12
   

Can Trump Pardon Himself?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2020 06:29 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Is that an OLLIE version of nyah nyah nyah??

Nope. That's me pointing out the reality that you are lying, and you cannot actually point out anything untrue in my posts.
Sturgis
 
  4  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2020 06:33 pm
@oralloy,
Yeah? Well you can't point out where farmerman or any of the rest of us have been wrong or lied.

As to your mindless blathering, proof of your wacky fabricated tales have been shown repeatedly.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2020 06:48 pm
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:
Yeah? Well you can't point out where farmerman or any of the rest of us have been wrong or lied.

Wrong again. Farmerman lies when he falsely claims that I am wrong and/or ignorant.

Neptuneblue was wrong when she said that someone must be convicted before receiving a pardon. She was bizarrely wrong when she tried to offer the fact that the President cannot pardon state convictions as proof of her previous wrong statement.

And then there are your lies and untrue statements in this very post, addressed below.


Sturgis wrote:
As to your mindless blathering,

The fact that you are too stupid to understand what I am saying does not mean that it is mindless blathering.

Your comment here would be an example of you saying something that is untrue.


Sturgis wrote:
proof of your wacky fabricated tales have been shown repeatedly.

What I say is not fabricated, and no such proof has been offered.

Your comment here would be an example of you lying.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2020 06:58 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
the president’s pardoning power is limited to “offences against the United States.” In other words, President Trump can only pardon federal crimes. He has no power to pardon state crimes. Frequently, criminal activity will run afoul of both state and federal law.
I would LMAO if Plump, in order to be granting himself a pardon (An impossibility) would have to swear that a crime he commited was not only a crime against state laws but was ALSO crime against Federal LAws. He would have to swear hes a Federally guilty criminal in order to be inclusive of his "pardoning powers"


See how stupid you sound.

oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2020 07:15 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I would LMAO if Plump, in order to be granting himself a pardon (An impossibility)

Not impossible in any way. He does have that power.


farmerman wrote:
would have to swear that a crime he commited was not only a crime against state laws but was ALSO crime against Federal LAws. He would have to swear hes a Federally guilty criminal in order to be inclusive of his "pardoning powers"

For having just two letters, that word "if" is a pretty big word. Just ask Philip II of Macedon.

I'm sure you enjoyed that silly fantasy, but in reality the President can pardon himself without admitting to any crime whatsoever.


farmerman wrote:
See how stupid you sound.

Stupid people often say that facts sound stupid.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2020 07:34 pm
Quote:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
This looks to me like something that would have to be tested in the highest courts - if a president were corrupt enough to pardon him or herself. And yes, pardoning yourself is corrupt.

The reason it would have to be tested, as it doesn't appeared defined, it comes back to the common understanding - and the common understanding of a presidential pardon is for crimes committed (ie proven / found guilty of). To push it any further (to pardon yourself), would be to go beyond the common understanding of a 'pardon from the President/King/Queen' - in a very self serving way.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2020 07:42 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
the common understanding of a presidential pardon is for crimes committed (ie proven / found guilty of).

It's not the common understanding in the US.

Innocent people can be pardoned because they have been found guilty of crimes that they did not commit.

People who have never been charged with a crime can be pardoned regardless of whether or not they have committed a crime.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2020 08:15 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
It's not the common understanding in the US.

Innocent people can be pardoned because they have been found guilty of crimes that they did not commit.
That is the common understanding, and exactly what I just said - they had been found guilty (of crimes committed), and then pardoned. If you want to go further, this can can then be divided into two categories:
- a retrial in a court of law finds them not guilty (and it is the courts that then find them not guilty)
- they are still found guilty by a court, but the president/king/queen pardons them.

It is the last example this conversation relates to. This is utterly obvious and shouldn't require explanation.

Quote:
People who have never been charged with a crime can be pardoned regardless of whether or not they have committed a crime.
This seems a rather ridiculous claim. Are you able to provide any examples at all for this?

And I don't mean actions that are already justified, authorised, or excused by law (eg a soldier shooting an enemy combatant in a war)
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 05:57 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
It is the last example this conversation relates to. This is utterly obvious and shouldn't require explanation.

Earlier it sounded like you were saying that pardons are only for people who are actually guilty of the crimes that they were found guilty of.

That is why I pointed out that pardons are also for people who are innocent of the crimes that they were found guilty of.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.


vikorr wrote:
Are you able to provide any examples at all for this?

Sure. Richard Nixon was never charged with any crime, much less brought to trial or found guilty.

He still received a pardon.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 07:05 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Richard Nixon was never charged with any crime, much less brought to trial or found guilty.

He still received a pardon.
Ford granted Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes that he had committed or might have committed against the United States as president.
Quote:
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.
President Gerald R. Ford's Proclamation 4311, Granting a Pardon to Richard Nixon
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  4  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 07:59 am
 https://iili.io/FhEHxa.jpg
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 10:14 am
@snood,
I've mentioned this in other threads, but we really can't trust Mr. Biden to do the right thing if the nation finds itself under nuclear attack.

IMO, Mr. Trump should secretly take steps to give the Air Force control over the ICBMs so they can disregard Mr. Biden and fight a nuclear war on behalf of the nation without bothering to consult with him.
farmerman
 
  6  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 01:58 pm
@oralloy,
why fight a nuclear war??? What've you been smoking??
The last thing I want is preemptive strikes on Iran just bevcause the present chief executive officer cant take losing the election.

oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 02:23 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
why fight a nuclear war???

Usually the reason is because the other side is using nuclear weapons against you.

We do however pledge to defend our allies with nuclear weapons if conventional force alone is insufficient to protect them from an aggressor.


farmerman wrote:
What've you been smoking??

I don't like giving out personal information about myself on a2k, but as it happens I don't smoke.


farmerman wrote:
The last thing I want is preemptive strikes on Iran just because the present chief executive officer cant take losing the election.

Any airstrikes against Iran will almost certainly be of a conventional nature.

There is merit to the idea of giving them a thorough pummeling before Mr. Biden is able to surrender to them.
vikorr
 
  5  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 05:04 pm
@oralloy,
I think the obvious outcome of Trump pardoning himself for any and all crimes he may have committed against the United States would carry a very obvious outcome, and implictation - all subsequent presidents would similarly pardon themselves at the end of their presidency.

That could lead down rather dangerous roads, as each subsequent president tries to get away with more and more.

At the end of that road, if it goes that far, is a dictatorship.
neptuneblue
 
  5  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2020 12:21 am
@oralloy,
I certainly understand how you'd think I'm wrong. Rest assured, I think the same about you. You've said, and believed many things that aren't just quite right. And that's ok, you are entitled to your beliefs.

What concerns me the most is that you'd turn your back on the Rule of Law for Trump's convenience, not your own. You have actively sought to disarm the very Writs that keep this Country whole and in tact.

It's par for the course.
It's for this reason and this reason alone, I sincerely hope Trump fails to deliver.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2020 05:38 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
What concerns me the most is that you'd turn your back on the Rule of Law for Trump's convenience, not your own. You have actively sought to disarm the very Writs that keep this Country whole and in tact.

The rule of law has not seen your face for a while. The rule of law says Kavanaugh was innocent until PROVEN guilty. The rule of law says people that lie to Congress go to jail. There are four walking around free right now. The rule of law says the president makes foreign policy and he is impeached over what amounted to a policy disagreement.

You must have the memory of a goldfish and the double standards of an intolerant slob.
neptuneblue
 
  4  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2020 07:28 am
@coldjoint,
Your memory has gaping holes.

Kavanaugh was not in criminal or civil trial for anything - he was at his confirmation hearing that allowed for character witnesses either for his behalf or against him. To not allow testimony from a opposing opinion about his character disregards the Rule of Law.

Lying to Congress is a punishable offence, and so is refusing to appear when subpoenaed. However, I don't see you holding those who defied testifying to the same standard, disregarding the Rule of Law.

The President does make foreign policy but to solicit foreign electoral intervention is also disregarding the Rule of Law.

It is you that has double standards.

It's time for it to stop.


coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2020 12:40 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:

Your memory has gaping holes.

Kavanaugh was not in criminal or civil trial for anything - he was at his confirmation hearing that allowed for character witnesses either for his behalf or against him. To not allow testimony from a opposing opinion about his character disregards the Rule of Law.

Lying to Congress is a punishable offence, and so is refusing to appear when subpoenaed. However, I don't see you holding those who defied testifying to the same standard, disregarding the Rule of Law.

The President does make foreign policy but to solicit foreign electoral intervention is also disregarding the Rule of Law.

It is you that has double standards.

It's time for it to stop.




Your reply is laughable.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2020 09:51 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
I certainly understand how you'd think I'm wrong. Rest assured, I think the same about you.

How do you explain your inability to point out errors in my posts?


neptuneblue wrote:
You've said, and believed many things that aren't just quite right.

My facts stand unchallenged.


neptuneblue wrote:
And that's ok, you are entitled to your beliefs.
What concerns me the most is that you'd turn your back on the Rule of Law for Trump's convenience, not your own. You have actively sought to disarm the very Writs that keep this Country whole and in tact.
It's par for the course.
It's for this reason and this reason alone, I sincerely hope Trump fails to deliver.

I am not turning my back on the rule of law.

But if ever I do so, the reason will be because the Democrats have also turned their backs on the rule of law, and it is necessary to fight fire with fire.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/09/2021 at 08:31:05