Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

looksee

Its hard to imagine that Trump would have enough trust in anyone, even Pence, to actually go through with the pardon after Trump had resigned and handed on the baton.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if he gives pardons to some aren't they clear of potential issues whether people give up the dirt or not?

He has issues with the paying for pardons investigation now though as well, very specifically with Giuliani and probably several others we aren't yet aware of



https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-pardon-20201202-ahzgiglvzrhbdnuelmd4y24rpq-story.html

amandstu

StringerBell wrote: »

If you have a directive that says an President cannot be indicted while in office, and you have the power to absolve yourself of all liability to pay for your crimes before leaving office you are in fact above the law.

What would be the point of "a directive that says an President cannot be indicted while in office" if the said President can just pardon himself on the way out?

Can he cream himself off in public too and then pardon himself?(a rhetorical question)

What other activities could he pardon himself (or his cronies) for that might not be allowed.

Ecocide?

The Phantom Jipper

How specific does a pardon need to be? Would it need to specify particulars about whatever crime has been committed or can it be kept general?

check_six

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

How specific does a pardon need to be? Would it need to specify particulars about whatever crime has been committed or can it be kept general?

Well you'd imagine that you would have to be guilty of a specific crime, admit that guilt, and then receive a pardon for that specific crime.

But that does not seem to be the way it's heading in the fairytale land of the USA!

Someone mentioned that the Nixon pardon was a bit 'general purpose' and pardoned him in advance of him even being charged with any crime. In his case he did head for the hills when he was called out by the GOP chiefs, and if what we've learned over the last few years is anything to go by, he could have totally brazened it out if he wanted to. I suppose the pardon was a kind of a reward for taking a hike. It was not uncontroversial at the time.

In Trump's case he wants a general pardon for anything he did before he was president, everything he did while he was president, and anything he does in the future without specifying what those crimes were or admitting that he was guilty at all. The quirk of pardons mean that you have to give up your 5th amendment rights to decline to answer questions based on the fact you may incriminate yourself as you've already admitted your guilt and been pardoned.

If we don't know what the crime is that he is pardoning himself on, how can he be questioned about co-conspirators? I suppose, the chance of him listing every crime would be small, so they could probably get him on something else that he forgot.

The other end of pardoning that we have already seen is that Trump's co-conspirators in various schemes have been pardoned as a reward for carrying out crimes on behalf of Trump. How this can pass without comment from the GOP is insane. Taken to its logical conclusion it means that a president can order flunkies to carry out assassinations of political rivals, media rivals, or just anyone at all, and then fire out pardons all over the place. No harm, no foul!

The level of rampant visible criminality carried out by Trump and co must be called out. They have to be called to answer for their acts. To not do so will be catastrophic for justice and politics in general in America.

I think the whole Georgia run-off could have some interesting side-effects. The Trumpian head-the-balls telling their supporters to boycott the run-off election will let the two Democrat nominees have a big advantage in January. When toxic trumpism starts ripping the GOP apart they may finally act.

Itssoeasy

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

How specific does a pardon need to be? Would it need to specify particulars about whatever crime has been committed or can it be kept general?

Well the pardon that Nixon got has specific dates which where the entire duration of his presidency.

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.

Itssoeasy

check_six wrote: »

Well you'd imagine that you would have to be guilty of a specific crime, admit that guilt, and then receive a pardon for that specific crime.

But that does not seem to be the way it's heading in the fairytale land of the USA!

Someone mentioned that the Nixon pardon was a bit 'general purpose' and pardoned him in advance of him even being charged with any crime. In his case he did head for the hills when he was called out by the GOP chiefs, and if what we've learned over the last few years is anything to go by, he could have totally brazened it out if he wanted to. I suppose the pardon was a kind of a reward for taking a hike. It was not uncontroversial at the time.

In Trump's case he wants a general pardon for anything he did before he was president, everything he did while he was president, and anything he does in the future without specifying what those crimes were or admitting that he was guilty at all. The quirk of pardons mean that you have to give up your 5th amendment rights to decline to answer questions based on the fact you may incriminate yourself as you've already admitted your guilt and been pardoned.

If we don't know what the crime is that he is pardoning himself on, how can he be questioned about co-conspirators? I suppose, the chance of him listing every crime would be small, so they could probably get him on something else that he forgot.

The other end of pardoning that we have already seen is that Trump's co-conspirators in various schemes have been pardoned as a reward for carrying out crimes on behalf of Trump. How this can pass without comment from the GOP is insane. Taken to its logical conclusion it means that a president can order flunkies to carry out assassinations of political rivals, media rivals, or just anyone at all, and then fire out pardons all over the place. No harm, no foul!

The level of rampant visible criminality carried out by Trump and co must be called out. They have to be called to answer for their acts. To not do so will be catastrophic for justice and politics in general in America.

I think the whole Georgia run-off could have some interesting side-effects. The Trumpian head-the-balls telling their supporters to boycott the run-off election will let the two Democrat nominees have a big advantage in January. When toxic trumpism starts ripping the GOP apart they may finally act.

Well the thing is for all Nixon’s faults he did seem to have some apreciation and respect for the institution and norms of the United States which Donald trump doesn’t even pretend to hide his lack of respect for them.

aloyisious

check_six wrote: »

Well you'd imagine that you would have to be guilty of a specific crime, admit that guilt, and then receive a pardon for that specific crime.

But that does not seem to be the way it's heading in the fairytale land of the USA!

In Trump's case he wants a general pardon for anything he did before he was president, everything he did while he was president, and anything he does in the future without specifying what those crimes were or admitting that he was guilty at all. The quirk of pardons mean that you have to give up your 5th amendment rights to decline to answer questions based on the fact you may incriminate yourself as you've already admitted your guilt and been pardoned.

Does the range of offences a presidential pardon apply to include offences NOT on the federal statute book and include offences not brought under federal law? It was my impression that pardon only applied to federal-law charges and convictions. I don't think any thinking politician would agree to future-tense pardons as they would be an open-invitation to mayhem.

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if he gives pardons to some aren't they clear of potential issues whether people give up the dirt or not?

If he pardons them , they can no longer take the 5th.

so , they don't even need to go to court.

Hold a House hearing - Bring them all in , if they decline it's off to jail for contempt.

Then bring them all in and make them tell the whole sordid story.

Get all the dirty rotten laundry out in public...

Let's see how much his base love him then.

Justin Credible Darts

never ceases to amaze me to double standards of some democrat lovers.

We all know most of the republicans come across as thick, racist, and will do and say anything, but its the so called moral superiority of the democrats who think they are somehow better.

to me they are all as bad as each other, the democrats have their share of corrupt , thick and stupid as well.

duploelabs

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

never ceases to amaze me to double standards of some democrat lovers.

We all know most of the republicans come across as thick, racist, and will do and say anything, but its the so called moral superiority of the democrats who think they are somehow better.

to me they are all as bad as each other, the democrats have their share of corrupt , thick and stupid as well.

We're all allowed to engage in whataboutsim but unless you provide samples and citation, it just sounds like a tantrum.
Is it because of the predicted pardons for crimes Trump's family haven't or maybe have committed?

Justin Credible Darts

duploelabs wrote: »

We're all allowed to engage in whataboutsim but unless you provide samples and citation, it just sounds like a tantrum.
Is it because of the predicted pardons for crimes Trump's family haven't or maybe have committed?

Enlighten me with your wisdom, how is saying both set sets of supporters whining and complaining a tantrum.




I do not like Trump and have no time for him, but you obviously failed to grasp this, astound me as to your logic how my post was a tantrum.

duploelabs

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Enlighten me with your wisdom, how is saying both set sets of supporters whining and complaining a tantrum.




I do not like Trump and have no time for him, but you obviously failed to grasp this, astound me as to your logic how my post was a tantrum.

I have no idea what you're talking about, what have the democrats done now?

Justin Credible Darts

duploelabs wrote: »

I have no idea what you're talking about, what have the democrats done now?

are you actually reading the posts you are replying to ?


I clearly stated "supporters" I was referring to "supporters" whining and attacking each other.

Brussels Sprout

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

never ceases to amaze me to double standards of some democrat lovers.

We all know most of the republicans come across as thick, racist, and will do and say anything, but its the so called moral superiority of the democrats who think they are somehow better.

to me they are all as bad as each other, the democrats have their share of corrupt , thick and stupid as well.

Well, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. To me it smacks of false equivalency.

The Republicans have been acting in an abominable fashion for years. Their craven attitude to Trump trying to subvert the election is only the latest low. Trump is a symptom of a rot that set into that party a long long time ago.

The Democrats have their own problems but to equate the two parties is to do the Democrats a serious injustice.

Out of curiosity which of the Republican's policies do you admire?

Justin Credible Darts

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Well, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. To me it smacks of false equivalency.

The Republicans have been acting in an abominable fashion for years. Their craven attitude to Trump trying to subvert the election is only the latest low. Trump is a symptom of a rot that set into that party a long long time ago.

The Democrats have their own problems but to equate the two parties is to do the Democrats a serious injustice.

Out of curiosity which of the Republican's policies do you admire?

again , another member who has completely ignored what I wrote and answered to what you think I wrote.


I was referring to supporters of the parties, not the parties.
do i have to state it 3 times in every post ?


I despise trump and totally agree with what you said about the republicans, my point was the supporters of each party as as bad as each other ( for the most part) in their whining and complaining.

duploelabs

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

are you actually reading the posts you are replying to ?


I clearly stated "supporters" I was referring to "supporters" whining and attacking each other.

OK, let's take have a go at this, you said...

never ceases to amaze me to double standards of some democrat lovers.

What kind of double standards you're refeering to?

Detritus70

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I do not like Trump and have no time for him, but you obviously failed to grasp this, astound me as to your logic how my post was a tantrum.

Isn't it amazing how the most fervent anti Democrats posters always start with "I'm no Trump fan, but..."
At least it's good to know that nothing that follows this statement is worth reading.
I have analysed this type of poster and collated their factual, logical arguments, backed up by links and citations in numerical order:

1: ...

The end.

The lady doth protest too much.

abff

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I despise trump and totally agree with what you said about the republicans, my point was the supporters of each party as as bad as each other ( for the most part) in their whining and complaining.

If that was your point, it totally misses the mark. Sure, there are less than perfect people on both sides of the divide, but to say that the supporters of the Democratic Party are as bad as the supporters of the Republican Party is a total misrepresentation of what's been going on over the last few years.

Maybe it was true once. It's certainly not true now.

Justin Credible Darts

Detritus70 wrote: »

Isn't it amazing how the most fervent anti Democrats posters always start with "I'm no Trump fan, but..."
At least it's good to know that nothing that follows this statement is worth reading.
I have analysed this type of poster and collated their factual, logical arguments, backed up by links and citations in numerical order:

1: ...

The end.

The lady doth protest too much.

this is the mentality I refer too ^^^^


If I say something negative about a democrat supporter I must therefore be a republican support....this is the level of mindset I find laughable.


My own wife moans about Trump, and when I tell her ok, I am not interested, its not because what she says is wrong, but because her moaning wont change a damn thing.


Its like my buddy complaining about his crap job, over and over , I am sick of listening to him, even if he is right.


Same applies here, the democrat fans are doing as much whining as the trump lunatics whining about the election.Because the whining of the democrat fans is as bad as the whining by republicans, dont make me a republican.


I despise the NRA, the whole gun nut mentality
Despise the pro life life anti abortion "all life is sacred" mantra whilst they want to execute people at the same time. Things like hypocrisy, double standards tend to irritate me.


but because I highlight how democrats whine as much as republicans, i am labeled a republican, and then people wonder why i highlight the mindset....go figure.

Detritus70

So the crime of democrats, they complain.
Yes. Shocking.
But you know what? They'll complain about Biden (or any other democrat) too if they're doing a lousy job. Because they care.
Republicans don't whine. They would row in behind a mouldy dog turd if it just means power for power's sake.
I'm glad democrats whine. It means they look at things critically.
Just look at suggestions Trump should declare martial law or that Chris Krebs should be hung drawn and quartered. Outrage level from republicans =0.
If you don't complain about that, you'll be fine with a totalitarian state as long as it suppresses the people you hate. Not meaning you in particular, but look at the Trump bots, they're completely mindless, walking pieces of meat.

Justin Credible Darts

the point is you expect that type of moaning from the trump idiots, they lost and rightfully so.

but the democrats won, and continue to whine, what will all their whining achieve ?
whats the point of it ?

looksee

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

this is the mentality I refer too ^^^^


If I say something negative about a democrat supporter I must therefore be a republican support....this is the level of mindset I find laughable.


My own wife moans about Trump, and when I tell her ok, I am not interested, its not because what she says is wrong, but because her moaning wont change a damn thing.


Its like my buddy complaining about his crap job, over and over , I am sick of listening to him, even if he is right.


Same applies here, the democrat fans are doing as much whining as the trump lunatics whining about the election.Because the whining of the democrat fans is as bad as the whining by republicans, dont make me a republican.


I despise the NRA, the whole gun nut mentality
Despise the pro life life anti abortion "all life is sacred" mantra whilst they want to execute people at the same time. Things like hypocrisy, double standards tend to irritate me.


but because I highlight how democrats whine as much as republicans, i am labeled a republican, and then people wonder why i highlight the mindset....go figure.

Could we have an example of specific Democrat whining? Do you mean about Trump? Biden has very carefully not been whining about Trump, whereas Trump never stops whining about everything. Democrats generally have been angered/ irritated/ annoyed about Trump and the Republicans, but T and the R are running the show at the moment, they have all the cards, for the moment all the Democrats can do is complain and object, is that whining?

You telling us your wife complains about trump could be construed as whining about your wife. You giving out about your workmate could be read as whining about his conversation topics. What might be considered whining depends on where you are standing.

aloyisious

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

never ceases to amaze me to double standards of some democrat lovers.

We all know most of the republicans come across as thick, racist, and will do and say anything, but its the so called moral superiority of the democrats who think they are somehow better.

to me they are all as bad as each other, the democrats have their share of corrupt , thick and stupid as well.

Would you show me where in your post above, you included the word "supporters"? Thing is: without the inclusion of that word in that post, the rest of your posts directly related to that post and inclusive of that word seem to be distractive in nature. Your actual last post about the democrats whining and they won sounds familiar, almost Trumpish.

Detritus70

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

the point is you expect that type of moaning from the trump idiots, they lost and rightfully so.

but the democrats won, and continue to whine, what will all their whining achieve ?
whats the point of it ?

Politics is a neverending battle, you can't lie back and say everything is grand.
What 90% of people don't understand, you have to put work into democracy and not just the guys at the top.
It works from the ground up, you have to keep voting, petitioning, protesting, even posting on social media.
The people who don't whine will soon discover that their opinion is overlooked.

VinLieger

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

the point is you expect that type of moaning from the trump idiots, they lost and rightfully so.

but the democrats won, and continue to whine, what will all their whining achieve ?
whats the point of it ?

It could be to do with the tiny issue of 3000 people dying each day from covid? And the fact that Trump is doing nothing to stop it? Many would argue his politicising of masks not to mention still encouraging supporters to question the actual existence of the virus is causing more people to die.


Are you saying Democrats should just shut up and ignore these deaths until Jan 20th?

aloyisious

The Pentagon has undergone more changes in its presidential preferential-level board members. Madeline Albright, Henry Kissinger, Jane Harman and Eric Cantor were removed from it's defense policy board about ten days ago. I guess Trump and they disagreed with his withdraw the troops policy. After his acting Defense secretary fired the chair, vice chair and 7 members of the pentagon business interests advisory board Trump has put Cory Lewandowski and David Bossie in as volunteers to advise the pentagon on its business interests. Bossie was a member of the Trump 2016 campaign and left the admin team after being accused by the IRs of routing donations meant for the campaign through consultants and book sales for his own benefit. Corey's departure as White House COS doesn't need refreshing for memory recall. The outlook looks grim for the Pentagon non-partisanship role as the national defense structure.

Edit: I'm now looking at the row he's having with the two parties over the defense budget agreement they seem to have and wonder if he intends his new appointees to the pentagon [incl the acting secretary] to try scupper the deal by way of the Pentagon rejecting or mishandling the funds.

Midlife

VinLieger wrote: »

It could be to do with the tiny issue of 3000 people dying each day from covid? And the fact that Trump is doing nothing to stop it? Many would argue his politicising of masks not to mention still encouraging supporters to question the actual existence of the virus is causing more people to die.


Are you saying Democrats should just shut up and ignore these deaths until Jan 20th?

No, causing more people to die would be like if he were still having mass gatherings like the rally he's having in Georgia shortly.

pixelburp

aloyisious wrote: »

The Pentagon has undergone more changes in its presidential preferential-level board members. Madeline Albright, Henry Kissinger, Jane Harman and Eric Cantor were removed from it's defense policy board about ten days ago. I guess Trump and they disagreed with his withdraw the troops policy. After his acting Defense secretary fired the chair, vice chair and 7 members of the pentagon business interests advisory board Trump has put Cory Lewandowski and David Bossie in as volunteers to advise the pentagon on its business interests. Bossie was a member of the Trump 2016 campaign and left the admin team after being accused by the IRs of routing donations meant for the campaign through consultants and book sales for his own benefit. Corey's departure as White House COS doesn't need refreshing for memory recall. The outlook looks grim for the Pentagon non-partisanship role as the national defense structure.

Edit: I'm now looking at the row he's having with the two parties over the defense budget agreement they seem to have and wonder if he intends his new appointees to the pentagon [incl the acting secretary] to try scupper the deal by way of the Pentagon rejecting or mishandling the funds.

I wasn't even aware Kissinger was still alive so maybe his departure is no bad thing, but Lewandowski? Ye gods there's a heel I thought had passed into the political night. A man singularly without charm or talent.

At this point I'm presuming every move by Trump to be a petty action of burning or sabotaging as much of the house down as he can. While insulating / rewarding his few remaining sycophants.

aloyisious

pixelburp wrote: »

I wasn't even aware Kissinger was still alive so maybe his departure is no bad thing, but Lewandowski? Ye gods there's a heel I thought had passed into the political night. A man singularly without charm or talent.

At this point I'm presuming every move by Trump to be a petty action of burning or sabotaging as much of the house down as he can. While insulating / rewarding his few remaining sycophants.

Seeing as the changes have gone through there, and Barr is still in DOJ, I have to ask what it is he [FBI] have on Trump. I'd imagine Trump has had feelers out for people in mind as D/AG whenever he's able to push the present one upstairs into Bill's office, if he has the b**** to risk firing him. Kissinger was a surprise for me too, another blast from the Nixon era [when a US president was able to do a deal with China] which may have been an irritant for Trump to find Henry was still effecting US Govt policy.