The "D" day pool, best guess as to when Trump is out

[schuylaar]

Your entire post was wrong. A pardon is the complete removal of the crime. After a pardon, the crime never existed.

It is not an admission of guilt.

Congress would not be able to send him a Christmas card, let alone subpoena him.

Your entire thought process and understanding of what a pardon is and how it works is completely wrong.

actually, it is..remember sheriff joe?

Melber then walked the sheriff through a Supreme Court case, Burdick v. United States, that makes clear a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it."

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-arpaio-found-out-admitted-guilt-trump-pardon-live-tv-781824

remember men, you are not always correct, in fact, you're often wrong. when you get members banned for 'the fun of it'..you actually cut your nose to spite your face and are dumbing yourselves down by not allowing others with knowledge, correct the record.

you're turning into little trumps..

PS..that was for Pada..why are you big, bearded men so frightened of a twenty-something with great cheekbones?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

lol

 

[TacoMac]

lol

Yep. He's hopeless.

This is why jails are chock full of people who THINK they know their rights.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Yep. He's hopeless.

This is why jails are chock full of people who THINK they know their rights.

I wasn't laughing at him. The whole pardoning thing seems pretty muddy. You may have to override ignore to see what I am laughing at.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

I wasn't laughing at him. The whole pardoning thing seems pretty muddy. You may have to override ignore to see what I am laughing at.

do you ever wonder why someone who gets nothing but derision keeps coming back for more? self esteem issues? daddy didn't pay enough attention to them? daddy paid too much attention to them?......?

 

[TacoMac]

I wasn't laughing at him. The whole pardoning thing seems pretty muddy. You may have to override ignore to see what I am laughing at.

OH. Well then, just for that 'special kind of stupid' - from the very link you posted, dimwit:

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

All of that notwithstanding, that case does not in any way pertain to Junior. The person who typed up a sensationalist article is an idiot. The two cases are in no way related.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

OH. Well then, just for that 'special kind of stupid' - from the very link you posted, dimwit:

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

All of that notwithstanding, that case does not in any way pertain to Junior. The person who typed up a sensationalist article is an idiot. The two cases are in no way related.

You must be getting legal advice from Rudy. If pardons worked the way you believe and there is no abrogation of 5th amendment rights, Trump would have pardoned Flynn, Manifort, Stone and all the rest of the traitors (literal not legal, since there's no "hot" war going on). It's settled law by the SCOTUS (in 1915) that a pardon is an admission of guilt and that precedent has not been overturned yet. All the legal experts agree on these two points: Accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt and the abrogation of 5th amendment rights if a pardon is accepted. The broader in scope the pardon, the broader in scope the abrogation of 5th amendment rights, if Donald gives junior a blanket pardon, he would have to testify to everything.

 

[TacoMac]

You're wrong. Flat out. Completely.

I'm going to dumb this down to where even a child could understand it:

George Burdick (the case you and that other failure of intelligence keep quoting) was the editor of The New York Tribune, about the biggest paper there was at the time (circa 1915).

Now, somebody at the Treasury department was leaking information to The New York Tribune, and they were printing all of it. Think Watergate. It was essentially the same exact thing. And much like Nixon, it was driving President Woodrow Wilson insane...and making him look like the horses ass he was.

So Congress uses a subpoena to haul George Burdick into a hearing to find out who his source at the U.S. Treasury Department is. He refuses to say, takes the 5th, and that's that.

Woodrow Wilson, who was looking like a complete horses ass over all of this and much more, had the bright idea to "pardon" George Burdick. Now, at the time, no crime had been committed at all. Nobody had been charged with anything at all.

What President Wilson thought (and he was wrong) was that if he issued a blanket pardon to George for any and all crimes that MIGHT have been committed, then it wouldn't be possible for him to incriminate himself, and he would be forced to testify in full and could no longer plead the 5th.

And President Wilson was WRONG!

George told Woodrow Wilson to, in essence, shove his pardon up his ass. He wasn't going to accept the pardon because he had done nothing wrong, wasn't going to reveal his source as it was protected by the 1st ammendment and that was that...and he (George) STILL wasn't going to testify.

So they issued a warrant for arrest against George for contempt. He was fined around 400 dollars if memory serves (a shit load of money back then) and jailed.

Then of course the appeal started and it RAPIDLY went to the Supreme Court.

Now, the Supreme Court had two issues to decide:

1. Can a person refuse a pardon?
2. Can the president offer a pardon for a crime that doesn't actually exist and nobody has actually been charged with?

Well, SCOTUS being SCOTUS, they answered the first question but not the second.

The answer to the first question is simply this: If a person goes before the court, or the senate or congress, and wishes to have full pardon and be exempt from anything he/she may say, then he has to present that pardon to the body in question. If he doesn't, then that body can ignore the fact that the pardon exist at all.

What that means, in essence, is that a person must actually CHOOSE to accept the pardon and then present it to the court in order to have it be valid.

That, of course, is something that good old George Burdick NEVER DID.

And so he still refused to testify and told Woodrow Wilson to go fuck himself and told congress to go fuck themselves and he got away with it.

So now that you know your beloved case has NOTHING to do WHATSOEVER with Donald Trump, Jr. or his father, let it go. For fucks sake...I usually get paid for teaching.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

You're wrong. Flat out. Completely.

I'm going to dumb this down to where even a child could understand it:

George Burdick (the case you and that other failure of intelligence keep quoting) was the editor of The New York Tribune, about the biggest paper there was at the time (circa 1915).

Now, somebody at the Treasury department was leaking information to The New York Tribune, and they were printing all of it. Think Watergate. It was essentially the same exact thing. And much like Nixon, it was driving President Woodrow Wilson insane...and making him look like the horses ass he was.

So Congress uses a subpoena to haul George Burdick into a hearing to find out who his source at the U.S. Treasury Department is. He refuses to say, takes the 5th, and that's that.

Woodrow Wilson, who was looking like a complete horses ass over all of this and much more, had the bright idea to "pardon" George Burdick. Now, at the time, no crime had been committed at all. Nobody had been charged with anything at all.

What President Wilson thought (and he was wrong) was that if he issued a blanket pardon to George for any and all crimes that MIGHT have been committed, then it wouldn't be possible for him to incriminate himself, and he would be forced to testify in full and could no longer plead the 5th.

And President Wilson was WRONG!

George told Woodrow Wilson to, in essence, shove his pardon up his ass. He wasn't going to accept the pardon because he had done nothing wrong, wasn't going to reveal his source as it was protected by the 1st ammendment and that was that...and he (George) STILL wasn't going to testify.

So they issued a warrant for arrest against George for contempt. He was fined around 400 dollars if memory serves (a shit load of money back then) and jailed.

Then of course the appeal started and it RAPIDLY went to the Supreme Court.

Now, the Supreme Court had two issues to decide:

1. Can a person refuse a pardon?
2. Can the president offer a pardon for a crime that doesn't actually exist and nobody has actually been charged with?

Well, SCOTUS being SCOTUS, they answered the first question but not the second.

The answer to the first question is simply this: If a person goes before the court, or the senate or congress, and wishes to have full pardon and be exempt from anything he/she may say, then he has to present that pardon to the body in question. If he doesn't, then that body can ignore the fact that the pardon exist at all.

What that means, in essence, is that a person must actually CHOOSE to accept the pardon and then present it to the court in order to have it be valid.

That, of course, is something that good old George Burdick NEVER DID.

And so he still refused to testify and told Woodrow Wilson to go fuck himself and told congress to go fuck themselves and he got away with it.

So now that you know your beloved case has NOTHING to do WHATSOEVER with Donald Trump, Jr. or his father, let it go. For fucks sake...I usually get paid for teaching.

Argue with Ari Melber and all the other legal experts about it, as far as they and I'm concerned, it's settled law. We will soon see if one of these assholes can plead the 5th when Trump pardons him, the fact that he hasn't pardoned Don jr., Cohen, Manifort and Flynn already should give you a clue. He can pardon but can't silence them since they have no 5th amendment rights after pardoning. They've already testified before congress and grand juries and I'll bet the grand jury testimony had a few of them pleading the 5th.

This will be settled in a very public way soon, what really has not been tested by the SCOTUS is whether the POTUS can be indicted and I believe he can. If not, he would be above the law and could literally shoot someone on 5th avenue without legal consequence.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

i think the reason he hasn't pardoned anyone is that a., some of them haven't been convicted, so what is there to pardon...yet? and b., if he pardons the people that have been convicted, it would look incredibly bad...bad enough that even he knows it.
we do seem to overlook the fact that although he is an old man that eats a lot of fast food, he may live another 30 years...the worst people seem to live he longest... and he is aware that he has to live in this country after he leaves office....there is only so much that he can get away with without become an actual pariah, instead of just a figurative one....
unless, of course, his collusion with putin is finally proven, then i think we can expect the whole family to grab their bug out bags of cash, and haul ass to the closest country friendly to russia with no extradition to the u.s........

 

[TacoMac]

Argue with Ari Melber and all the other legal experts about it, as far as they and I'm concerned, it's settled law. We will soon see if one of these assholes can plead the 5th when Trump pardons him, the fact that he hasn't pardoned Don jr., Cohen, Manifort and Flynn already should give you a clue. He can pardon but can't silence them since they have no 5th amendment rights after pardoning. They've already testified before congress and grand juries and I'll bet the grand jury testimony had a few of them pleading the 5th.

This will be settled in a very public way soon, what really has not been tested by the SCOTUS is whether the POTUS can be indicted and I believe he can. If not, he would be above the law and could literally shoot someone on 5th avenue without legal consequence.

LMAO!!!

Dude, you're so out to lunch it's unreal. They're selling papers and ads. They're sensationalizing with OPINION. I honestly don't think you know what the 5th amendment protection is.

I'm going to try one last time to dumb it down to your level:

The only thing they have Junior on right now is lying to congress. Now, if he's actually charged with that, then the President could pardon him and nobody loses anything because the only thing that Junior got a pardon for was lying to congress.

So if congress subpoenaed junior to testify, what are they going to haul him in to testify about?

• They can make make him admit he lied.
  
• They can ask him why he lied.

That's about it.

There's a lot congress CAN'T do at that point.

They also can't ask junior to start talking about setting up the meeting with the Russians because that presents a crime (several crimes in fact) that Junior doesn't have a pardon for, and so he would be incriminating himself, so he gets his 5th amendment right to not say a word about it.

This is also why Trump didn't start handing out pardons to everybody: Once they have a pardon in hand, they're off the hot seat and he's on it. You don't give anybody a pardon unless it benefits you. Issuing pardons is the last thing on earth Trump wants to do because it absolves others from the crimes they committed.

He wants them in jail because he probably knows a lot more they did wrong.

Only an idiot starts dishing out pardons. Trump may be stupid, but he's not quite that stupid.

In Trump junior's case though, if all they charge him with is lying to congress, you can bet Trump will pardon him for it. And Congress can ask him why he lied all they want, and the only thing Junior will say will be something along the lines of "I don't know. I was just scared I guess and got my facts messed up. I'm sorry."

And it will never go any further than that. They ask him about any other crime he doesn't have a pardon for, he'll take the 5th all day long.

 

[Fogdog]

LMAO!!!

Dude, you're so out to lunch it's unreal. They're selling papers and ads. They're sensationalizing with OPINION. I honestly don't think you know what the 5th amendment protection is.

I'm going to try one last time to dumb it down to your level:

The only thing they have Junior on right now is lying to congress. Now, if he's actually charged with that, then the President could pardon him and nobody loses anything because the only thing that Junior got a pardon for was lying to congress.

So if congress subpoenaed junior to testify, what are they going to haul him in to testify about?

• They can make make him admit he lied.
  
• They can ask him why he lied.

That's about it.

There's a lot congress CAN'T do at that point.

They also can't ask junior to start talking about setting up the meeting with the Russians because that presents a crime (several crimes in fact) that Junior doesn't have a pardon for, and so he would be incriminating himself, so he gets his 5th amendment right to not say a word about it.

This is also why Trump didn't start handing out pardons to everybody: Once they have a pardon in hand, they're off the hot seat and he's on it. You don't give anybody a pardon unless it benefits you. Issuing pardons is the last thing on earth Trump wants to do because it absolves others from the crimes they committed.

He wants them in jail because he probably knows a lot more they did wrong.

Only an idiot starts dishing out pardons. Trump may be stupid, but he's not quite that stupid.

In Trump junior's case though, if all they charge him with is lying to congress, you can bet Trump will pardon him for it. And Congress can ask him why he lied all they want, and the only thing Junior will say will be something along the lines of "I don't know. I was just scared I guess and got my facts messed up. I'm sorry."

And it will never go any further than that. They ask him about any other crime he doesn't have a pardon for, he'll take the 5th all day long.

Do you remember that time you claimed that a person who had a "Fuck Trump and all the people who support him" bumper sticker was grounds for being arrested and charged? You went on and on about that, calling people stupid and other histrionic outbursts.

Yeah, you were wrong about that. The local DA said so in a press release.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

LMAO!!!

Dude, you're so out to lunch it's unreal. They're selling papers and ads. They're sensationalizing with OPINION. I honestly don't think you know what the 5th amendment protection is.

I'm going to try one last time to dumb it down to your level:

The only thing they have Junior on right now is lying to congress. Now, if he's actually charged with that, then the President could pardon him and nobody loses anything because the only thing that Junior got a pardon for was lying to congress.

So if congress subpoenaed junior to testify, what are they going to haul him in to testify about?

• They can make make him admit he lied.
  
• They can ask him why he lied.

That's about it.

There's a lot congress CAN'T do at that point.

They also can't ask junior to start talking about setting up the meeting with the Russians because that presents a crime (several crimes in fact) that Junior doesn't have a pardon for, and so he would be incriminating himself, so he gets his 5th amendment right to not say a word about it.

This is also why Trump didn't start handing out pardons to everybody: Once they have a pardon in hand, they're off the hot seat and he's on it. You don't give anybody a pardon unless it benefits you. Issuing pardons is the last thing on earth Trump wants to do because it absolves others from the crimes they committed.

He wants them in jail because he probably knows a lot more they did wrong.

Only an idiot starts dishing out pardons. Trump may be stupid, but he's not quite that stupid.

In Trump junior's case though, if all they charge him with is lying to congress, you can bet Trump will pardon him for it. And Congress can ask him why he lied all they want, and the only thing Junior will say will be something along the lines of "I don't know. I was just scared I guess and got my facts messed up. I'm sorry."

And it will never go any further than that. They ask him about any other crime he doesn't have a pardon for, he'll take the 5th all day long.

As I said, argue with the experts whose opinion I'm echoing, they get paid many thousands of dollars by networks like CNN and MSNBC to offer legal guidance and opinion to the public. Also there are many eminent legal scholars who appear on these networks as guests who agree with this LEGAL opinion, these are not FOX news people either but professionals with integrity.

We will soon see who is correct here, the experts or you, when the public congressional hearings begin, and they are just getting started. There is a dearth of precedent because recipients of presidential pardons are usually granted them as the founding fathers intended and not as part of a criminal conspiracy. Trump can pardon people before they are charged with a crime or any time thereafter as he wishes, however the pardon powers are not absolute, he can't take a bribe for a pardon for instance. It will be interesting to see if can he pardon someone for a criminal conspiracy that he is part of along with about two dozen Russians. That one will be settled after he's out of office by the SCOTUS.

As for what Don jr will testify about, we'll just have to wait and see what kind of questions he is asked and I can think of a few myself, but the people doing the investigation are very good at this kind of thing. These clowns have lots to hide and they are all gonna squeal like pigs before prosecutors, the courts and congress, and there's nothing Trump can do about it. The only way out for Trump is to jump on AF1 and run for Moscow while still POTUS, then claim asylum from a deep state coup. I call it the, "So long suckers", solution.

You're too used to what congress can't do when run by a bunch of GOP clowns playing politics, not what is possible with competent, honest leadership and real crimes to investigate. I think we can agree that there have been many such crimes committed by Trump both before and during his presidency, but the final call on that is up to congress and the courts. He won't be POTUS for long, but long enough to destroy the republican party, so hopefully some good will come of the sordid mess. If the GOP senate does not convict Trump after the slam dunk case that will be publicly presented, it won't look good for them in 2020 at all, they'll even have trouble in Dixie...

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

Can Trump really pardon himself?

We asked legal experts about the limits of a president’s pardoning power.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

Here is a detailed and nuanced discussion of presidential pardon powers including the 1915 case, abrogation of 5th amendment rights for those receiving pardons is discussed at 28:00 into the video. There is some question as to an admission of guilt in some special cases, but not in the case of Trump and his family. The pardon power cannot be used to avoid impeachment however and this might be one place where they can nail them. If Trump wanted to avoid the pardon issue ending up in court, he'd have to pardon about 2 dozen Russians as well, if the charges were conspiring with a hostile foreign power to defraud the USA and illegally obtain his office. The SCOTUS is gonna earn it's money with this mess and Trump's appointees won't help him at all on these matters.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presidential Pardon Power

According to Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the president "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” With the recent investigation into President Trump’s possible collusion with Russia by special counsel Robert Mueller, talk of presidential pardon power has surfaced. So the question remains: if President Trump were to be ever found guilty of a federal crime, could he pardon himself?

On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Bob Ambrogi joins guests Brian C. Kalt, professor of law and the Harold Norris Faculty Scholar at Michigan State University College of Law, and Robert L. Deitz, professor of Public Policy at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, as they take an inside look at presidential pardon power. They discuss limits, take a look back at history, look ahead to see how this all will unfold, and get a deeper look into a possible presidential self-pardon and repercussions.

Brian C. Kalt is professor of law and the Harold Norris Faculty Scholar at Michigan State University College of Law.

Robert L. Deitz is professor of Public Policy at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University.

 

[rkymtnman]

@DIY-HP-LED

just so you know, taco and i went back and forth about presidential pardons. he thinks that the powers of the potus are absolute. i had to inform our "teacher" that the power was not absolute in that only federal charges are pardonable. he's not nearly as bright as he thinks he is. and not worth wasting your time on TBH.

 

[Fogdog]

@DIY-HP-LED

just so you know, taco and i went back and forth about presidential pardons. he thinks that the powers of the potus are absolute. i had to inform our "teacher" that the power was not absolute in that only federal charges are pardonable. he's not nearly as bright as he thinks he is. and not worth wasting your time on TBH.

taco is OK, he just gets a hair up his ass sometimes.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

i am not a scholar, but from what i've read over the last few days, taco is right, at least as far as pardons and impeachments go....may be misinterpreting things, but that's how it reads to me

 

[TacoMac]

i am not a scholar, but from what i've read over the last few days, taco is right, at least as far as pardons and impeachments go....may be misinterpreting things, but that's how it reads to me

You can't combat people that live on wishful thinking.

Best to just let it go and watch how they conveniently forget all about what they said when it turns out they were completely wrong the entire time.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/04/politics/donald-trump-super-bowl-interview/index.html

when will trump learn that the best thing trump could ever do for himself is shut the fuck up?