RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:31 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:51 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
No, really!

After months of criticizing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, President Donald Trump’s supporters are issuing increasingly bold calls for presidential pardons to limit the investigation’s impact.

“I think he should be pardoning anybody who’s been indicted and make it clear that anybody else who gets indicted would be pardoned immediately,” said Frederick Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and senior vice president at the conservative Center for Security Policy.

The pleas for mercy mainly extend to the four former Trump aides who have already been swept up in the Russia probe: former campaign manager Paul Manafort, former deputy campaign manager Rick Gates, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. But they don’t stop there.

“It’s kind of cruel what’s going on right now and the president should put these defendants out of their misery,” said Larry Klayman, a conservative legal activist. “I think he should pardon everybody — and pardon himself.”


It wouldn't surprise me. This administration is the most corrupt in United States history.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:12 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:34 pm
Posts: 5133
Along with the pardon comes an admission of guilt. Also, as regards Manafort and Gates, they would still face prosecution by New York State.

_________________
Glenfs posted about the Left's War On Women. Glenfs posted this after the Cosby Verdict "Gloria Allred is a media hound and an asshole. The most dangerous place to be is inbetween her and a microphone or camera". 04/27/2018.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:23 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
Along with the pardon comes an admission of guilt. Also, as regards Manafort and Gates, they would still face prosecution by New York State.

Yes, that's Mueller's hole card. But I dunno if it's admission of guilt if the pardon is BEFORE someone is indicted...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:24 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 8787
I think these guys are pardon proof. Probably with a back up that goes right to state crimes.

Also, I really don't think a president can pardon people for crimes he's implicated in. No one is above the law, not even the president.

_________________
Getting it wrong to pwn the libs:
Quote:
The American people have once again rejected liberalism. So Much For the Blue Wave

Voting with hurt fees to pwn the libs:
Quote:
because of this board... it will be very hard for me to support a Democratic candidate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:27 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
I think these guys are pardon proof. Probably with a back up that goes right to state crimes.

Also, I really don't think a president can pardon people for crimes he's implicated in. No one is above the law, not even the president.

With all due respect, your opinion doesn't matter. It would be up to the Congress and Senate, and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

And, sadly, they're in Trump's corner...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:28 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 8787
It is my opinion, yes. But this is uncharted territory. No one is above the law. I'm doubtful a president can pardon people of crimes when he's the ring leader but I guess we'll see.

_________________
Getting it wrong to pwn the libs:
Quote:
The American people have once again rejected liberalism. So Much For the Blue Wave

Voting with hurt fees to pwn the libs:
Quote:
because of this board... it will be very hard for me to support a Democratic candidate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:33 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
It is my opinion, yes. But this is uncharted territory. No one is above the law. I'm doubtful a president can pardon people of crimes when he's the ring leader but I guess we'll see.

We agree that's how our nation was set up, and yes, no President should be above the law. We kind of proved that with Nixon.

But a Republican Supreme Court can just throw all that out, and destroy everything our nation is built upon. And Republicans are more than willing to do that. They have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are putting power before our nation and our Constitution. They don't believe in any of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:17 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3838
We agree that's how our nation was set up, and yes, no President should be above the law. We kind of proved that with Nixon.

But a Republican Supreme Court can just throw all that out, and destroy everything our nation is built upon. And Republicans are more than willing to do that. They have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are putting power before our nation and our Constitution. They don't believe in any of it.

Right. This looks like a quick and easy opportunity to just redo America into a fascist state.

Grounds for a pardon would be what, unusual emotional trauma? That is a good one.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:18 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 13181
I think these guys are pardon proof. Probably with a back up that goes right to state crimes.

They're pardon-proof only as long as Trump has need of them. If they turn on him and give evidence of his wrongdoing then Trump won't pardon them because they weren't "loyal" to him. If they keep their mouths shut and don't implicate him then it's to Trump's advantage to pardon them. Trump's big mistake will be if he telegraphs his intent to pardon them then that would be obstruction of justice and an impeachable offense.

Quote:
Also, I really don't think a president can pardon people for crimes he's implicated in. No one is above the law, not even the president.

In looking over Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution it only says he can't use the power of the pardon in cases of impeachment. From my take that means if he, or anyone holding an office, is facing or is impeached he can't pardon them. If he were implicated in a crime and he pardoned those involved I think this would be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. I doubt even the conservative Supreme Court would go along with Trump on that.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:32 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
I doubt even the conservative Supreme Court would go along with Trump on that.

Sir, you are far more optimistic than I on that point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:39 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11501
My wife was concerned by the OP articles title when she was reading the news this morning. She read parts of it to me, and we discussed it.

The title is, "Conservatives urge Trump to grant pardons in Russia probe."

I asked her, "which conservatives are urging Trump to do that?"

She read the names off to me. The first one Frederick Fleitz, I've never heard of him. Larry Klayman, I think I have heard of him, but I don't think he's a wheel. Michael Flynn Jr. is not a surprise.

Donald Trump Jr. was mentioned for having made a tweet, but he didn't actually tweet anything related to urging Trump to roll out pardons.



I said to her, "Politico has a bad habit of making broad stereotypical statements in headlines." She agreed.

She read the rest of the article to me, it devolved into what sounded like two pages of rehashing of past speculation by others, and the authors speculation.



I asked her "who is author?"

She told me, I've never heard of him, I've already forgotten his name.

She looked him up after I ask about him, this part I do remember, at one time he was a sports writer. That past experience shows in his writing today.

We decided together that the article wasn't actually made of anything, so it doesn't actually mean anything.



All in all it was a nice day today. It snowed and rained a bit. Was too cold to go outside which means I stayed inside and didn't do anything I would call real work. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:23 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
Oh, right, Trump isn't going to use any pardons, Sam, he also doesn't want to fire Mueller. He never said he has the unlimited right to pardon.

My mistake, Sam, Trump is obviously as honest and innocent as the day is long. :roll:

Jeesh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:11 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19119
My wife was concerned by the OP articles title when she was reading the news this morning. She read parts of it to me, and we discussed it.

The title is, "Conservatives urge Trump to grant pardons in Russia probe."

I asked her, "which conservatives are urging Trump to do that?"

She read the names off to me. The first one Frederick Fleitz, I've never heard of him. Larry Klayman, I think I have heard of him, but I don't think he's a wheel. Michael Flynn Jr. is not a surprise.

Donald Trump Jr. was mentioned for having made a tweet, but he didn't actually tweet anything related to urging Trump to roll out pardons.



I said to her, "Politico has a bad habit of making broad stereotypical statements in headlines." She agreed.

She read the rest of the article to me, it devolved into what sounded like two pages of rehashing of past speculation by others, and the authors speculation.



I asked her "who is author?"

She told me, I've never heard of him, I've already forgotten his name.

She looked him up after I ask about him, this part I do remember, at one time he was a sports writer. That past experience shows in his writing today.

We decided together that the article wasn't actually made of anything, so it doesn't actually mean anything.



All in all it was a nice day today. It snowed and rained a bit. Was too cold to go outside which means I stayed inside and didn't do anything I would call real work. :D


Larry Klayman is that Judicial Watch clown.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:23 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11501
Oh, right, Trump isn't going to use any pardons, Sam, he also doesn't want to fire Mueller. He never said he has the unlimited right to pardon.

My mistake, Sam, Trump is obviously as honest and innocent as the day is long. :roll:

Jeesh.


Have you given it any thought as to whether you would love to hate to see Trump pardon these gangsters in front of everyone?

That sure would be exciting. Why if he did that I would get a calendar and start counting the days.

Who's Jeesh, I thought you were GoUnion?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:32 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11501

Larry Klayman is that Judicial Watch clown.


Yeah, a clown. He's known for frivolous lawsuits.

Sued his mother.

Says things like "Caucasian race" and "Jewish-Christian religion."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:12 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Have you given it any thought as to whether you would love to hate to see Trump pardon these gangsters in front of everyone?

That sure would be exciting. Why if he did that I would get a calendar and start counting the days.

Who's Jeesh, I thought you were GoUnion?

All you have left is an ad hominem attack. Not surprised. You're done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:35 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:46 am
Posts: 1566
All you have left is an ad hominem attack. Not surprised. You're done.

Well if we want to go ad hominem.....I don't deal with that stupid fucking cunt. He can go fuck himself with a 4" firehose for all I care. That's girth by the way. Length is up to him.

_________________
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence.....I think not!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:22 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11501
All you have left is an ad hominem attack. Not surprised. You're done.


That's not an ad hominem attack. That's just not taking you seriously, and eating your straw. And saying how much I liked your straw when I was done eating it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:24 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11501
Well if we want to go ad hominem.....I don't deal with that stupid fucking cunt. He can go fuck himself with a 4" firehose for all I care. That's girth by the way. Length is up to him.


This is an ad hominem attack.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:21 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

That's not an ad hominem attack. That's just not taking you seriously, and eating your straw. And saying how much I liked your straw when I was done eating it.

Sadly, you have to deny what you wrote. That's what it was, don't try to play innocent. It's all bullshit. If I make an attack, I don't pretend that I didn't. But you do.

But Raw Story has an interesting take on the pardon issue:

Right-wing allies are encouraging President Donald Trump to issue pardons to anyone — including himself — implicated in the special counsel investigation, but legal experts say that won’t come without significant risk.

Some of the president’s top campaign aides have already either pleaded guilty to federal charges or have been indicted in the probe, and his son and son-in-law Jared Kushner also face potential legal jeopardy, but a former Defense Department attorney urged them all to think twice before accepting pardons.

Ryan Goodman — co-editor-in-chief of Just Security and former special counsel for the Department of Defense — pointed out that presidential pardons don’t cover state charges, but accepting one would make state prosecution more likely.

“The dilemma for these Trump campaign affiliates is not simply that a presidential pardon would fail to erase the risk of a state prosecution, but rather that their acceptance of such a pardon may significantly increase the prospect that state prosecutors will both pursue a case and secure a conviction,” Goodman said.

That’s because state attorneys general such as New York’s Eric Schneiderman could perceive their acceptance as an admission of guilt.

“What Trump campaign affiliates have to fear is that acceptance of a pardon could add booster rockets to the state prosecutors’ efforts for closely related state crimes,” Goodman said. “Officials like New York’s Schneiderman may feel they have an ace in hand if they can walk into a state courthouse with a defendant’s admission of guilt implied by having accepted a presidential pardon. This get-out-of-federal-jail card comes at a price.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:47 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11501
Sadly, you have to deny what you wrote. That's what it was, don't try to play innocent. It's all bullshit. If I make an attack, I don't pretend that I didn't. But you do.


I don't deny what I wrote. I wrote about the OP article, I had some criticism about it. I didn't mention your name or criticize you. What I didn't write was your dripping inference about what I wrote. :|

You wrote, "My mistake, Sam, Trump is obviously as honest and innocent as the day is long." :roll: "Jeesh."

Nothing I wrote went there. That was a misrepresentation of my position, with a sneer. :|

So I wrote, "Who's Jeesh, I thought you were GoUnion?" Along with that I also wrote, "Have you given it any thought as to whether you would love to hate to see Trump pardon these gangsters in front of everyone?"

Then you wrote, "All you have left is an ad hominem attack. Not surprised. You're done."

Just because you said I'm done sure as hell doesn't mean I'm done. :|

At which point I wrote, "That's not an ad hominem attack. That's just not taking you seriously, and eating your straw. And saying how much I liked your straw when I was done eating it."

When I mentioned not eating your straw I was referring back to your dripping inference about what I wrote. Straw is a well known metaphoric reference to misrepresentation of a persons position. You were doing the nasty straw man thing again. It's a bad habit you have. Another bad habit you have is saying someone else is doing to you what you are actually doing to them. :|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:38 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
"Have you given it any thought as to whether you would love to hate to see Trump pardon these gangsters in front of everyone?"

You're pretty good at laying down straw yourself, Sam. You're like glen - doing exactly what you whine that people do to you. Thanks for making my point for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:24 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11501
"Have you given it any thought as to whether you would love to hate to see Trump pardon these gangsters in front of everyone?"

You're pretty good at laying down straw yourself, Sam. You're like glen - doing exactly what you whine that people do to you. Thanks for making my point for me.


That's a straight up question GoUnion. It doesn't imply what you may think or have said or in any way represent your position.

There is one side of me that hopes Trump does roll out the pardons, so we can impeach him. That's what i think would come of it. It's not my position but the thought of it has crossed my mind.



As you recall I wrote, "Who's Jeesh, I thought you were GoUnion?"

That was in protest of that sneer after your dripping inference misrepresentation of my position.


Along with that but not related to protesting that sneer, I also wrote, "Have you given it any thought as to whether you would love to hate to see Trump pardon these gangsters in front of everyone?"

A straight up on topic question. You can answer it if you want, or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:32 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 17960
Location: The blue parts of the map
A pardon before conviction is an admission of guilt. It also waives the 5th Amendment regarding testimony in the matter, because it can no longer cause self-incrimination.

_________________
"Our democratic institutions... seem to have been upended by frat-boy billionaires from California," remarked Canadian politician Charlie Angus. (BBC, 11/27/18)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:13 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 13181
The problem with Trump pardoning anyone is many, if not all of them, could still face state charges and Trump's pardon is only for federal crimes, not state crimes. New York is a state that goes after those who commit financial crimes.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bird and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group