President Trump

Dax777 said:
My God! Listen to yourself. What sense does it make to charge officers who were assaulted?
Click to expand...
Can't hear myself for your chickenshit cackling.

To the rational and dispassionate observer there is little to no sense that can be attributed to the cheeto-faced, ferret wearing shitgibbon.
 
Dax777 said:
Lets all accept that pardoning protesters who evidence show were assaulting cops is wrong. If he did that, terrible of Trump.

P.S: Foggy, example of when i disagree with Trump. Do not pardon anyone who assaultd law enforcement. Period!
Click to expand...
A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step.

And there is no "if". He did, in fact, do it.

Now ask yourself WHY he did it.
 
lloydie said:
Can't hear myself for your chickenshit cackling.

To the rational and dispassionate observer there is little to no sense that can be attributed to the cheeto-faced, ferret wearing shitgibbon.
Click to expand...
Lol. Your mind is a beautiful place :)
 
west didsblue said:
I take it you mean pre-emptive pardons for any Trumped up charges for people that your hero said were on a list for retribution.

The downside to Biden’s pre-emptive pardons will be that it will give Trump the idea to do the same for his family effectively giving them a “Get out of jail free” card to enable them to commit any crimes they want for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...
I doubt Trump needs any guidance from Biden.
Here’s something for any on here defending Biden or Trump or the American system that allows them grant pardons executively at all.
Does acceptance of a pardon imply guilt, wether the crime was committed and charged or pre-emptive of it being charged;

In the 1833 case of United States v. Wilson, the Supreme Court ruled that a pardon could be rejected by the convict. Due to the findings in the 1925 case, Burdick v. United States, it seems as though accepting a pardon is, in fact, admitting guilt. In Burdick the appellant was offered a pardon but declined it, also refusing to testify in criminal court. The opinion of the case given by the justices seemed to uncover that 1) a pardon can be given before a conviction and sentence; 2) a pardon can be refused, and 3) acceptance of a pardon implies acceptance of guilt.

And

A pardon, which is the use of executive power to help its recipient to avoid punishment, is granted under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Constitution, the president’s clemency power extends to all federal criminal offenses – except impeachment. (It should be noted that the president’s clemency power does not extend to a civil, state, or local offense. This begs the question of whether a Presidential pardon means that the recipient is acknowledging that he or she is guilty of their original charge(s).


It sounds to me that it’s in the constitution that if you accept a pardon, you accept guilt.
 
Dax777 said:
Lets all accept that pardoning protesters who evidence show were assaulting cops is wrong. If he did that, terrible of Trump.

P.S: Foggy, example of when i disagree with Trump. Do not pardon anyone who assaultd law enforcement. Period!


That however doesn't explain why supposedly assaulted police officers are being preemptively pardoned. 2 separate issues.

1. Bad to pardoned known assaulters of officers.

2. These should not be conflated eith protest participants who didn't assault anyone (i.e. a majority of the convicted,)

3. None of the above has any relevance to why officers are getting preemptive pardoned

It does not add up!
Click to expand...
Deflect ,deflect , what about , what about. Just to justify electing this abuser of law, people, and power. A man elected by promoting fear and loathing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BTH
Dax777 said:
Lol. Your mind is a beautiful place :)
Click to expand...
Sure is, one where incarcerating children in concentration camps is not entertained.

Can't take credit for the shitgibbon invective as I believe it's a traditional scottish soubriquet for your Daddyman from when he was attempting to destroy their environment and the livelihood of an isolated Scottish farmer.
 
blueparrot said:
Deflect ,deflect , what about , what about. Just to justify electing this abuser of law, people, and power. A man elected by promoting fear and loathing.
Click to expand...
Dude, the crux of the discussion you responded to was why assaulted officers were being preemptively pardoned.

Clearly, the deflection hear is from those trying to make it about J6 pardons. But hey, if it makes you feel better... conflate away :)
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
I doubt Trump needs any guidance from Biden.
Here’s something for any on here defending Biden or Trump or the American system that allows them grant pardons executively at all.
Does acceptance of a pardon imply guilt, wether the crime was committed and charged or pre-emptive of it being charged;

In the 1833 case of United States v. Wilson, the Supreme Court ruled that a pardon could be rejected by the convict. Due to the findings in the 1925 case, Burdick v. United States, it seems as though accepting a pardon is, in fact, admitting guilt. In Burdick the appellant was offered a pardon but declined it, also refusing to testify in criminal court. The opinion of the case given by the justices seemed to uncover that 1) a pardon can be given before a conviction and sentence; 2) a pardon can be refused, and 3) acceptance of a pardon implies acceptance of guilt.

And

A pardon, which is the use of executive power to help its recipient to avoid punishment, is granted under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Constitution, the president’s clemency power extends to all federal criminal offenses – except impeachment. (It should be noted that the president’s clemency power does not extend to a civil, state, or local offense. This begs the question of whether a Presidential pardon means that the recipient is acknowledging that he or she is guilty of their original charge(s).


It sounds to me that it’s in the constitution that if you accept a pardon, you accept guilt.
Click to expand...

That's not quite the case. Those words are obiter dictum, it's not established precedent.

See case below.


 
mancity2012_eamo said:
I doubt Trump needs any guidance from Biden.
Here’s something for any on here defending Biden or Trump or the American system that allows them grant pardons executively at all.
Does acceptance of a pardon imply guilt, wether the crime was committed and charged or pre-emptive of it being charged;

In the 1833 case of United States v. Wilson, the Supreme Court ruled that a pardon could be rejected by the convict. Due to the findings in the 1925 case, Burdick v. United States, it seems as though accepting a pardon is, in fact, admitting guilt. In Burdick the appellant was offered a pardon but declined it, also refusing to testify in criminal court. The opinion of the case given by the justices seemed to uncover that 1) a pardon can be given before a conviction and sentence; 2) a pardon can be refused, and 3) acceptance of a pardon implies acceptance of guilt.

And

A pardon, which is the use of executive power to help its recipient to avoid punishment, is granted under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Constitution, the president’s clemency power extends to all federal criminal offenses – except impeachment. (It should be noted that the president’s clemency power does not extend to a civil, state, or local offense. This begs the question of whether a Presidential pardon means that the recipient is acknowledging that he or she is guilty of their original charge(s).


It sounds to me that it’s in the constitution that if you accept a pardon, you accept guilt.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
That's not quite the case. Those words are obiter dictum, it's not established precedent.

See case below.


Click to expand...
Very interesting. Wasn’t aware of that and although I work in the courts over here and have a great interest, I am not a solicitor/lawyer/barrister or the likes.

However a few things I find interesting in that article are that Ebel overturned a lower court ruling which was based on a Supreme Court ruling.
Ebel was a Republican appointee from the Reagan era but was joined by two Democrats appointed Circuit court judges.

As I say, I’m no attorney of law and certainly scratch my head at what I consider a politically biased judiciary in the US, but why does the circuit court overrule a Supreme Court interpretation of the law?

Also what Ebel seems to be saying is;
"It only makes the pardonee look guilty by implying or imputing that he needs the pardon."
"If the Court had meant to impute other, legal consequences to the acceptance of a presidential pardon, it surely would have said so explicitly,".

That sounds to me that he is implying that taking the pardon doesn’t exclude you from taking your case back to court of appeal, as the soldier did perhaps to get his conviction overturned legally. This wouldn’t mean he’d necessarily win but he could take that to a Supreme Court court ruling too.

Maybe I’m overthinking this.

I don’t believe a presidential pardon in the constitution was ever envisaged to get Americans to the point they’re at now.

I believe a head of state should give ceremonial pardons only after a case has proven wrongful conviction in the courts.
It should not be a gift given by the head of government to whoever he pleases.

That’s tinpot democracy.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
However a few things I find interesting in that article are that Ebel overturned a lower court ruling which was based on a Supreme Court ruling.
Ebel was a Republican appointee from the Reagan era but was joined by two Democrats appointed Circuit court judges.

As I say, I’m no attorney of law and certainly scratch my head at what I consider a politically biased judiciary in the US, but why does the circuit court overrule a Supreme Court interpretation of the law?
Click to expand...

Obiter comments are essentially passing remarks. They can be persuasive and influential but the lower court have the discretion to agree with it or not.

So essentially they aren't overruling the higher court because it isn't actually firm law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top