Hilarious I tell you. Pure gold.You should try some self reflection. The person buying whatever Trump sells is calling other people brainwashed. Oh the irony.
Hilarious I tell you. Pure gold.You should try some self reflection. The person buying whatever Trump sells is calling other people brainwashed. Oh the irony.
Your thousand years of precedent is just the opposite. A facsimile of an official record is not self- authenticating and carries no presumption of validity. The FRE makes this very clear. Look it up.Which doesn't matter for the reasons I already laid out in both threads.
An auto pen is the same thing as a rubber stamp. An anutopenned official document is not self- authenticating.You just aren't smart enough to understand this issue. You'd have to be a lot smarter just to reach the stupid level.
I literally laugh out loud whenever you call another poster dumb. Your lack of self-awareness is hilarious.
You're a dumb and dishonorable POS. I'd appreciate it if you never responded to any of my posts.
Because they actually have the pardons on paper. That's prima facie evidence of a valid pardon. Prosecutor can't simply say, "yeah we stopped accepting those."Why would the burden be on the prosecution? Prosecutors bring charges to show a crime was committed. The burden rests with the defendant to show an out. Why would this be any different?
And hickory why are you liking posts on all this shit. You have no idea
An auto pen is not a facsimile of an official record. It is the official record.Your thousand years of precedent is just the opposite. A facsimile of an official record is not self- authenticating and carries no presumption of validity. The FRE makes this very clear. Look it up.
You still wouldn’t shift the burden. Fauci gets indicted the burden rests with the defendant to prove he has a valid pardon. It’s a defense. Between the judge and the defenseBecause they actually have the pardons on paper. That's prima facie evidence of a valid pardon. Prosecutor can't simply say, "yeah we stopped accepting those."
I meant once he presents the pardon in court, the burden shifts back to the prosecution. I do not accept that the autopen makes the document inadequate as proof of the pardon.You still wouldn’t shift the burden. Fauci gets indicted the burden rests with the defendant to prove he has a valid pardon. It’s a defense.
I don’t eitherI meant once he presents the pardon in court, the burden shifts back to the prosecution. I do not accept that the autopen makes the document inadequate as proof of the pardon.
Every legal beagle on air yesterday talking about this thing thinks that the President's post about the autopen and voiding pardons is totally bogus. Every single one. To paraphrase and summarize the unanimous opinions expressed:An auto pen is the same thing as a rubber stamp. An anutopenned official document is not self- authenticating.
Get a Fing pen and nunc pro tunc that shit and go back to bedEvery legal beagle on air yesterday talking about this thing thinks that the President's post about the autopen and voiding pardons is totally bogus. Every single one. To paraphrase and summarize the unanimous opinions expressed:
1. Trump claims that they were signed with an autopen but there is no verification of that.
2. President Trump claimed that President Biden didn't even know about the pardons, but there was no evidence of that and like easily proven false because President Biden talked about possibly issuing those pardons just two weeks prior - on the record. If asked, President Biden will say he signed them or he knew they'd be signed with an autopen and that would be the end of that.
3. If they were signed with an autopen, they would be legal just like the documents of previous Presidents signed by autopen.
4. If the President took action to try to prosecute those whose pardons he pronounced invalid, it'll go to court, and the President will lose very quickly.
I know you like to take the contrary view to everything in support of President Trump's pronouncements, but you appear to be literally the only one that is taking his pronouncement serious in this case.
I was going to say, even if CO.H is right, which I will not grant, they can fix this easily by having Biden sign a bunch of affidavits today with a real pen.Get a Fing pen and nunc pro tunc that shit and go back to bed
And thank God they’ve now said that segregation of bathrooms, drinking fountains and other federal contractors facilities are no longer explicitly prohibited. Yay, we’re going back to the good old days. Happy Days Are Here Again. Keep it coming baby. Next up, segregated locker rooms and sports teams. Boy this is going to be a fun four years. Oh yeah and the administration doesn’t have to obey federal court orders. Can anyone guess where this happens? If you guessed Russia, China and other dictatorships you guessed right. I would have put North Korea on that list but they don’t have courts. They just execute anyone who disagrees.At the end of the day, I don't care what's decided here. At this point though, going after the January 6 committee and the Biden family is a huge waste of time, given the shit show he's currently presiding over.
You do know that the administration doesn’t care what the courts say. Stephen Miller said so in an interview with Kasey Hunt. And since SCOTUS has given this president complete immunity, how do you think the courts can enforce their rulings? Anyone who believes this is good for this country is just plain ignorant or stupid or more likely supportive until there’s a democratic president. I hate what’s happening to our country.Every legal beagle on air yesterday talking about this thing thinks that the President's post about the autopen and voiding pardons is totally bogus. Every single one. To paraphrase and summarize the unanimous opinions expressed:
1. Trump claims that they were signed with an autopen but there is no verification of that.
2. President Trump claimed that President Biden didn't even know about the pardons, but there was no evidence of that and like easily proven false because President Biden talked about possibly issuing those pardons just two weeks prior - on the record. If asked, President Biden will say he signed them or he knew they'd be signed with an autopen and that would be the end of that.
3. If they were signed with an autopen, they would be legal just like the documents of previous Presidents signed by autopen.
4. If the President took action to try to prosecute those whose pardons he pronounced invalid, it'll go to court, and the President will lose very quickly.
I know you like to take the contrary view to everything in support of President Trump's pronouncements, but you appear to be literally the only one that is taking his pronouncement serious in this case.
Get used to it. 27 percent of registered voters view the Dem party favorably. Record lowYou do know that the administration doesn’t care what the courts say. Stephen Miller said so in an interview with Kasey Hunt. And since SCOTUS has given this president complete immunity, how do you think the courts can enforce their rulings? Anyone who believes this is good for this country is just plain ignorant or stupid or more likely supportive until there’s a democratic president. I hate what’s happening to our country.
Our disdain for each other is certainly going to facilitate the end of democracy.Get used to it. 27 percent of registered voters view the Dem party favorably. Record low
I just want to get it on record here that I, for one, don't disdain you.Our disdain for each other is certainly going to facilitate the end of democracy.
I blame media and social media. For almost everything. Trump and AOC have the loudest voices. Hence party leaders. Joe Rogan is more influential than abc cbs and nbcOur disdain for each other is certainly going to facilitate the end of democracy.
Will you serve as a character witness at my future show trial?I just want to get it on record here that I, for one, don't disdain you.
Will you serve as a character witness at my future show trial?
As a society we are becoming dumber, drugged and lazy. Politics follows society.I blame media and social media. For almost everything. Trump and AOC have the loudest voices. Hence party leaders. Joe Rogan is more influential than abc cbs and nbc
I don’t think any legal scholar would agree with #3 absent evidence that was the President’s intention.Every legal beagle on air yesterday talking about this thing thinks that the President's post about the autopen and voiding pardons is totally bogus. Every single one. To paraphrase and summarize the unanimous opinions expressed:
1. Trump claims that they were signed with an autopen but there is no verification of that.
2. President Trump claimed that President Biden didn't even know about the pardons, but there was no evidence of that and like easily proven false because President Biden talked about possibly issuing those pardons just two weeks prior - on the record. If asked, President Biden will say he signed them or he knew they'd be signed with an autopen and that would be the end of that.
3. If they were signed with an autopen, they would be legal just like the documents of previous Presidents signed by autopen.
4. If the President took action to try to prosecute those whose pardons he pronounced invalid, it'll go to court, and the President will lose very quickly.
I know you like to take the contrary view to everything in support of President Trump's pronouncements, but you appear to be literally the only one that is taking his pronouncement serious in this case.
Eh. A ratification when he is out of office.? How does that work? The ratification would need to come from Trump. In any event I’m not sure post hoc bootstrapping is effective. Best is some contemporaneous document or record.I was going to say, even if CO.H is right, which I will not grant, they can fix this easily by having Biden sign a bunch of affidavits today with a real pen.
If Biden approved the pardons, then they are valid, whether he signed them or not. All a court needs is his authentication.Eh. A ratification when he is out of office.? How does that work? The ratification would need to come from Trump. In any event I’m not sure post hoc bootstrapping is effective. Best is some contemporaneous document or record.
I don't think the pardons should have been issued because they were unnecessary, and I don't like the idea of preemptive pardons, but I'm going with all the legal scholars I listened to yesterday. The pardons are valid and anyone arguing the opposite in a court would lose.I don’t think any legal scholar would agree with #3 absent evidence that was the President’s intention.
#4 is the way a disputed pardon should play out. If the defendant only has a facsimile signature, the defendant will have the burden to show the pardon is valid.
If Biden approved the pardons, then they are valid, whether he signed them or not. All a court needs is his authentication.
The one thing they thought to be interesting was the idea of preemptive pardons and whether that could be litigated.
“The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.”
I think this is the bottom line here. And I think it's safe to assume that there won't be one person from the Biden Administration, up to and including Biden himself, who will say that these pardons were executed without his knowledge and consent.
The suggestion that he was non compos mentis is also being tossed out there to muddy the water -- as in "OK, maybe he did approve the pardons...but he wasn't mentally competent to do so". Part of this is Speaker Johnson's anecdote about Biden reportedly not recalling signing an order to freeze new LNG export permits.
That's not going anywhere either. Biden was duly empowered to carry out all of the duties, powers, and privileges of POTUS until noon on 1/20/2025.
And I say that as somebody who was saying that Biden was visibly slipping and should bow out of the race back in early 2023.
Man, you're not kidding.What a stupid fkn discussion.
This was of interest for one day on the air. Yesterday and today I've listened to POTUS while I work on a project for a contractor (part-time gig in my retirement) and every show had legal scholars on yesterday to do a segment on President Trump's Truth Social post. Today it hasn't been mentioned once that I recall.I think this is the bottom line here. And I think it's safe to assume that there won't be one person from the Biden Administration, up to and including Biden himself, who will say that these pardons were executed without his knowledge and consent.
The suggestion that he was non compos mentis is also being tossed out there to muddy the water -- as in "OK, maybe he did approve the pardons...but he wasn't mentally competent to do so". Part of this is Speaker Johnson's anecdote about Biden reportedly not recalling signing an order to freeze new LNG export permits.
That's not going anywhere either. Biden was duly empowered to carry out all of the duties, powers, and privileges of POTUS until noon on 1/20/2025.
And I say that as somebody who was saying that Biden was visibly slipping and should bow out of the race back in early 2023.
It's all part of flooding the zone with so many piles of crap that the critics don't know which one to focus on, for how long, etc. By the time they get around to chatting about one of them, there are three more to pick from.This was of interest for one day on the air. Yesterday and today, I've listened to POTUS while I work on a project for a contractor (part-time gig in my retirement) and every show had legal scholars on yesterday to do a segment on President Trump's Truth Social post. Today it hasn't been mentioned once that I recall.
Were the legal scholars talking about Trumps Truth Social post? I don’t agree with it either. If the pardons are challenged, Trump is wrong about how that would play out.I don't think the pardons should have been issued because they were unnecessary, and I don't like the idea of preemptive pardons, but I'm going with all the legal scholars I listened to yesterday. The pardons are valid and anyone arguing the opposite in a court would lose.
The one thing they thought to be interesting was the idea of preemptive pardons and whether that could be litigated.
His post that the pardons for the select committee were “void, vacant, and of no further force or effect” because the pardons were allegedly signed by an autopen. The entire post by the President looks like something some drunk and cranky old man would post in the middle of the night, by the way. Unfortunately, that's nothing new.Were the legal scholars talking about Trumps Truth Social post? I don’t agree with it either. If the pardons are challenged, Trump is wrong about how that would play out.
I wonder if any of those legal scholars actually tried to get a facsimile of an official document into evidence without extrinsic authentication.
The larger point is that Orange Jesus doesn’t care about the law, the Constitution, and abiding by a lawful order issued by a judge that is in opposition to his position and perceived authority. Can rational people not see that this is exactly how dictators rule? They put fear in the populace to keep control of them on every level. He has the DOJ doing his bidding and the FBI investigating any and all who speak out. I truly fear for my kids and grandkids future. If we didn’t have a lease for my wife’s business we’d be moving out of the country to a Caribbean island. She’s an RN so she is in high demand regardless of where we live.Were the legal scholars talking about Trumps Truth Social post? I don’t agree with it either. If the pardons are challenged, Trump is wrong about how that would play out.
I wonder if any of those legal scholars actually tried to get a facsimile of an official document into evidence without extrinsic authentication.
You may have missed it the first time I pointed it out, but these aren't facsimiles of official documents we are talking about. They are the originals.Were the legal scholars talking about Trumps Truth Social post? I don’t agree with it either. If the pardons are challenged, Trump is wrong about how that would play out.
I wonder if any of those legal scholars actually tried to get a facsimile of an official document into evidence without extrinsic authentication.
Would be putting his license where his keyboard is. How many attorneys have had their license taken away defending trump?His post that the pardons for the select committee were “void, vacant, and of no further force or effect” because the pardons were allegedly signed by an autopen. The entire post by the President looks like something some drunk and cranky old man would post in the middle of the night, by the way. Unfortunately, that's nothing new.
You could offer to take the President's side as a pro bono attorney if this somehow ever got to a court. I fear you'd add a loss to your otherwise stellar record.
The Presidents signature is a facsimile.You may have missed it the first time I pointed it out, but these aren't facsimiles of official documents we are talking about. They are the originals.
The president's signature isn't required for a pardon. You said look at the best evidence rule. The rule involves facsimiles of documents. It does not involve signature requirements.The Presidents signature is a facsimile.
And yet a facsimile signature is allowed on legal documents.The Presidents signature is a facsimile.
No one is more partisan than you. What’s worse is you’re a moron and weigh in on shit you know nothing about motivated by your stupid shill bsAnd yet a facsimile signature is allowed on legal documents.
Probably why people are allowed to sign mortgage papers digitally.
But you are so patheticly partisan that you are running with this like a good trumper.
I don’t think the dancing orange orangutan’s signature is valid because we can’t tell what it says. Kind of like my doctor or mine in fact.The president's signature isn't required for a pardon. You said look at the best evidence rule. The rule involves facsimiles of documents. It does not involve signature requirements.