Social The most blatantly corrupt President in history

[MMAisGod]

I stated my opinion on what should be, not on what is or was, though.

Got it, yea makes sense.

 

[SKYNET]

the room will take you seriously the moment you provide evidence for any crimes.

shouldn't you be the one questioning the need for a pardon if there are no crimes?

 

[Scerpi]

Extensiveness in terms of time is uninteresting compared to extensiveness in damage to democracy. Nixon being pardoned was obviously one of the most damaging things to democracy in modern history, and has arguably led to this precise moment.

Hahaha it didn't... lol

This is complete projection

Even Jake Tapper understands... amazing y'all don't

 

[Darkballs]

shouldn't you be the one questioning the need for a pardon if there are no crimes?

Not when the incoming administration has repeatedly said they were gonna bring charges for no reason.

My standard is pretty reasonable: The moment anyone can actually articulate a crime and has the slightest shred of evidence, I'll question the pardons.

Considering the you guys tried everything you could and were left holding up poster-board sized pictures of Hunter's dong on the House floor, I'm not expecting much.

 

[Scerpi]

Looks like we can add Fauci Derangement Syndrome to the (ever growing) list.

 

[BFoe]

You can't pardon someone who hasn't been charged with or convicted of a crime. These pardons are likely illegal and hold no weight.

Where are you getting this from?

Way back in 1867, SCOTUS issued a decision called Ex Parte Garland which said several things about the President’s pardon power:

• POTUS was the only person who could limit the pardon power. Otherwise, it is essentially unlimited, except in cases of impeachment (as the Constitution says)
• A pardon could be issued any time before, during, or after a conviction. It can be issued even before an impending inquiry
• Congress cannot punish someone who has been pardoned.

Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)

Ex parte Garland

supreme.justia.com

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

What does this random tweet have to do with derangement?

 

[HereticBD]

Sherdog should implement some features that prevent 4-year olds from posting here. It's not safe for them.

I don't know. Biden's current approval rating seems to indicate that as true. You do know he is going down as one of, if not the worst President of all time, right? You're not going wish this away. He was a historically shitty President.

 

[sanguinius]

You'd be wrong as Nixon was given a pardon by Ford that retroactively applied to his time in office.

If we were talking hypotheticals I could see the connection but all things considered I don't think Trump needs to see others violate a norm before he's willing to, he was happy to do that when he tried to prevent the epaceful transfer of power the first time. That the Jan 6ers were his allies in that likely explains why he's going to pardon them more so than Biden's pardons.

Nobody cares about your January 6 delusions. It’s hilarious that you see a democrat doing something blatantly corrupt and excuse it because you think it is something trump would do. Absolute hack.

 

[SKYNET]

Not when the incoming administration has repeatedly said they were gonna bring charges for no reason.

If they didn't commit crimes, why pretend you are guilty. The charges should drop off easily. with no evidence of a crime.

My standard is pretty reasonable: The moment anyone can actually articulate a crime and has the slightest shred of evidence, I'll question the pardons.

So your standard is work backwards from something that never happened? Pardon first ask questions later? Seems like you are willing to allow criminals to have the benefit of the doubt

I thought attorneys were sharper than this?

Considering the you guys tried everything you could...

Don't bother with the "you guys" bs. I'm one single poster, I am not affiliated with any group here. Search my post history and hold me to that, not what others have done.

 

[Scerpi]

What does this random tweet have to do with derangement?

Not surprised that you're not smart enough to understand what it means...

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Not surprised that you're not smart enough to understand what it means...

Are you saying it's not derangement because these tweets say so? Can you translate either of those into neurotypical speech, please?

 

[Darkballs]

If they didn't commit crimes, why pretend you are guilty. The charges should drop off easily. with no evidence of a crime.

Sounds like you have zero understanding of criminal law.

But to point out the obvious, it can be very expensive and time consuming to defend yourself against the federal government, even when the charges are bullshit.

I honestly don't know how you guys even think this argument is a winning one. Everyone here has heard trump repeatedly threaten anyone who tried to hold him accountable or disagreed with him. So I'm not sure why you guys would even pretend that didn't happen. So it comes down to whether or not you believe republicans have evidence of any crime. And we all know you don't.

So I think my standard is pretty fair. Show me evidence, or admit that this is partisan hackery. Balls in your court champ.

Additionally, and not that it needs saying, but if your logic was sound, then trump is guilty of every single thing he's been charged with. After all, why would he dismiss the prosecutions if he had nothing to worry about?

 

[Scerpi]

Sounds like you have zero understanding of criminal law.

But to point out the obvious, it can be very expensive and time consuming to defend yourself against the federal government, even when the charges are bullshit.

I honestly don't know how you guys even think this argument is a winning one. Everyone here has heard trump repeatedly threaten anyone who tried to hold him accountable or disagreed with him. So I'm not sure why you guys would even pretend that didn't happen. So it comes down to whether or not you believe republicans have evidence of any crime. And we all know you don't.

So I think my standard is pretty fair. Show me evidence, or admit that this is partisan hackery. Balls in your court champ, what you got?

ok genuis

 

[HereticBD]

Nobody cares about your January 6 delusions. It’s hilarious that you see a democrat doing something blatantly corrupt and excuse it because you think it is something trump would do. Absolute hack.

He's just lashing out like the child he is. Seeing a lot of that these days.

I love them for it, though. They have no idea the damage they're doing to their brand with these tantrums. They're just exposing themselves for being the phony, juvenile sniveling little vindictive shits we all knew they were. These types of people should never hold power, and thankfully I think the west is going to make sure that they don't for quite a while. At least on American shores. If Kamala had won, police would've rounding people up for posting "dangerous" "far right" memes that criticized their government and all the wacky shit they endorse, just like in the UK. That's where America was headed with these idiotic spastic children in charge.

 

[SKYNET]

it can be very expensive and time consuming to defend yourself against the federal government, even when the charges are bullshit.

fuckin genius attorney posts this lazy bullshit. I may not know criminal law but I can sniff out a bullshitter a mile away.

admit that this is partisan hackery. Balls in your court champ, what you got?

Oh it's clearly partisan hackery on your part, the projection is pretty sad though, especially coming from one of the better posters on the left

 

[kflo]

Sounds like you have zero understanding of criminal law.

But to point out the obvious, it can be very expensive and time consuming to defend yourself against the federal government, even when the charges are bullshit.

I honestly don't know how you guys even think this argument is a winning one. Everyone here has heard trump repeatedly threaten anyone who tried to hold him accountable or disagreed with him. So I'm not sure why you guys would even pretend that didn't happen. So it comes down to whether or not you believe republicans have evidence of any crime. And we all know you don't.

So I think my standard is pretty fair. Show me evidence, or admit that this is partisan hackery. Balls in your court champ, what you got?

pardons tend to work better after all the facts are known, than to preemptively pardon without having all the facts come out. It sets a pretty bad precedent to just blanket pardon people without the facts being known. It’s certainly not a good look.

If the president or the Republican Party abuse their power it’s still up to the courts to see it through criminal trials, and it’s up to the democratic process to hold the abusers accountable.

 

[Darkballs]

ok genuis

This is why you should read the materials and not just repost tweets you don't understand.

How about you tell me what Burdick v. United States was about and how the fact pattern is analogous to Biden? You're a bit slow, so I'll give you a hint: it relates to conditional pardons and whether or not the subject had been charged with a crime already.

I'd say get back to me when you've read the case, but no one here thinks you're capable of that.

 

[Darkballs]

fuckin genius attorney posts this lazy bullshit. I may not know criminal law but I can sniff out a bullshitter a mile away.

We all know you can whine, but what you can't do is give me any evidence of a crime.

 

[Darkballs]

pardons tend to work better after all the facts are known, than to preemptively pardon without having all the facts come out. It sets a pretty bad precedent to just blanket pardon people without the facts being known. It’s certainly not a good look.

If the president or the Republican Party abuse their power it’s still up to the courts to see it through criminal trials, and it’s up to the democratic process to hold the abusers accountable.

I think it pretty unfair to let people defend themselves against bullshit charges just to appeal, vaguely, to the norms. I'd say that charging the people who investigated your insurrection is a bit out of the norm. Don't see anyone crying about that.