Trump says he has nullified Biden's pardons

  • Thread starter Thread starter altmin
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 147
  • Views: 3K
  • Politics 
Ramrouser said:
If Trump is serious about this auto pen/pardon issue then he would have to have a serious, high ranking whistleblower who has given sworn testimony that the pardons were issued without the knowledge or consent of the President.
Click to expand...
Yes, because we all know Trump does nothing without corroborated evidence backing him up. What fairy tale land do you inhabit?

Don't you remember Comer's whistleblowers? The "high level people" he had appear, and it turned out they were felons and Russian agents?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
A fair amount. The government screws up on things like this all the time. They screwed up before Trump. They will screw up after Trump. I don't think every little screw-up is going to be a constitutional crisis.

Now if its later proven that the agent responsible knew about the judge's order, worked it up his chain of command and a high level guy said to do it anyway, I'll start worrying.
Click to expand...
There is screwing up, or making mistakes, and then there is "Deliberately, and unethically, bypassing the checks and balances that make a constitutional democracy effective."
 
Ramrouser said:
Only after Nancy issued unprecedented vetos of elected Republican members SHE felt weren't worthy of being on the committee. The Republicans refused to serve in protest. In retrospect, I think that was a mistake but that doesn't excuse the Dems from their conduct.
Click to expand...
Nancy vetoed their participation for the same reason that Congress vetoed the participation of elected representatives from South Carolina in 1861. Any Republican loyal to the constitution and not to an insurrection was welcome to serve.
 
Ramrouser said:
If Trump is serious about this auto pen/pardon issue then he would have to have a serious, high ranking whistleblower who has given sworn testimony that the pardons were issued without the knowledge or consent of the President. Pretty unlikely but you never know. Things are a bit crazy on the Dems' side these days. Schumer has even cancelled his book tour fearing the leftist protestors.
Click to expand...
You’ve got issues. You should seek counseling.
 
sringwal said:
There is screwing up, or making mistakes, and then there is "Deliberately, and unethically, bypassing the checks and balances that make a constitutional democracy effective."
Click to expand...
Yes. Completely agree. I'm just not sure what this is. I'm guessing it's probably a run of the mill screw up instead of an extraordinary breach of the checks and balances in the Constitution until I get extra ordinary evidence.
 
Personally, I don't think Trump is serious about this particular issue - just having fun.
superrific said:
Nancy vetoed their participation for the same reason that Congress vetoed the participation of elected representatives from South Carolina in 1861. Any Republican loyal to the constitution and not to an insurrection was welcome to serve.I
Click to expand...
So Jim Banks and Jim Jordan are not loyal to the constitution and unable to serve? Nancy didn't want them on the committee because they were effective. Did Congress vote on this or did Queen Nancy make that decision all on her own? Talk about the breaking of norms.
 
Ramrouser said:
Personally, I don't think Trump is serious about this particular issue - just having fun.

So Jim Banks and Jim Jordan are not loyal to the constitution and unable to serve? Nancy didn't want them on the committee because they were effective. Did Congress vote on this or did Queen Nancy make that decision all on her own? Talk about the breaking of norms.
Click to expand...
Jim Jordan is certainly not loyal to the Constitution. Even a passing familiarity with him reveals this.
 
Ramrouser said:
Personally, I don't think Trump is serious about this particular issue - just having fun.

So Jim Banks and Jim Jordan are not loyal to the constitution and unable to serve? Nancy didn't want them on the committee because they were effective. Did Congress vote on this or did Queen Nancy make that decision all on her own? Talk about the breaking of norms.
Click to expand...
Anyone who cheered the plot and/or voted against certifying the election had no business on the committee, in the same way that congressmen with ties to organized crime should not be on the committee that studies organized crime.

This is not difficult.
 
Ramrouser said:
Sure, there could have been real Republicans on the committee that "stood up" to Trump. These Republicans would have cross examined the Dems' witnesses, called witnesses of their own and introduced exculpatory evidence. Did the dynamic duo do any of that? No. They worked hand-in-hand with the Chairman in putting on the Soviet show trial.
Click to expand...
Exactly whom were they to exculpate?
Ramrouser said:
Personally, I don't think Trump is serious about this particular issue - just having fun.

So Jim Banks and Jim Jordan are not loyal to the constitution and unable to serve? Nancy didn't want them on the committee because they were effective. Did Congress vote on this or did Queen Nancy make that decision all on her own? Talk about the breaking of norms.
Click to expand...
What makes this "fun"?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Yes. Completely agree. I'm just not sure what this is. I'm guessing it's probably a run of the mill screw up instead of an extraordinary breach of the checks and balances in the Constitution until I get extra ordinary evidence.
Click to expand...
How about the DOJ refusing to show up for the hearing in which the judge invited them to explain how it was a run of the mill screw up?

What does that tell you? I interpret that as communicating an utter lack of intent to follow any order. How do you interpret it?

BTW in all my years in the law I have never heard of the DOJ not showing up for a hearing. Not once. Private parties on very rare occasions don't show up because they are challenging the jurisdiction of the court (for example, a Singapore company that does no business in the US challenging an order that punishes it in some way), but outside of that, it's unheard of.
 
Ramrouser said:
Only after Nancy issued unprecedented vetos of elected Republican members SHE felt weren't worthy of being on the committee. The Republicans refused to serve in protest. In retrospect, I think that was a mistake but that doesn't excuse the Dems from their conduct.
Click to expand...
Perhaps she vetoed certain Republican members who were going to be.....subjects of investigation?

Yes, it was a mistake on the part of the Republicans. Full stop. You could the ended the sentence right there. It had nothing to do with the Democrats. The Democrats didn't force certain members of the Republican Party in Congress to be allegedly complicit in the events of January 6, 2021.

With all due respect, I think that this is the difference between your brand of conservatism/Republicanism and mine. I do not believe that any individual politician, any political party, or any political partisanship is worth sacrificing my principles and core values. I don't believe that the Constitution or the law is good just when it is convenient for me or when it produces the outcomes that I like. If the roles were reversed and it had been the Democratic president and Democratic elected members of Congress who were complicit in orchestrating the events leading up to what happened on January 6, I'd want *every* single* one* of* them* investigated* and, if necessary, tried. If found guilty at trial, I'd want *every* single* one* of* them* thrown UNDER the jail- not just in it, but underneath it.
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
I promise you, it is not a "legal issue." And if it ever was, Trump v. US was clear that it is not.

If you are talking about a forgery coming out of the office of the president: the pardon stands, and the forger is subject to criminal liability. That is, if some staffer signed a pardon with Biden's name, and Biden never knew anything about it, the pardon still stands. The courts are not going to peer into the executive branch. It's the same way that a pardon received through a bribe stands, even if the bribe could be proven. Again, if there was any doubt, the Supreme Court laid it to bed.

If you are talking about a forgery that did not come from the president's office: well, it's a forgery and it has no legal effect, full stop.

This is a decided issue. I'm not talking about it any more. If you need to create for yourself some weird identity as a "person who knows about law" despite not having studied it, practiced it, read about it, read judicial opinions and statutes -- do what you're going to do. I've explained the law clearly and succinctly and I won't do it again. You can deny or accept. Your choice.
Click to expand...
" If you need to create for yourself some weird identity as a "person who knows about law" despite not having studied it, practiced it, read about it, read judicial opinions and statutes -- do what you're going to do."

You are so weird....

finesse is a bitter old man and you're just weird with the way you randomly take discussions off the rails.
 
ZenMode said:
you randomly take discussions off the rails.
Click to expand...
I answered your question. Then you disagreed, saying without basis, that there would be a legal issue. I explained again that there would not be. And that's the end of the story. I'm not going to engage in any further dispute about this. If you think that is randomly taking discussions off the rails, again you can think what you want to think. I don't think there's anything wrong with declaring my intent not to engage in another discussion in which a person who knows nothing tries to put himself on part with an expert. If you don't want to be dismissed as a know-nothing poster, learn something!
 
ZenMode said:
I'm not talking about just not remembering. I'm talking full-on and complete forgery. In other words he, the President, had literally no involvement. If the President is the only one who can pardon, but the had no involvement in, or knowledge of, the signing, that would appear to be a legal issue.
Click to expand...
Clearly, though, that isn't the case. There are both recordings and transcripts of Biden speaking about the pardons throughout the process.
 
superrific said:
I answered your question. Then you disagreed, saying without basis, that there would be a legal issue. I explained again that there would not be. And that's the end of the story. I'm not going to engage in any further dispute about this. If you think that is randomly taking discussions off the rails, again you can think what you want to think. I don't think there's anything wrong with declaring my intent not to engage in another discussion in which a person who knows nothing tries to put himself on part with an expert. If you don't want to be dismissed as a know-nothing poster, learn something!
Click to expand...
I didn't disagree. I added clarification that it wasn't just a president with diminished mental capacity, but a full on forgery without his knowledge.
 
superrific said:
Anyone who cheered the plot and/or voted against certifying the election had no business on the committee, in the same way that congressmen with ties to organized crime should not be on the committee that studies organized crime.

This is not difficult.
Click to expand...
So you're ok with Speaker Johnson not allowing Jamie Raskin to serve on committee x because he too voted to not certify an election?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top