Marener
Diamond Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 39,579
- 17,719
- 1,473
You sure about that?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You sure about that?
You shouldn’t be.Yes,
Everybody is.
You shouldn’t be.
The presidential pardon applies to the military justice system as well.
Trump pardoned men with charges pending in military court. They were charged and convicted of war crimes, by the way.
You’re not very smart, are you?
Listen, you can go through life being a moron, or you can shut up and learn something.yo can bitch all you want....
You don't read very well, do you?
From Burdick v. United States - Wikipedia
"Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed."
You just proved yourself wrong with that case. What else ya got?
That is from the case, on Wikipedia, dumbass!I quoted from the case. You quoted from Wikipedia
Try again.
If you find anything, who do you prosecute?View attachment 1068477
Back to 2014?![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Just before Hunter joined Burisma. So weird, huh?
This should not prevent ANY investigations into corruption.
If you find anything, who do you prosecute?
Geez you idiot, no the case doesn’t say that it’s in disputeThat is from the case, on Wikipedia, dumbass!
Why investigate what you can't prosecute? Did we suddenly revert to Democrats one and all, to waste tax dollars? You pay for it. Most people don't care enough to spend millions of tax dollars. We already know he is corrupt.An investigation into what happened does not necessarily need to lead to prosecution.
Knowing exactly what occurred can prevent it from happening again.
Also, civil is not criminal court. For example, OJ Simpson was acquitted for murder, but then held liable in civil court and got a $40 million judgement against him.
The country should know what corruption occurred and by whom, regardless of criminal prosecution.
Quote the portion of the case that says what you claim then!Geez you idiot, no the case doesn’t say that it’s in dispute
He was going to do it anyway. Who are you trying to fool?!it's all good. You now gave Trump all the reason to pardon himself and anyone else who he wants should he decide to use the government to go after his Political adversaries, and there won't be anything g you all can say about it.
But I am curious, why would anyone of these people need pardons? If they are innocent, the legal system will prove them so, right?
He was going to do it anyway. Who are you trying to fool?!
Pretty weird thing to think when that's exactly what Ford did for Nixon.