LindyAF
Well-known member
Why did Obama pardon himself?
Pretty sure he didn't.
Why did Obama pardon himself?
Hypothetically, just as an innocent man might accept a plea deal for fear of a wrong verdict, an innocent man might accept a pardon.Pardoning himself would be admitting he committed crimes.
He didn't, so what is there to pardon?
Why did Obama pardon himself?
Oh, sorry, I thought we were being serious.He commited a lot of shady dealings, and some things he could have been impeached for invovling breaking of FISA for things. iirc
Trump was impeached while in office. Also, impeachments of former officials have been done before.So is impeaching a president who's no longer in office, but that didn't stop the Democrats from going through with it anyways. At this point, the rules don't matter anymore; all that matters is power. Equality under the law is dead.
His term in office ended on January 20, and the articles of impeachment didn't reach the Senate until January 25. That does not count as "in office", no matter how you try and frame it. And just because it's been done before, that doesn't mean it isn't still unconstitutional.Trump was impeached while in office. Also, impeachments of former officials have been done before.
That was his second impeachment. He was impeached in 2020 as well and was also acquitted.His term in office ended on January 20, and the articles of impeachment didn't reach the Senate until January 25. That does not count as "in office", no matter how you try and frame it. And just because it's been done before, that doesn't mean it isn't still unconstitutional.
Yes, but I was specifically talking about his second impeachment, so it's also accurate to say he was impeached while not in office.That was his second impeachment. He was impeached in 2020 as well and was also acquitted.
So it's accurate to say he was impeached while in office.
AFAIK, you cannot 'pre-pardon' yourself for ginned up charges in the future.The establishment is probably going to try and nail Trump on some trumped up criminal charges; McConnell even admitted as much. A pardon might have mitigated that; but considering all the other rules they've ignored, I doubt it.
The idea that you cannot pardon someone of a crime that they have committed but which they have not yet been charged with is absolutely false. Pardons can preempt charges; what they cannot do is preempt the crime itself; i.e. you cannot pardon someone in anticipation of the crime being committed, but you can pardon in anticipation of charges being filed for a crime already committed.AFAIK, you cannot 'pre-pardon' yourself for ginned up charges in the future.
People keep acting like Trump not pardoning himself is some big mis-step, when there was nothing to pardon himself for, to begin with.
Him pardoning himself on the way out would have been an admission of guilt of 'something', because you cannot pardon someone who has not committed a crime.
So what you're saying is that pardoning Michael Flynn was tantamount to admitting that he was guilty of helping Trump collude with Russia.AFAIK, you cannot 'pre-pardon' yourself for ginned up charges in the future.
People keep acting like Trump not pardoning himself is some big mis-step, when there was nothing to pardon himself for, to begin with.
Him pardoning himself on the way out would have been an admission of guilt of 'something', because you cannot pardon someone who has not committed a crime.
How is what @Bacle said, making that claim at all? Flynn was charged and convicted with a crime.So what you're saying is that pardoning Michael Flynn was tantamount to admitting that he was guilty of helping Trump collude with Russia.
No, the Flynn pardon happened because a DC circuit judge and the Dems had railroaded Flynn into charges and got him 'convicted' in a kangaroo court-type situation.So what you're saying is that pardoning Michael Flynn was tantamount to admitting that he was guilty of helping Trump collude with Russia.
What he said.How is what @Bacle said, making that claim at all? Flynn was charged and convicted with a crime.
He got pardoned for that.
Now if he hadn't been charged and Trump gave him a pre-emptive pardon, maybe. But that's not what happened.
No, the Flynn pardon happened because a DC circuit judge and the Dems had railroaded Flynn into charges and got him 'convicted' in a kangaroo court-type situation.
Flynn had not committed a crime, but was none-the-less charged and convicted because he was a danger to the Dems and way to cause problems for Trump.
What he said.
Should be interesting what republicans can manage to put Biden through if they take back the house and/or senate in 2022The democrats do realize that the law of retaliation is a thing and any tactic they use will in time be used against them right?
They probably assume that anyone anyone who would actually want to retaliate is too weak to do so.The democrats do realize that the law of retaliation is a thing and any tactic they use will in time be used against them right?
At most, it'll just be a repeat of what they put Obama through; not that much, all things considered.Should be interesting what republicans can manage to put Biden through if they take back the house and/or senate in 2022
Obama won in a clean and fair election, and the democrats just spent 4 years showing us that it's okay to run sham impeachments...but the GOP might actually have shit on Biden.They probably assume that anyone anyone who would actually want to retaliate is too weak to do so.
At most, it'll just be a repeat of what they put Obama through; not that much, all things considered.
The problem is whether or not they're willing to use it; which is going to depend on whether or not the RINOs managed to cement their control over the party. It could get interesting, but it could also not.Obama won in a clean and fair election, and the democrats just spent 4 years showing us that it's okay to run sham impeachments...but the GOP might actually have shit on Biden.
It could get interesting for sure
The entire point was that I was responding to:The problem is whether or not they're willing to use it; which is going to depend on whether or not the RINOs managed to cement their control over the party. It could get interesting, but it could also not.
So I am posting with this hypothetical scenario in mind.The democrats do realize that the law of retaliation is a thing and any tactic they use will in time be used against them right?