not to “love” him unconditionally. A very nekulturnij being.

Trump was never exonerated from those charges. He was the unindicted co-conspirator called “individual-1”. And, of course came the charade performed by the “trumpists” (not republicans!) in the actual impeachment trial, who blocked all the written and verbal testimonies. It was a huge shame.
But the real point will be to frighten any would-be opponents of Dem rule away from opposing them in any manner.
Let them oppose if they have something valid to say.

Looking at the language of his supporters. How do you feel when he says that he is a “very stable genius”? I would cringe and puke if someone I used to respect would say something like that.
 
The evidence is/was crystal clear, but Barr, his crony declared it to be inadmissible.
There was a special prosecutor, remember? His boss was Rosenstein, not Barr.
Trump was never exonerated from those charges. He was the unindicted co-conspirator called “individual-1”. And, of course came the charade performed by the “trumpists” (not republicans!) in the actual impeachment trial, who blocked all the written and verbal testimonies. It was a huge shame.
The Dems could have called anyone they wanted to call, and did, particularly in their “secret” hearings. They didn’t have the evidence. Even their “prize witnesses” didn’t have the goods.
Let them oppose if they have something valid to say.
And your party will decide whether it’s valid and therefore whether anybody other than them has a right to say anything. We’re seeing it already and they’re not even in power.
 
There was a special prosecutor, remember? His boss was Rosenstein, not Barr.
Barr was the AG who sabotaged the process. Mueller was not even allowed to investigate the major crimes.
The Dems could have called anyone they wanted to call, and did, particularly in their “secret” hearings. They didn’t have the evidence. Even their “prize witnesses” didn’t have the goods.
They had enough to start the impeachment process. When the republicans had the power to sabotage the trial, they did.
And your party will decide whether it’s valid and therefore whether anybody other than them has a right to say anything.
You should talk about the republicans who violated their oath. Or is it better to forget what McConnell, Graham and the rest did? They made a solemn oath to be impartial jurors and justices, and then OPENLY violated that oath. Is this something you wish to forget?

But then again no matter what Trump did, the supporters denied it.
 
Barr was the AG who sabotaged the process. Mueller was not even allowed to investigate the major crimes.
Interesting that Mueller never said that.
They had enough to start the impeachment process.
Yes. A Democrat majority and a vicious Speaker. That’s all it took. The Repubs didn’t vote for it in the House or the Senate (except for Romney, of course, and his was half-way)

McConnell and Graham violated nothing. They let that odious proeeding lurch forward. They only thing they didn’t do was call Bolton. But the Dems could have done that in the secret House hearings and didn’t.
least one
Not “at least one”. Just one. Romney, and that was personal and on one count only.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top