rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
none. just another war started by the GOP for no reason and with no end. just a huge pricetag in lives and money
FBI Raids Manafort residence.
- Thread starter Unclebaldrick
- Start date
QtrNdaPuss
Well-Known Member
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
greg nr
Well-Known Member
An interesting point. I've never heard of the guvies filing a civil suit against an individual. It's always criminal.
Can the gov't file a civil suit? One would think it would be almost impossible to have standing.
But, presumably a civil suit could be filed by someone manifort defrauded, or harmed professionally, or slandered. But it would probably have nothing to do with being pardoned, and you don't need a criminal act to file a civil suit, so the pardon wouldn't even apply.
Add to that a pardon is really an act of forgiveness. It doesn't say you weren't guilty, it says you are forgiven and can't be prosecuted. Two very different things.
You could be pardoned for the murder of a law enforcement officer at the federal level, but you could still be charged in a wrongful death civil suit. You still committed the act, you just aren't criminally responsible for it. In fact, I've seen cases where someone actually gets found innocent of a crime only to be sued in civil court for the same offense (OJ simpson is one).
But I'm not a lawyer and I'm not playing one here. Just some ponderings on what I''ve seen before.
Can the gov't file a civil suit? One would think it would be almost impossible to have standing.
But, presumably a civil suit could be filed by someone manifort defrauded, or harmed professionally, or slandered. But it would probably have nothing to do with being pardoned, and you don't need a criminal act to file a civil suit, so the pardon wouldn't even apply.
Add to that a pardon is really an act of forgiveness. It doesn't say you weren't guilty, it says you are forgiven and can't be prosecuted. Two very different things.
You could be pardoned for the murder of a law enforcement officer at the federal level, but you could still be charged in a wrongful death civil suit. You still committed the act, you just aren't criminally responsible for it. In fact, I've seen cases where someone actually gets found innocent of a crime only to be sued in civil court for the same offense (OJ simpson is one).
But I'm not a lawyer and I'm not playing one here. Just some ponderings on what I''ve seen before.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Trump is in over his head. He will never admit it and his followers are too stupid to see it.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
the state of NY has ongoing cases against Trump right now you fucking retard. trump foundation as just one example.
QtrNdaPuss
Well-Known Member
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
cause it's not absolute.
what if obama sues trump in a civil case for slander and defamation of character and wins 300 million. can trump pardon that? nope. so a presidential pardon is NOT ABSOLUTE. as i keep trying to tell you tard.
i've been to 4 law websites that all say the same:
presidential pardons are NOT absolute
yet you keep saying they are. where did you get your juris doctorate from again???
greg nr
Well-Known Member
And so it begins......
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/08/08/god-has-given-trump-authority-to-take-out-kim-jong-un-evangelical-adviser-says/?utm_term=.b71face81dd8
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/08/08/god-has-given-trump-authority-to-take-out-kim-jong-un-evangelical-adviser-says/?utm_term=.b71face81dd8
Why a president has an evangelical advisor who trespasses into war management is a point of terror all unto itself.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
GW had the same thing. Nothing new.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Despots and the desperate have always claimed religious and/or moral authority to do despicable things.
Let's hope there are cooler heads in the chain of command, nevermind that they prevail.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
only when applied to federal crimes are they absolute. i'll give you that.
there are crimes that are not federal, would you agree? to which, they are not pardonable.
there are civil suits too, would you agree? to which, they are not pardonable.
so your blanket statement that presidential pardons are absolute is false.
how you don't see the difference makes me wonder how you know which hole to wipe. and you obviously don't know that absolute means 100% with zero exceptions.
The power to pardon is one of the least limited powers granted to the President in the Constitution. The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases), and that they cannot affect an impeachment process
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
One key thing to keep in mind: Presidential pardons only apply to federal criminal acts against the United States.
So, the president cannot pardon a person for violations of any federal civil laws or state criminal or civil laws. For example, if a person commits armed robbery at a local gas station and is convicted under state law for armed robbery, that person cannot receive a presidential pardon. Why? Because that person committed a state criminal act, not a federal criminal act.
NOT ABSOLUTE ,YOU SIMPLETON.
So, the president cannot pardon a person for violations of any federal civil laws or state criminal or civil laws. For example, if a person commits armed robbery at a local gas station and is convicted under state law for armed robbery, that person cannot receive a presidential pardon. Why? Because that person committed a state criminal act, not a federal criminal act.
NOT ABSOLUTE ,YOU SIMPLETON.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Tacomac has difficulty reading, I guess. I'm glad he's no longer teaching.
greg nr
Well-Known Member
Of course the real question is that if the president pardons himself and anyone he tries to protect, would it be deemed legitimate?
The question has never really come up. A few governors and a mayor have done it, but as it turns out nobody challenged the actions. So from a federal level it is completely untested.
Would a court rule that an inherent conflict of interest exists and strike it down? Would the scotus agree? Who would be in a position to challenge it? Certainly not the executive branch f trump were still in office. Who else would have standing?
Whatever the outcome, it would take years to strike it down. In the meantime, no court actions could proceed and he would remain on office until his term expired or the congress acted (hah).
The question has never really come up. A few governors and a mayor have done it, but as it turns out nobody challenged the actions. So from a federal level it is completely untested.
Would a court rule that an inherent conflict of interest exists and strike it down? Would the scotus agree? Who would be in a position to challenge it? Certainly not the executive branch f trump were still in office. Who else would have standing?
Whatever the outcome, it would take years to strike it down. In the meantime, no court actions could proceed and he would remain on office until his term expired or the congress acted (hah).
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
holy shit! no wonder our country is middle of the road in education worldwide.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Quote (sorta): Presidential pardons are ABSOLUTE. I MEAN ABSOLUTE. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS ARE ABSOLUTE POWER TO PARDON. I MEAN ABSOLUTE POWER. Except they are limited to federal crimes and misdemeanors and don't apply to state, city or municipal convictions or fines
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
careful village idiot #2. he'll put you on ignore too.
he's ABSOLUTELY an idiot.