Trump pardoned them. Now they’re helping him return to power

[robosmith]

Trump pardoned them. Now they’re helping him return to power

Quote

As president, Donald Trump used his constitutional clemency powers to free or forgive many people who could be useful to his future political efforts.

Now, a Washington Post review of Trump’s 238 clemency orders finds that dozens of recipients have gone on to plug his 2024 candidacy through social media and national interviews, contribute money to his campaign or disseminate his false claims of fraud in the 2020 election. 

Just like he dissuaded his cronies from testifying against him with pardons. ?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Trump pardoned them. Now they’re helping him return to power

Just like he dissuaded his cronies from testifying against him with pardons. ?

And? this is kind of what presidents do. What's your point?

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What's your point?

Trump offends them and must be stopped at all costs. Especially if that cost is freedom of speech.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Trump offends them and must be stopped at all costs. Especially if that cost is freedom of speech.

Ahhh - how silly of me to even ask.

So basically the point is at the top of their heads.

[Aristides]

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And? this is kind of what presidents do. What's your point?

Actually they don't. Name any other time a president has pardoned people to avoid responsibility for his own actions.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Trump offends them and must be stopped at all costs. Especially if that cost is freedom of speech.

Escaping justice by pardoning witnesses to ones crimes is very offensive, wouldn't you agree?

Seems like obstruction of justice to me.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Actually they don't. Name any other time a president has pardoned people to avoid responsibility for his own actions.

That's not happening here so it's not relevant.  Although if you want to argue that someone acting in his interests later is what you mean then there's madison, ford, bucannon,  a lot of the pardons involved people who had ties to the president or would benefit him in some way.  Almost every president pardons SOMEONE where there's a political motive to do so. With the possible exception of Regan who let ollie north face trial instead (tho he knew he'd win).

 

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Escaping justice by pardoning witnesses to ones crimes is very offensive, wouldn't you agree?

Seems like obstruction of justice to me.

Well if that sounds like obstruction then you've shown once again you are utterly ignorant of the law. What a shocker

[Aristides]

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's not happening here so it's not relevant.  Although if you want to argue that someone acting in his interests later is what you mean then there's madison, ford, bucannon,  a lot of the pardons involved people who had ties to the president or would benefit him in some way.  Almost every president pardons SOMEONE where there's a political motive to do so. With the possible exception of Regan who let ollie north face trial instead (tho he knew he'd win).

 

 

They haven't pardoned people for actions taken on their behalf. Trump even pardoned people who hadn't been convicted.

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, Aristides said:

They haven't pardoned people for actions taken on their behalf. Trump even pardoned people who hadn't been convicted.

Well pardoning people who haven't been convicted is not new.   And one need look no further than the pardon of richard nixon to see worse than trump's pardons.  

And the case could be made that never in history has a poltiical party tried so hard to find SOMETHING to go after a president or their associates over to the point of committing crimes in the pursuit of it. There's nothing normal about how the FBI went after those people so it's just as fair to say that anything unusual about trump's response simply reflects that.

I've never believed in the idea of a presidential pardon - they took that from the monarchy in britian and i'm not sure why the hell they kept THAT of all things, but at the end of the day since the beginning it's been used to address political agendas.  I think you're looking for a tempest in a teapot here. I would say in a world were trump can suggestively threaten a judge, on a scale of 1 to 10 this is about a 0.5

[Aristides]

How do you pardon someone who has yet to be found guilty of anything? If you need a pardon, the logical assumption is that you are guilty.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

How do you pardon someone who has yet to be found guilty of anything? If you need a pardon, the logical assumption is that you are guilty.

No, it's recognized. Usually it's in connection with an event or thing, as in "We do not know whether any of the actions  that may or may not have been taken in relation to this man's work violate the law but in any case we declare if that is so he is forgiven for any such offiense in relation to blah blah blah. There's been pardons for any acts involving piracy or the like (a specific pirate defended a city and got pardoned for basically any piracy crimes he may have committed). 

Often pardons have been blanket like that.  They don't list the specific crimes.  Pardons can be weird things - they can even impose various penalties fines etc.  As in ok, 500 bucks and he's off the hook Pardons can be a reward for meritous service later on, etc etc. 

So you don't have to know of a specific crime or even if there was a crime for sure, you can just end any future discussion on the subject by saying 'pardon him', and now even if they do find evidence of a crime involving that later he's off the hook

Interstingly Regan did NOT pardon olile north saying he believed north could win in court and if he just pardoned him then the 'suspicion of guilt would forever hang over him' etc.

I feel it's too sweeping a power and too easily abused but it is what it is ,

 

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Escaping justice

Some of these charges seem politically motivated. 

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Some of these charges seem politically motivated. 

The Grand Jury thought otherwise. How would YOU KNOW? Have you even read the indictments? They are quite detailed.

Maybe you could detail the charges for which there is NOT strong EVIDENCE, but I doubt it.

Jack Smith has been very careful to make a strong case, like most all Federal prosecutors. That's why they have a 95% conviction record.

BTW, you didn't answer my question:

Quote

Escaping justice by pardoning witnesses to ones crimes is very offensive, wouldn't you agree?

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by robosmith

[CdnFox]

53 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The Grand Jury thought otherwise.

 

No ,the grand jury did not think otherwise.  Despite the name, the grand jury does not actually come to a verdict on the case. Their job is to see if there's enough of a case to justify having a real jury and a real court case.

So they could very easily say "it looks politically motivated... but it's up to a jury to decide that, there's enough evidence to proceed.

How come you don't know this stuff?

[Aristides]

29 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No ,the grand jury did not think otherwise.  Despite the name, the grand jury does not actually come to a verdict on the case. Their job is to see if there's enough of a case to justify having a real jury and a real court case.

So they could very easily say "it looks politically motivated... but it's up to a jury to decide that, there's enough evidence to proceed.

How come you don't know this stuff?

Yes, a grand jury listens to evidence and decides whether there is a case. Unlike anonymous internet posters who decide based on hearing no evidence. 

[robosmith]

43 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes, a grand jury listens to evidence and decides whether there is a case. Unlike anonymous internet posters who decide based on hearing no evidence. 

Some Canadians don't understand what the GJ determines.

They determine whether a crime was committed and who the likely perpetrator was.

"Politically motivated" charges do not qualify for indictment.

[Legato]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

 

"Politically motivated" charges do not qualify for indictment.

Except if your name just happens to be Trump, then as logic dictates, the charges must be trumped up.

[robosmith]

18 minutes ago, Legato said:

Except if your name just happens to be Trump, then as logic dictates, the charges must be trumped up.

Maybe your fantasy "logic." LMAO

How about citing your "dictator" who says the grand jury heard "trumped up" sworn testimony?

Bet you CAN NOT.

[Legato]

31 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Maybe your fantasy "logic." LMAO

How about citing your "dictator" who says the grand jury heard "trumped up" sworn testimony?

Bet you CAN NOT.

I don't have a dick tater.

Yukon Gold are nice and tasty, not too fanciful when cooked in a logical fashion.

[Legato]

[Deluge]

22 hours ago, robosmith said:

Trump pardoned them. Now they’re helping him return to power

Just like he dissuaded his cronies from testifying against him with pardons. ?

The hope is, of course, that they bring all those tyrannical psychopaths to justice. 

I can't wait.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Deluge

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Some Canadians don't understand what the GJ determines.

They determine whether a crime was committed and who the likely perpetrator was.

"Politically motivated" charges do not qualify for indictment.

They absolutely do not determine that 

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging

The grand jury listens to the prosecutor and witnesses, and then votes in secret on whether they believe that enough evidence exists to charge the person with a crime. A grand jury may decide not to charge an individual based upon the evidence, no indictment would come from the grand jury.

 

How do you NOT know this in your OWN COUNTRY?!?!!?

Feel free not to answer - i imagine you're feeling pretty embarrassed right now.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

Yes, a grand jury listens to evidence and decides whether there is a case. Unlike anonymous internet posters who decide based on hearing no evidence. 

Now now - don't be so hard on yourself

At the end of the day the grand jury won't be deciding if a crime has been committed. So their decision to proceed is not in any way a finding of guilt - just that there's enough that the question should be asked by a trial.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Have you even read the indictments?

I read into their timing.

I read between the lines. 

By strongly pushing this agenda, the hard left is essentially giving wings to a political candidate who was otherwise done and dusted via their own incompetence.

Its free advertising. He knows him in cuffs is great for business, as well as knowing debating is wasteful because his case gets more views.

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Jack Smith has been very careful to make a strong case

Of course they did. The timing is suspect, and a lot of Americans are seeing it the same way.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

"Politically motivated" charges do not qualify for indictment.

Politically motivated is eluding to the suspect timing, vs the actual charges. The charges are legit. Will they result in an arrest, isn't guaranteed, but isn't the point.

Am sure they left zero stones unturned, to prevent him from running. Even to fully suppress his voice.

The standard should be universal.

Do something illegal, and get punished for it. There should be zero exceptions.

Trump isn't the first corrupt president, and won't be the last.

To state he is the worst, is irrelevant. The standard should be the same across the board.

You cannot use the law in politics, to suppress the voice you do not agree with. It sets a dangerous precedent that other future presidents can and likely will exploit in the future to jail perceived threats.

Its such a third world country way of running a country.

You're supposed to be setting the global standard.

Blaming Trump solely for this, is to say no other US presidents have committed a crime that should be further scrutinized.