Biden issues pre-emptive pardons in final hours for Anthony Fauci, Liz Cheney, Milley and others

[WyattEarp]

So Democrats are innocent of all and every accusation?

and

Republicans are guilty of all and every accusation?

Very interesting concept

A certain irrationality exists in this belief. If one has the view you describe, there is no room for reflection or analysis in the debate. It takes on the shape of political creed.

 

[oil&gas]

Liz Cheney (and her dad) can only be pardoned by their
creator. War crimes are immortal sins beyond redemption
in Biden's world. Kamala Harris could have won more votes
had she renounced Cheney's endorsement.

 

[WyattEarp]

In other words then it is okay for him to be "above the law"!!

Wouldn't a Court and Judge make sentencing determinations?.

Some of us were discussing Hillary Clinton's mishandling of confidential communications earlier. In that instance, FBI Director Comey basically said Hillary violated the law, but didn't think the case should be pursued.

Then of course, there was the recent pardon of Hunter Biden by his father.

So you see, you have recent examples of other politicians or their families not being prosecuted or given prison sentences.

 

[kherg007]

So Democrats are innocent of all and every accusation?

and

Republicans are guilty of all and every accusation?

Very interesting concept

Accusations are one thing. Convictions before a jury of your peers is entirely different.

 

[kherg007]

Title:
Fact check: Biden leveraged $1B in aid to Ukraine to oust corrupt prosecutor, not to help his son

Biden was so fckn concerned about a Ukrainian corrupt prosecutor that he decided to withhold 1 BILLION dollars? Give me a break. What kool aid are you drinking?

The European union was pushing Biden to do exactly the same. They wanted this prosecutor fired for the same reason Biden did - this dude would not go after corruption.
Is the EU on the same kool-aid?

 

[jimiagain]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881502711579095300

Hopefully we're about to see another former president facing felonies....

 

[kherg007]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881502711579095300

Comer had 2 years to find corruption in Biden. He found nothing except his dumb-ass was played by a Russian agent.

 

[Valcazar]

I just want to say we are all very lucky to have an esteemed U.S. Constitutional legal expert such as yourself on the forum.

That doesn't require constitutional expertise.
It's just a fact that the decision was made already.

Now, this Supreme Court has shown it is perfectly happy to overturn previous decisions, but that doesn't change the fact that a decision was made.

 

[Valcazar]

This has been so diminished over the past 8 years. I work all over the world. I see how corrupt 3rd world countries work. That's exactly where USA is going.

They've been quite explicit about their corruption and their intent to have lots of it.
That's part of what "Make America Great Again" is all about.
In their view, there already is corruption, and the problem is that they aren't getting enough advantage from it personally.
So they need to fix that.

 

[Valcazar]

JD vance lied that The Jan 6th Violent Insurrectionists should not be pardoned:

JD Vance says violent Jan. 6 rioters shouldn't receive pardons

Vice President-elect JD Vance said Sunday who he thinks should and shouldn’t receive presidential pardons for their actions during the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

www.nbcwashington.com

"The violent ones won't be pardoned" was the fake reasonable position people were trying to take because just releasing everyone made some people uncomfortable.
They don't need to pretend anymore.

 

[WyattEarp]

That doesn't require constitutional expertise.
It's just a fact that the decision was made already.

Now, this Supreme Court has shown it is perfectly happy to overturn previous decisions, but that doesn't change the fact that a decision was made.

Yes a Court decision was made in 1898.

 

[WyattEarp]

Tell that to the left here on Terb

I was directing my comment to them. This partisan view that Republican politicians are the only ones to ever be guilty of corruption or other crimes is a certain type of absurdity.

 

[TauCeti]

I was directing my comment to them. This partisan view that Republican politicians are the only ones to ever be guilty of corruption or other crimes is a certain type of absurdity.

I stand corrected my apologies.

 

[Valcazar]

Yes a Court decision was made in 1898.

Yes, and I am surprised to see you stretching to find reasons to try and push for its overturning that have plausible cover and deniability.
You're usually much more straightforward.
If you think it is bad and the constitutional interpretation should be changed, just say so, don't hem and haw with pretending to not know if it has really been decided or what not.

Just say that you think people disagree now and so the rule should be changed and interpreted a new way.

 

[WyattEarp]

Yes, and I am surprised to see you stretching to find reasons to try and push for its overturning that have plausible cover and deniability.
You're usually much more straightforward.
If you think it is bad and the constitutional interpretation should be changed, just say so, don't hem and haw with pretending to not know if it has really been decided or what not.

Just say that you think people disagree now and so the rule should be changed and interpreted a new way.

I'm not pushing for anything. Let the Supreme Court decide. They will decide if mothers who enter the country illegally can guarantee citizenship for their children.

Regardless of the Court's decision, I don't really see any political ramifications for Trump. Do you know any Moderate Democrats? I would find it it hard to believe they are concerned about this. Some issues are just media-driven.

 

[Valcazar]

I'm not pushing for anything. Let the Supreme Court decide. They will decide if mothers who enter the country illegally can guarantee citizenship for their children.

This is what I am talking about.
The Supreme Court has decided.
You are asking "bring it back and see if it can get overturned".

Why be coy?
Also, you know that Trump's executive order is not limited to "mothers who enter the country illegally".

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Regardless of the Court's decision, I don't really see any political ramifications for Trump. Do you know any Moderate Democrats? I would find it it hard to believe they are concerned about this. Some issues are just media-driven.

I actually suspect lots of people care about this more than you realize.
But it is also very possible that the mood of the country is simply one where they want the Constitution re-interpreted.
One problem I do see with that is that if that is the mood of the country, then restricting it only to babies born after February 19, 2025 is going to cause some backlash.

 

[WyattEarp]

This is what I am talking about.
The Supreme Court has decided.
You are asking "bring it back and see if it can get overturned".

Why be coy?
Also, you know that Trump's executive order is not limited to "mothers who enter the country illegally".

I've read the 1898 decision. I think it applies to a situation at a specific time in our history.

As far as how broad Trump's executive order is will be something the Court will examine.

I actually suspect lots of people care about this more than you realize.

I don't agree. Of course "more" relative to what I "realize" is subjective.

 

[kherg007]

As usual this is more for show than reality.
The basics require overturning a US constitutional amendment which requires 3/4ths of the states, not an executive order.
However, I've never been opposed to distinguishing legal from illegal immigrants.

 

[bver_hunter]

Wouldn't a Court and Judge make sentencing determinations?.

Some of us were discussing Hillary Clinton's mishandling of confidential communications earlier. In that instance, FBI Director Comey basically said Hillary violated the law, but didn't think the case should be pursued.

Not true. This is what Comey stated:

He characterized the investigation findings as showing that Clinton and her team were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” but he said there was no clear evidence they intended to violate the law.

Then of course, there was the recent pardon of Hunter Biden by his father.

So you see, you have recent examples of other politicians or their families not being prosecuted or given prison sentences.

Hunter Biden pleaded guilty and was then pardoned by his father. The whole case went to Court without delays unlike the Trump cases!!

 

[Skoob]

If it is a witch hunt, there is sure lots of things he has to worry about.
Trump has promised to weaponize the DOJ for his own purposes.
I am pretty sure we will see pretty serious undermining of democratic values from within the administration.

Imagine that!
A witch hunt!

I mean can you imagine if the Dems conducted witch hunts against Trump all these past years?

I know...hard to imagine right?