 
     |
| DOJ: Accepting a Pardon Is a Confession of Guilt (Page 1/2) |
|
Doug85GT
|
JAN 20, 11:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Doug85GT
|
JAN 20, 12:18 PM
|
|
|
|
cliffw
|
JAN 20, 01:16 PM
|
|
I am of the opinion that one can not give a pardon for crimes not alleged. I also believe if his family is thought to have committed a crime, they should be prosecuted just as a matter for historical fact.
It does seem he has reason to believe his family was a criminal enterprise ever since he became Vice President. On day one.
He did not pardon himself. Justice still may be served.
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
JAN 20, 01:32 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
He did not pardon himself. |
|
He didn't want to set a precedent.... ?
|
|
|
|
blackrams
|
JAN 20, 05:10 PM
|
|
No idea here but, can one refuse or not accept a Pardon? I remember reading of two convicted felons did not want the pardons Biden granted.
Rams
|
|
|
|
NewDustin
|
JAN 21, 09:10 AM
|
|
|
Wait...we're all FOR mass pardons now? That seems very different than the conversation we all had 2 weeks ago.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JAN 21, 09:41 AM
|
|
What we've seen in the last few weeks, shows that the Democrats know what they did was wrong, in every aspect relating to Trump. Their desire to maintain power saw no limit... and they used the full force of the government and everything at their disposal to do it. Ethics and morals be damned... this was all about maintaining power for the few that thought they had it.
In the words of Mark Penn (a Hillary and Bill Clinton advisor): https://x.com/Mark_Penn/status/1881327074465452296
But it yet again, proves what I've always said...
"The Democrats accuse the Republicans of doing the very things that they themselves are actually guilty of."
This is a perfect example... Jake Tapper goes on for a minute and a half (worth watching), as he criticizes the tech giants for cozying up to President Trump. He goes on saying it's incredibly dangerous the power that Trump will have, etc., etc., the ability to make false statements, etc. (which is nonsense)....
https://x.com/SteveGuest/st.../1881349628513423434
It's so completely ironic... NOT because CNN was just sued for making false statements, I don't even care about that. But it's ironic because the Democrats were TOTALLY OK WITH IT when they were the ones who controlled these tech moguls... literally using the government to persuade them to abide by their demands for censorship and content manipulation. It's completely insane, especially because the conservatives don't want this, and don't do this... they literally JUST don't want manipulation... to be allowed to speak freely, which apparently is like the worst thing in the world to Democrats (I wonder why).
|
|
|
blackrams
|
JAN 21, 10:52 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by NewDustin:
Wait...we're all FOR mass pardons now? That seems very different than the conversation we all had 2 weeks ago. |
|
Even after re-reading this thread a few times, I'm bewildered as to how you came to this conclusion based on what's posted in this thread.
Rams
|
|
|
cliffw
|
JAN 21, 11:00 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by NewDustin:
Wait...we're all FOR mass pardons now? That seems very different than the conversation we all had 2 weeks ago. |
|
Clarify which conversation.
The 1/6/21 convictions ? Biden is mass pardoning those who have not even been charged.
|
|
|
|
Doug85GT
|
JAN 24, 01:03 PM
|
|
The Biden blanket pardons may not be legal.
I just saw an interesting discussion about them. The law is not interpreted or settled until a court interprets it and rules on it. For example, the disruption of official proceeding law used against the J6 defendants which got many of them a decade long sentence was originally written because Enron shredded evidence prior to a congressional investigation. That law was used by the DOJ and the DC courts ruled that it was legal to reinterpret that law against the J6 defendants. That was the law of the land for two years until SCOTUS ruled that it was incorrect and returned it back to the laws original intent.
There are not many cases with pardons in play. None of them involve blanket pardons where the offense is not known or stated. The pardon power has not been used in that way before. Every other use was for a specific offense. Even Nixon's pardon was for specific offenses even though he was not convicted of anything.
Such a pardon is absurd. What happens if it comes out that any of the pardon recipients took blatant bribes? What if it comes out they distributed child pornography during the 11 year period of the pardon? Their blanket pardon covers everything and anything they might have done.
How far can a president use his pardon power? Could President Trump give a future pardon such as pardoning someone for any and all future crimes until the day they die? Could the president declare that anyone who murders person X is automatically pardoned?
|
|
|
