Are Biden's issuance of presidential pardons going too far?

[struth]

Only if they had been convicted in a court of law
When charges were dropped against Trump, they made it clear it was because of respect for the office of President, not for Trump himself

Was Trump accepting an admission of guilt?

Trump wasn’t given a pardon. The charges were dismissed because the xiden admin couldn’t prove their accusations

The court didn’t say anything about being convicted to accept a pardon

 

[SweetSue92]

Says who?

US voters. You lost.

 

[Marener]

US voters. You lost.

Oh okay. You’re delusional. I thought you guys meant someone who isn’t delusional.

 

[SweetSue92]

Oh okay. You’re delusional. I thought you guys meant someone who isn’t delusional.

Your overlords attempted fake charges to ruin him.

The more you tried, the more popular he became.

IOW

YOU LOST

 

[hadit]

Trump is attacking anyone who ever testified against him

Biden is just protecting them from retribution

By issuing something that states there is guilt.

 

[hadit]

The Nixon Pardon was never challenged I believe, because everyone just wanted the issue to go away once Nixon resigned.

That isn't the case here, look for Congress or Trump to challenge the notion of pre-emptive pardons.

I can see it going to the SC. This is, AFAIK, an abuse of the privilege.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Because you say so?!?!?!?!?!?!?????
GTFOH

No. Because the Constitution says what it does.

 

[Marener]

The Constitution does say "offenses". Nothing about retroactive offenses not charged with or to be identified at a later date.

Biden didn't make a list because that would be a limitation on the kinds of offenses he was a party to and could be charged as a principal or accessory to.

If the pardon only applied to things that were charged, then it would have said "charges". Offenses is broader and includes things that are not charged.

Biden could have made a list of EVERY criminal charge in the USC, which would have been equivalent to "any and all", but much more laborious.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Identify where the Constitution provides the ability of a president to grant pardons retroactively for offenses that might or might not have occurred.

The Constitution grants the president the ability to grant pardons for Offenses.

... for offenses that might or might not have occurred because it does not specify. You said so yourself!

 

[Marener]

I can see it going to the SC. This is, AFAIK, an abuse of the privilege.

Pardon power is a plenary power. The SC doesn't get a say.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I can see it going to the SC. This is, AFAIK, an abuse of the privilege.

The Supreme Court has no right to review pardons. Where do you find that in the Constitution?

 

[Marener]

Your overlords attempted fake charges to ruin him.

You're delusional.

 

[Marener]

All rational people.

Is it rational to believe something without any evidence to support it?

I don't think so.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nixon was actually charged with 3 crimes!

No. He was not. Nixon was never charged by a court of law. Have a nice day.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So are basic precepts and presumptions of the law.

Where is that written?

 

[Hollie]

... for offenses that might or might not have occurred because it does not specify. You said so yourself!

The Constitution uses the term "offenses" relative to pardons. Nothing in the Constitution about offenses that might or might not have occurred.

 

[Marener]

He still has his security clearance, and they were classified under his watch. Again, questions that never had to be asked before, because it was never a problem when other Presidents did it. And of course there is no evidence of that because no one fucking cared enough to look into it.

Only Trump drives the deep staters to this level of scrutiny, not because of any noble intent, because they needed to "Get Trump"

And it blew up in their faces, all of it. every single attack by them just made more people realize the system was out to get Trump.

He doesn't have a security clearance.

Other presidents didn't do it. The fact that you admit that "there is no evidence" gives away that you know you made this up.

Only Trump thought he could take hundreds of classified documents home and not have it be a big deal because he's really fucking stupid.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What offenses? Ones that anyone could claim to have occurred in the past?

How convenient. A "retroactive pardon" for offenses that maybe, kinda' sorta' occurred or maybe not.

So, we can agree that the pardon for Hunter Biden included offenses he committed in the past, we just have to guess what those offenses are.

Super.

Sucks. doesn't it? Nothing you can do about it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Constitution uses the term "offenses" relative to pardons. Nothing in the Constitution about offenses that might or might not have occurred.

Exactly! It's right there in front of your face, you have stated it, but still don't believe it! What does that say about your thought processes?

 

[martybegan]

He doesn't have a security clearance.

Other presidents didn't do it. The fact that you admit that "there is no evidence" gives away that you know you made this up.

Only Trump thought he could take hundreds of classified documents home and not have it be a big deal because he's really fucking stupid.

Oh they more than likely did, but back then no one cared.

They were packed up for him and given to him when he left the White House.