monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

No such misuse. The President gets to pardon whoever he wants to pardon.

Well, if Trump pardons Flynn, we'll see what might happen. Or not.

Marc Rich

Kinda ironic, isn't it?

Mark Rich, as I recall, who owed tens of millions to the U.S. for tax evasion (among numerous other crimes). The average citizen could live forever on just the one kickback Clinton got on that shakedown alone.

And yet you are willing to fabricate mine?

I never used the word "absurd"

He may be an idiotic criminal.

I opined that if he really was desperately afraid of the Flynn investigation he had a much more effective measure at his disposal to shut it down then strong-arming Comey.

Okay, just saw your previous reply to my post. No problem.

Yes. But then I suspect he changed his name to "Rich"

I'm possibly pleased that congress won't likely impeach him (coin toss on my view, but there seems little interest in it).

Trump is still a problematic trigger finger to me, but that seems less likely recently.
Perhaps.

I worry about the next person.

I get your point now.

Scoreboard:

Trump: 163
MSM: 13

You do?

Blicker's point only makes sense if someone actually posted what he is arguing against.

We're posting past each other too fast I think.

I gotta go for a little while anyway. I'm trying to post and do about five other things at once.

Possibly promising a pardon would be a more effective method, possibly not. Both methods have risks. For instance, there are some reports that the reason Flynn was let go from the Obama Administration was because Flynn was suspected of having mental difficulties. Making a promise to a guy who can "blow up" at any time, (if those reports are accurate), carries a whole new set of issues.

What he was saying is there are actual examples of presidents trying to block investigations in other ways, so clearly sometimes presidents choose different options.

I don't think your points are in contention with each other. Those other ways of blocking investigations didn't always work out so well for the president, so your point that a full-on pardon from the start is the best (or least bad) way may well be right.

Anyway I gotta go for awhile. Be back later.

I don't think I agree.

The battle is for the so-called center; the moderates.

The MSM are, by and large, sickening tools of the Left and their own major league conceit, but they are professional communicators.

Trump's strategy to reach around them to the American public via social media is an excellent one, but as a tactician he leaves much to be desired. His (charitably described) pithy tweets may fire up his base but, by and large, I think they are backfiring with the folks he needs to reach.

He's making the mistake of thinking that the adoration of maybe 30 million people is all the support he needs from a population of over 300 million.

Don't get me wrong, if 30 million people thought I had it all going on I would feel pretty damned sporty (and make millions), but I'm not the president of the United States.

Slowly but surely the MSM is convincing those that live in the center that he is, at least, a wild buffoon. The extremely irritating problem is that he is helping them.

You're reaching here

What's worse for Trump, a guy who can finger him (mentally unstable or not) left twisting in the wind or pardoned?

He would have to be a raving lunatic to resent a pardon, and there is absolutely no evidence of same or that he is mentally unstable at all, but that was a nice shot of calumny.

No he was saying that I asserted that a president blocking an investigation through any means other than a pardon was absurd.

It's the entire premise of his post.

Duh...a popular politician was caught lying about his sexual activity. Neither the Senate nor the citizenry thought that represented anything perilous; it didn't threaten our system of government. People might feel differently if Flynn starts talking and we find out that there's something more serious going on. We deal with these matters as they appear. The fact that Clinton wasn't convicted doesn't give the next guy a free pass.

Again, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. The Senate can arrive at any conclusion it chooses. That's how it's set up in the Constitution.

BTW - I'm not sure if you are a male or female. If you care about pronouns used in this forum, reveal your gender and I won't make any mistakes in the future. I frequently insult but not as respects such a trivial matter.