[Action80]

Ideally he wouldn't have to do something like this, but Trump would have very likely abused his office to pursue revenge against the people who investigated him instead. It's also very likely he'd have targeted Fauci to pander to the conspiracy nuts who still think that covid was a false flag and the vaccine was a time bomb or whatever. Those same conspiracy nuts regularly ignore the fact that Trump took credit for the vaccine and encouraged people to take it, but as I've said before, Trumpism is inherently contradictory.

Sadaam, let's get real.

Ideally, he couldn't do something like this.

The fact you think it is okay for him to do it is a morally bankrupt position.

The issue with Covid is not that it was a "false flag." It is the issue of "gain of function," which is "the something" Fauci had to do with.

[Lord Dave]

Ideally he wouldn't have to do something like this, but Trump would have very likely abused his office to pursue revenge against the people who investigated him instead. It's also very likely he'd have targeted Fauci to pander to the conspiracy nuts who still think that covid was a false flag and the vaccine was a time bomb or whatever. Those same conspiracy nuts regularly ignore the fact that Trump took credit for the vaccine and encouraged people to take it, but as I've said before, Trumpism is inherently contradictory.

Sadaam, let's get real.

Ideally, he couldn't do something like this.

The fact you think it is okay for him to do it is a morally bankrupt position.

The issue with Covid is not that it was a "false flag." It is the issue of "gain of function," which is "the something" Fauci had to do with.

Ideally, but the powers of pardon is absolute and unlimited.  Which is dumb.

[Action80]

It is not the idea of the power of pardons being absolute and unlimited that is dumb, LD.

It is the idea that pardons can be granted prior to any finding of guilt or culpability.

[Lord Dave]

It is not the idea of the power of pardons being absolute and unlimited that is dumb, LD.

It is the idea that pardons can be granted prior to any finding of guilt or culpability.

They're the same thing.
Unlimited and absolute power means it has no limits, like pre-pardons. 

Regardless, I agree.

[Action80]

No president has absolute power and unlimited power.

[Lord Dave]

No president has absolute power and unlimited power.

Not the job, no.  But feel free to tell me what limits they have on Pardons.

[Action80]

Well, I am sure the law limits pardons to those who have been convicted of a crime.

It is truly interesting; a great deal of the entities found here (and on mainstream news channels) were all typing and talking about their concerns about how bad it would be if Trump was to issue blanket pardons to his family and others prior to him leaving office, yet here we are with Uncle Hairy Legs doing just that.

[Lord Dave]

There is only 1 law on Pardons: the constitution.

And you really should have read the text, it would have given you a win.  Instead, I have to correct myself.

Article 2, section 2, clause 1
...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

So he's limited to impeachment cases.  That's it.  That's the only limitation until the supreme court says otherwise.

[honk]

The most famous presidential pardon is Ford's pardon of Nixon, which conspicuously lacked a conviction, indictment, or even a criminal investigation. As to the rest of it, not all pardons are created equal. There is no logical or ethical conflict between criticizing pardons that reward the corrupt and unrepentant and being okay with pardons that protect the innocent. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I'd support the pardon power being removed in a constitutional amendment, but until that happens, I'm not going to object to Biden using it to protect innocent people from a corrupt incoming president who's looking for payback.

[Action80]

The DOJ under Biden clearly stated that acceptance of a pardon required an admission of guilt of the crime.

[Lord Dave]

The DOJ under Biden clearly stated that acceptance of a pardon required an admission of guilt of the crime.

Got a quote?

[Action80]

Start at 5:29

[Tom Bishop]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I'd support the pardon power being removed in a constitutional amendment, but until that happens, I'm not going to object to Biden using it to protect innocent people from a corrupt incoming president who's looking for payback.

You might be more convincing if the family members Biden pardoned weren't being investigated by a congressional committee over the last two years, who have shown evidence of them receiving millions of dollars from foreign sources despite offering no known product or service.

[Lord Dave]

Start at 5:29

I think the important bit is the part about unringing the bell of conviction.  Taken out of context, sure, sounds like it.  But it was specifically referring to people who thought that a pardon meant their conviction was erased. 

[Action80]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I'd support the pardon power being removed in a constitutional amendment, but until that happens, I'm not going to object to Biden using it to protect innocent people from a corrupt incoming president who's looking for payback.

You might be more convincing if the family members Biden pardoned weren't being investigated by a congressional committee over the last two years, who have shown evidence of them receiving millions of dollars from foreign sources despite offering no known product or service.

Also more convincing if Trump was specifically looking for "payback."

[Action80]

Start at 5:29

video snipped

I think the important bit is the part about unringing the bell of conviction.  Taken out of context, sure, sounds like it.  But it was specifically referring to people who thought that a pardon meant their conviction was erased.

No, it doesn't.

Stop being ridiculous.

It specifically states if you accept a pardon, it is an admission of guilt.

There is nothing in the DOJ statement that says, "just in this specific case is an acceptance of a pardon an admission of guilt."

[Lord Dave]

Start at 5:29

video snipped

I think the important bit is the part about unringing the bell of conviction.  Taken out of context, sure, sounds like it.  But it was specifically referring to people who thought that a pardon meant their conviction was erased.

No, it doesn't.

Stop being ridiculous.

It specifically states if you accept a pardon, it is an admission of guilt.

There is nothing in the DOJ statement that says, "just in this specific case is an acceptance of a pardon an admission of guilt."

Then explain "You can't unring the bell of conviction" which is said right before?

[honk]

The DOJ under Biden clearly stated that acceptance of a pardon required an admission of guilt of the crime.

It doesn't. That was simply them trying to save face in anticipation of the Jan. 6th participants being pardoned.

You might be more convincing if the family members Biden pardoned weren't being investigated by a congressional committee over the last two years, who have shown evidence of them receiving millions of dollars from foreign sources despite offering no known product or service.

Two years of liars telling Republicans what they wanted to hear, general FUD, and miscellaneous failson sleaze, all presided over by a body that didn't lift a finger when Trump openly monetized his office, ushered government business his way, and sold access to himself far more blatantly than any Biden did.

[Action80]

"You can't unring the bell of conviction," has nothing to do with an "admission of guilt," which is what the DOJ was addressing.

To interpret the language otherwise is foolish.

They were not saving face or anything else.

It is what it is.

The whole Jan 6th "insurrection" was just another case of entities like the ilk here and the mainstream media using words they do not understand.

Not one of the persons involved in the Jan 6th event pled guilty or were convicted of "insurrection."

[honk]

If accepting a pardon requires an admission of guilt, then what are people who receive general pardons for all federal offenses - like the Bidens - even admitting guilt to? All federal offenses, from drug trafficking to mail fraud to terrorism? They've been pardoned for those crimes just as much as they've been pardoned for whatever crime you or Trump or anyone might have thought they really were guilty of. Doesn't make much sense, does it? Adding to that, no court has ever treated being pardoned as evidence of guilt. Like I said, the DoJ were just mad that years of work were about to go up in smoke, so they made a weak effort at saving face. The Jan. 6th rioters aren't implicated by being pardoned, and neither is anyone whom Biden has pardoned.