The last fvcking thing he did.
Good riddance. What a stain.
Good riddance. What a stain.
Fifteen minutes before he left, so Trump wouldn’t be alerted, Biden pardoned his family.
- Thread starter Univee2
- Start date
Trump is making a lot of People on this board on the left, LOOK STUPID!
His speech absolutely shredded Biden. And he had to just sit and eat it in his last moments of 50 years in gov. Doesn’t matter
Grok 2 is wrong. Not only does the Constitution not explicitly limit the pardon power to those crimes for which a conviction has already been attained, but the courts have recognized that the pardon power can be exercised before proceedings begin since at least 1867.
I hope we get to find out. This should be heard by the Supreme Court.
It already was in one of the more famous SCOTUS decisions.
Ex parte Garland - Wikipedia
Trump can't take credit for that. It's like a participation trophy.
Yes Don Jr. "everyone knows."
Here we go again. head down. back to work. don't get sucked in.
SCOTUS decisions are revisited all the time and the pardons being handed down today are unprecedented.It already was in one of the more famous SCOTUS decisions.
Ex parte Garland - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Doesn't this concern you? "The court also ruled that the president can exercise the pardon power at any time after the commission of the crime,"?
What crimes?
Hmm…maybe we should all wait until catturd weighs in on this.
EDIT TO ADD: this post will mean very different things to different posters.
It already was in one of the more famous SCOTUS decisions.
Ex parte Garland - Wikipedia
There are several reasons to expect that a broad pre-emptive pardon would be held invalid. A pardon which doesn't specify in sufficient detail the offenses pardoned
conflicts with the notion that accepting a pardon is an implicit admission of guilt. It is hard to say that a person who has accepted a pardon for any offense he or she may have committed has admitted guilt to an offense when we don't know what wrongful behavior has been acknowledged. Moreover, judicial language justifying pre-emptive pardons appears to have pardons for specific offenses in mind. In addition, it is unlikely that the framers would have vested in the president the power to issue pardons for offenses of which he was unaware. Amnesties which can benefit people whose identities are unknown must nevertheless specify the offenses that are forgiven. Nevertheless, the question of how specifically a pardon must detail the pardoned crimes remains open, and the Nixon pardon, which has been generally accepted as legitimate, may figure importantly in any judicial discussion.
Brookings Institution.
I think this is a decent argument.
That’s really shameless on Biden’s part.
He’s clearly in “I don’t give a sh!t what anybody thinks” mode. And I guess I don’t blame him for that.
But it sets a terrible precedent that I’m sure Trump will gleefully continue.
I also think that Fauci should’ve been left out of the other ones. I didn’t have a problem with the pardon of the J6 committee members and staff.
Any crimes committed after the date he specified, but before he actually signed the order (you can't pardon for future crimes).
Definitely worth revisiting. But please note I was specifically responding to the constitutionality of pardoning a crime for which there has not yet been a conviction, while the Brookings argument really goes more to the heart of blanket pardons generally. I could definitely see someone challenging these sorts of pardons on those grounds.
Lot to agree with here. While political, at least I think you can give credence that the committee felt it was doing its job. The Biden family bit has too much stink of influence peddling, tax evasion and corruption.
Sure, the J6 committee was very political. But there’s not any evidence I’m aware of that they engaged in any criminal activity. And it was execrable of DT to suggest he’d be coming after them legally out of retribution.
That’s the last thing this country needs. We need to put that whole chapter behind us. And the American people have no interest in seeing the likes of Liz Cheney prosecuted for it.
However, I can’t and won’t defend these blanket pardons of his own family. And it’s BS for him to blame those on Trump.
Bingo. The Dems going after Trump was a huge mistake. A very small number of us shitlibs even said so at the time *ahem*. Coming from the other direction doesn't make it any less of a mistake. Best for the country to just move on.
You get grief on here and often from my team but I don’t count you as a shitlib. I include you with Lars and Marv and booger and others fwiw in being open-minded
This, by the way, is the reason I cheered on the pardons, which in an intellectual vacuum would be considered ridiculous. Maybe, just maybe, if we take revenge off the table, the Trump2 admin can focus on, you know, governing.
Well, he said in his inaugural speech that he was bringing an end to the practice of going after political opponents with prosecutions.
Let’s hope that he meant it.
President Trump is at the apex of his political power right now."If you're gonna come for the king, you best not miss..."Well, Jack Smith and the Democrats missed.
1:57 PM · Jan 20, 2025
·
478
Views
It seems a crime has to be identified before a pardon can be issued for it.
Not just one where there has not yet been a conviction - these pardons are for crimes that haven't been identified, nor charges brought.
There have been charges of witness tampering. That is certainly an identifiable crime.
Governing instead of 3 years of fighting bous charest of Russian Collusion, which you were all about?
Let's not try to act like you weren't for taking down Trump for any reason.
I hope he doesn't mean it because if he allows it to go on, the same thing will happen next time we have a Republican President, guaranteed.
Anyone thinking the J6 Committee wasn't a Soviet-style show trial has their head up their ass.
There is evidence that liz met with a witness and that witness’s testimony was never confirmed and was in fact refuted, but not in a formal hearing.
As for general evidence of “criminal activity” the pardon is such evidence. When history is written about this committee, it will recite there was no indictment and that the President gave them all pardons for their committee service, not unlike the pardons the Confederates received.
That is a legitimate concern, which CO.H brought up above.
Why must you always follow content with showing your ass? I repeatedly said the only thing the Dems were doing with their pursuit of Trump was ensuring he'd win.
Yes, I do think he was almost certainly guilty of multiple crimes. No, I do not think the Dems should have gone after him over it.
The evidence is Liz and the witness both said the contact (not sure it was a "meeting") took place. They didn't hide anything. There is no evidence that anything about their contact was nefarious or criminal.
Um, what? A preemptive pardon is evidence of criminal activity?
No it isn't -- no more than somebody asserting their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination is.
Of course you do.
Once, just once, I'd like to be surprised by a stand you take on a position that breaks either Dem or Pub.
Well good for you - you get a cookie.
If, by showing my ass, you mean I show what a phony you are, well here you go - get an up close view.
Didn't Hutchinson reach out to Cheney through her non-Trump provided lawyer after she had seconds thoughts about her less than forthcoming testimony? That's what I recall, BICBW.
