╌>

Biden preemptively pardons Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley and Jan. 6 committee members - ABC News

  
Via:  John Russell  •  2 days ago  •  78 comments

By:   ABC News

Biden preemptively pardons Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley and Jan. 6 committee members - ABC News
With just hours left of his presidency, Joe Biden issued preemptive pardons to Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley and members of the House Jan. 6 committee.

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The move comes just hours before Biden cedes power to Donald Trump.

President Joe Biden on Monday issued preemptive pardons to potential targets of the incoming Trump administration, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley and lawmakers who served on the House Jan. 6 Committee.

"Our nation relies on dedicated, selfless public servants every day. They are the lifeblood of our democracy," Biden said in a statement just hours before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn into office.

"Yet alarmingly, public servants have been subjected to ongoing threats and intimidation for faithfully discharging their duties," Biden added.

Trump in his 2024 campaign repeatedly vowed "retribution" on his political enemies, specifically singling out lawmakers like Liz Cheney who investigated the attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump said Cheney and other committee members should be put in jail.

Milley, who retired as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2023, has long been a target of Republican attacks over the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has been a lightning rod for criticism over the federal government's response to the coronavirus pandemic.

In this Nov. 29, 2021 file photo Anthony Fauci (R), Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Chief Medical Advisor to the President, speaks alongside U.S. President Joe Biden as he delivers remarks on the Omicron COVID-19 variant following a meeting of the COVID-19 response team at the White House on in Washington, DC.Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images, FILE

Milley put out a statement shortly after Biden's announcement.

"My family and I are deeply grateful for the President's action today," he said. "After forty-three years of faithful service in uniform to our Nation, protecting and defending the Constitution, I do not wish to spend whatever remaining time the Lord grants me fighting those who unjustly might seek retribution for perceived slights. I do not want to put my family, my friends, and those with whom I served through the resulting distraction, expense, and anxiety," he continued.

"It has been an honor and a privilege to serve our great country in uniform for over four decades, and I will continue to keep faith and loyalty to our nation and Constitution until my dying breath. I thank my wife, Hollyanne, my children, my dear friends, and my trusted colleagues who have supported me throughout my life," he said.

"God bless the United States of America, and the troops who sacrifice so much in order to protect us against all enemies," he added.

ABC News reported in early December that Biden was considering such an action, days after he issued a full pardon for his son, Hunter Biden. In an exit interview with USA Today earlier this month, Biden signaled he was still wrestling with the decision.

Some Democrats argued against preemptive pardons, including Sen. Adam Schiff, who served on the House Jan. 6 committee.

"The precedent of giving blanket pardons, preemptive blanket pardons on the way out of an administration, I think is a precedent we don't want to set," Schiff said on ABC's "This Week" in December.

Representative Liz Cheney, center, speaks as Representative Bennie Thompson and chairman of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, left, and Representative Adam Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois, listen during a hearing in Washington, DC, Oct. 13, 2022. Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images, FILE

But Biden, in his statement on Monday, expressed concern about attempts to rewrite the violence that unfolded at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

"I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics," Biden said. "But these are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing. Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families."

"That is why I am exercising my authority under the Constitution to pardon General Mark A. Milley, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the Members of Congress and staff who served on the Select Committee, and the U.S. Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan police officers who testified before the Select Committee," he said. "The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense. Our nation owes these public servants a debt of gratitude for their tireless commitment to our country."


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 days ago
Milley put out a statement shortly after Biden's announcement.

"My family and I are deeply grateful for the President's action today," he said. "After forty-three years of faithful service in uniform to our Nation, protecting and defending the Constitution, I do not wish to spend whatever remaining time the Lord grants me fighting those who unjustly might seek retribution for perceived slights. I do not want to put my family, my friends, and those with whom I served through the resulting distraction, expense, and anxiety," he continued.

"It has been an honor and a privilege to serve our great country in uniform for over four decades, and I will continue to keep faith and loyalty to our nation and Constitution until my dying breath. I thank my wife, Hollyanne, my children, my dear friends, and my trusted colleagues who have supported me throughout my life," he said.

"God bless the United States of America, and the troops who sacrifice so much in order to protect us against all enemies," he added.

None of the people Biden pardoned today did anything wrong. But because we elected a lunatic to take office, extraordinary measures to protect these people had to be taken. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 days ago

It is an admission of guilt to accept a pardon. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1    13 hours ago

Pardons are granted, not accepted.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.1    9 hours ago

Pardons are granted, not accepted.

No, that's not entirely correct. A pardon is granted but must be accepted to go into effect. A person can reject a pardon. If the pardon is not accepted, then it does not go into effect.
Presidential pardons are different from presidential commutations. Speaking with  ABC News Randy Barnett , a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said that “pardon is an ‘executive forgiveness of crime’; commutation is an ‘executive lowering of the penalty.’” And whether a recipient can refuse a pardon depends on that distinction, as seen in three Supreme Court cases examining the issue.

United States v. Wilson

George Wilson and co-conspirator James Porter were both sentenced to death on May 27, 1830, after being convicted of robbing a U.S. postal worker and putting the carrier’s life in jeopardy. Porter was executed just over a month later, but President Andrew Jackson decided to pardon Wilson for the death penalty charge on the understanding that he had yet to be sentenced for other crimes (for which he was looking at a minimum of 20 years). For some reason, Wilson waived the pardon,   possibly   because of confusion about which case he was being tried for at the time and which cases the pardon was for.

The Supreme Court heard the   case   of the   United States v. George Wilson   in 1833. It   ruled   “a pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.” Whether Wilson was eventually executed has been lost to time.

Burdick v. United States

The right to refuse a pardon was affirmed in 1915. George Burdick, city editor of the   New York Tribune , refused to testify regarding sources for articles on alleged customs fraud by invoking his   Fifth Amendment   rights [ PDF ]. President   Woodrow Wilson   then gave a pardon to Burdick, protecting him from any charge with which he might incriminate himself during his testimony. The idea behind the pardon was to force Burdick to testify, under the theory that he could no longer be convicted for any acts he may reveal. But Burdick rejected the pardon because he believed acceptance entailed an implicit admission of guilt. He continued to invoke his rights and was found guilty of contempt.

The Supreme Court   ruled   in   Burdick v. United States   that the editor was within his rights to refuse the pardon, and therefore could assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Biddle v. Perovich

Another ruling added a new wrinkle to the pardoning issue. In 1905, Vuco Perovich was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by hanging, which President   William Howard Taft   commuted to a sentence of life imprisonment a few years later. Perovich was then transferred from Alaska to Washington and later to Leavenworth. Perovich eventually filed an application for writ of   habeas corpus , claiming that his commutation was issued without his consent. The Supreme Court   ruled   in 1927 that “a presidential commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment was held effective without an inmate’s consent,” Fordham University law professor John D. Feerick wrote.

In the   U.S. Constitution Annotated , legal scholars   interpret   the Perovich ruling as indicating “that by substituting a commutation order for a deed of pardon, a president can always have his way in such matters, provided the substituted penalty is authorized by law and does not in common understanding exceed the original penalty.”

In other words, you may be able to refuse a pardon, but not a commutation.

Can a Person Refuse a Presidential Pardon?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 days ago

There would be no need for pardons if they were innocent of wrongdoing.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 days ago

For the last four years, I've been told repeatedly on this site  that the innocent having nothing to fear from federal criminal investigations.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    8 hours ago

By that logic, there would be no need for any of the steps Trump has taken to avoid trials and sentencing if he is innocent.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2  Sean Treacy    2 days ago

Biden, destroyer of norms, cements his spot as one of the worst presidents in history with these preemptive pardon of criminals and traitors.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    2 days ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    2 days ago
one of the worst presidents in history with these... pardon of criminals and traitors.  

 That happens later today when Trump pardons the J6 "hostages". 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.2.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2    2 days ago

With all the pre-emptive pardons issued by Biden, I don't think anybody can complain about any J6 pardons. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2    2 days ago
ppens later today when Trump pardons the J6 "hostages". 

The J6 people were investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law before any pardons were issued.  Preemptive pardons are a whole different ballgame. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.1    18 hours ago

Why not? The J6 crew really are criminals. They have the convictions that back that up

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.2.4  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.3    17 hours ago

If that is your complaint about the Trump pardoning of the J6 crew, what is your complaint for all the pardons Biden issued for sentenced criminals in the past week or so? As far as the pre-emptive pardons issued by Biden, there is evidence as presented by the House as to potential criminality but the DOJ never investigated or charged any of them. 

Biden Family Investigation - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

Comer: Oversight Committee Has Uncovered Mounting Evidence Tying Joe Biden to Family Business Schemes - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

Mainstream media lambasted Trump at the end of his first term for talking about pre-emptive pardons. Biden promised that his administration would never do such an act. Yet he did. Are you upset with him for that? IMO he opened a box that will come back to haunt the American people when future presidents in their last acts issue blanket pardons for their family and friends.

On Dec. 1, 2020,  The New York Times  ran the headline "Trump Has Discussed With Advisers Pardons for His 3 Eldest Children and Giuliani," alleging that the then-president was mulling "pre-emptive pardons" to Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump as well as his son-in-law Jared Kushner. The report even alleged that Trump was considering issuing pardons "for crimes they have not yet committed — essentially a prospective get-out-of-jail-free card."

MSNBC and CNN went wall to wall hyping the narrative, even turning to then-Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who was just elected senator, to bash the president. 

"Have you ever heard of somebody getting a preemptive pardon who was innocent of all crime, who's just an innocent person? Have you ever heard of that, just somebody getting a blanket pardon and they're an innocent person?" MSNBC's Joy Reid asked. 

"No," Schiff responded. "It's the president's own family. It's people that have been covering up for the President, in addition to his own family."

"Would you see that… as essentially an admission of guilty?" CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked in a separate interview. 

"I certainly would view it that way," Schiff told Blitzer. "I think millions of Americans would view it that way. If there was no belief in criminality, why would he think a pardon was necessary?" 

After winning the 2020 election, Biden was asked about Trump's preemptive pardons during a sit-down with CNN's Tapper. 

"Well, it concerns me in terms of what kind of precedent it sets and how the rest of the world looks at us as a nation of laws and justice," Biden told Tapper, later adding "you’re not going to see in our administration that kind of approach to pardons."

FLASHBACK: Media attacked Trump for floating preemptive pardons in 2020 before Biden did so four years later | Fox News

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.4    17 hours ago
IMO he opened a box that will come back to haunt the American people

What about Trump will come back to haunt the American people?  The constant grifting, pathological lying, and pointless cruelty come to mind. What do you think? 

He is currently involved in a cryptocurrency scam, which is being ignored by the media. That seems like a precedent that bodes ill for the future. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.2.6  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.5    17 hours ago

I don't like his cryptocurrency deal at all. I agree with something you said elsewhere that this seems to really open the door to anybody (foreign or domestic) to bribe the President without any real tracing ability. To be fair however, this is Trump only finding a new way for that as presidents have long been working to hide the bribes they receive. Don't tell me you believe all those offshore shell companies that the Biden family set up were all for innocent means.

I think back to something Tom Clancy said in one of his books. 'A little corruption of public officials is to be expected, but where does one need to draw the line?" (that's a paraphrase, not an exact quote.)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3  Sean Treacy    2 days ago

Hopefully, he does no more damage in his last couple hours.  Biden has made an excellent case that the new President's term should begin immediately after the election, with all votes having to be counted within 48 hours of election day. This months long post election assault on the Constitution and the rule of law has compounded the damage to our institutions that Biden did during his term.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1  Snuffy  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    2 days ago

I believe that would require a Constitutional Amendment as the 20th Amendment specifies the beginning and ending dates for a Presidential & Vice Presidential term. As witnessed by the ERA Amendment, it's rather difficult to get an amendment thru.

The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

U.S. Constitution - Twentieth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @3.1    2 days ago
eve that would require a Constitutional Amendment as the 20th Amendment specifies the beginning and ending dates for a Presidential & Vice Presidential term

Yes, for sure.  

As witnessed by the ERA Amendment, it's rather difficult to get an amendment thru.

So a President can't just add an amendment to the Constitution by tweet?  There's a lot of progressives, including Biden and Harris,  who think otherwise. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4  Snuffy    2 days ago

I think there are several questions around these pardons. Will any of them will refuse the pardon? After all, acceptance of the pardon implies acceptance of guilt. Or will they accept the pardon and retire into the sunset? Does Liz Chaney have any future political ambitions and how might this impact her decisions as well as any future plans? 

In the 1833 case of  United States v.   Wilson, the Supreme Court ruled that a pardon could be rejected by the convict. Due to the findings in the 1925 case,  Burdick v. United States , it seems as though accepting a pardon is, in fact, admitting guilt. In  Burdick  the appellant was offered a pardon but declined it, also refusing to testify in criminal court. The opinion of the case given by the justices seemed to uncover that 1) a pardon can be given before a conviction and sentence; 2) a pardon can be refused, and 3) acceptance of a pardon implies acceptance of guilt.  If You Accept a Pardon Does it Admit Guilt?

Another question centers around the 5th Amendment. Does acceptance of a pardon then prohibit a person from refusing to testify. I can find writings that seem to accept both sides, about the only thing I can really find is that this is untested as of yet. So while the issue of the pardons doesn't necessarily prevent any investigations into the matters that the pardon covers, it is unknown if the pardoned person could be forced to testify in front of Congress on the matter. I suspect should any future investigations be started, it would require an emergency petition to SCOTUS. 

Burdick  notwithstanding, if a pardon  is  accepted, it obviates a Fifth Amendment objection to providing testimony.

Rejection of a Pardon | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @4    2 days ago
I suspect should any future investigations be started, it would require an emergency petition to SCOTUS. 

Investigations of what? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 days ago

Why did Biden issue any of the pre-emptive pardons except to curtail any future investigations?  Your question is completely without merit based on the past month. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5  Sean Treacy    2 days ago

December, 2020. Jake Tapper asks President-elect Biden about the rumor that Trump may issue some preemptive pardons before leaving office.

Biden: You're not going to see me do that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    2 days ago

That was before Trump attempted to overthrow the US government, thus making himself the subject of the J6 committee. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
5.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    2 days ago
The Democratic president had previously said he would not pardon his son or commute his sentence after convictions in the two cases in Delaware and California. The move on Sunday night comes weeks before Hunter Biden was set to receive his punishment after his trial conviction in the gun case and guilty plea on tax charges, and less than two months before President-elect  Donald Trump  is set to return to the White House. President Biden pardons his son Hunter despite previous pledges not to | AP News
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    2 days ago
o overthrow the US government, thus making himself the subject of the J6 committee. 

That has nothing to do with anything, other than we now know the J6 committee members admittedly committed crimes to try and get Trump. In 2020,  Biden claimed to understand the damage mass preemptive pardons would do, and promised not to do it. That's he now using them to protect his cronies only underscores what a lying hypocrite he was. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.1    2 days ago
The Democratic president had previously said he would not pardon his son or commute his sentence after convictions in the two cases 

It's almost like this Biden character is a compulsive liar. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.2    2 days ago
other than we now know the J6 committee members admittedly committed crimes to try and get Trump.

lol. Some people are losing it. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.4    2 days ago
Some people are losing it. 

Yeah, those people who spent the last four years claiming innocent people have nothing to fear if they are prosecuted by the federal government who've done a complete 180 and are  now trying  to defend preemptive pardons.  

Don't you believe in the rule of law? Acceptance of a pardon is admission of guilt.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.4    2 days ago
lol. Some people are losing it

And some lost it long ago...........about 9 years worth

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  seeder  JohnRussell    2 days ago
During an interview with NBC News’ Kristen Welker on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” President-elect  Donald Trump  said some members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack  should be imprisoned.  “Everybody on that committee … for what they did, yeah, honestly, they should go to jail,” Trump told Welker.

Joe Scarborough: Trump's threats to jail his political enemies could backfire

A sane person might ask what the J6 committee did that was illegal , but sanity doesnt enter into this. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
6.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @6    2 days ago

One could also easily say that the pre-emptive pardons issued by Biden could backfire. What will prevent any future president from issuing pre-emptive pardons on all of his/her allies on leaving office? I can answer that for you, absolutely nothing. 

This IMO is an abuse of the Presidential Pardon and will be an issue moving forward for the country.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @6.1    2 days ago

Trump threatened to put these people, who did nothing wrong, in prison.  I suggest you take your misgivings up with him. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    2 days ago
Trump threatened to put these people, who did nothing wrong, in prison.

Trump threatens a lot of shit. This pardon points the finger directly a those who shouldn't have anything to fear, right? Evidently, WRONG.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.2    2 days ago
Trump threatens a lot of shit.

Then I guess he shouldn't , right? 

 
 
 
goose is back
Junior Participates
6.1.4  goose is back  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    2 days ago
who did nothing wrong

Say who, you?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
6.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    2 days ago

Way to completely ignore the point of my post in order to turn it back to Trump. Well done!!!

The point I made is that this will, I believe, be used in such a fashion by future presidents much to the detriment of the country. There's no limit to the amount of graft that can occur as all the outgoing president needs to do is issue a blanket pre-emptive pardon. 

Much like how much the left bitched about the SCOTUS ruling on Presidential Immunity, I find it hard to understand how this type of action can be ignored except due to partisan blindness. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    2 days ago

Trump threatened to put these people, who did nothing wrong, in prison. 

You don't know what they did or did not do. Thanks to Joe you never will.  Trump can't put anyone in prison. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7  Bob Nelson    2 days ago

Everyone is still behaving as though Trump will respect the law. He won't. 

"Lock her up!" never included a trial. It meant "Oppose me, go to jail". That's what Trump has told us he will do. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @7    2 days ago
"Lock her up!" never included a trial. 

Well then we should release her immediately.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
7.2  arkpdx  replied to  Bob Nelson @7    2 days ago
"Lock her up!" never included a trial. 

It didn't preclude one either. 

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
7.3  Freewill  replied to  Bob Nelson @7    2 days ago
That's what Trump has told us he will do.

And he didn't follow through with Hillary, so with all due respect, what exactly makes you think he will be able to do that with the others whom Biden has preemptively pardoned, especially since you feel that they have done nothing wrong or worth investigation?  How exactly do you think he would have  succeeded with opening an investigation, or throwing anyone in jail if there is no evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever?  

And lest we forget, these multiple and sweeping preemptive pardons were virtually  unprecedented, but now a strong precedent has been set. Even Adam Schiff was concerned about that and called the pardons " unnecessary and unwise ".  According to Biden, and many others, we just elected the "biggest threat to our democracy" to be the POTUS, imagine what a guy like that can do now with such a precedent.  I can only imagine that Biden must be a shitty chess player.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.3.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freewill @7.3    yesterday

Just keep watching the news...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.3.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Freewill @7.3    yesterday

Trump has been saying, for literally years, that he would pardon the J6 insurrectionists if he won the 2024 election. Now you want to blame Biden for all this?

Trump has released from prison people found guilty of assaulting cops in an effort to keep Trump in office, illegally, in 2020.  He released from prison the leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, essentially domestic terrorist groups. 

On top of all that many times on his inauguration day he seemed mentally unbalanced. He seemed to suggest that Gaza is worth something to real estate develops as beachfront property.  Maybe he was joking, but maybe not.  But who jokes about a place where tens of thousands of people have recently been killed? 

I guess lying just about every time you open your mouth will do that. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.3.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @7.3.2    yesterday
released from prison people found guilty of assaulting cops in an effort to keep Trump in office, illegally, in 2020.

Has he released any that murdered them?  But somehow that's never a problem when democrats free  LEO killers. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
7.3.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.3.3    yesterday

Your honor, my clients were only swinging at these officers with baseball bats and two by fours with nails sticking out of them out of respect for law enforcement in general.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
7.3.5  Freewill  replied to  JohnRussell @7.3.2    yesterday
Now you want to blame Biden for all this?

I don’t WANT to blame Biden for anything other than the actions he actually takes.  They are HIS actions are they not?  I’ll blame Trump for HIS actions as well.

Let me ask you this, what do you suppose Biden had to say about Trump possibly pardoning his family in 2020 for the very same reasons Biden has claimed about the fear of reprisal from the other side?  Biden and his supporters were very much against that then, but have no issue with it now.  In the end Trump did not do it, but Biden did.  

I hold Trump fully responsible for all the shitty and suspect actions he has taken, or things he has said. Tell me why I shouldn’t hold Biden responsible for his?

Not sure why I even bother asking you reasonable questions because you never directly answer any of them, you just shift or change the subject and put words in my mouth that I did not say.  Do you think we can have an honest discussion for once? 

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
7.3.6  George  replied to  Freewill @7.3.5    yesterday
Do you think we can have an honest discussion for once

The magic eight ball says, “very doubtful”

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
7.3.7  Freewill  replied to  JohnRussell @7.3.2    yesterday
Maybe he was joking, but maybe not.  But who jokes about a place where tens of thousands of people have recently been killed?

A complete asshole.  We all know he can be that.  I also very much disagree with him pardoning many of the J6 perpetrators of violence.  Completely irresponsible!

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
7.3.8  Freewill  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.3.1    yesterday
Just keep watching the news...

Will do…

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8  Sean Treacy    2 days ago

Biden is leaving office dropping one lawless, norm-defying, justly impeachable un-democratic transgression after another. That’d be bad enough. But these are all precedents for the successor he thinks is a threat to democracy. It’s reckless, spiteful, and incandescently stupid.

even the anti trump dispatch can’t stomach this 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    2 days ago

You should have told your boy to keep his mouth shut, then this wouldnt have been necessary. 

Trump has filed thousands of legal actions against his "enemies".  He would totally enjoy making Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees.  Fuck him. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    2 days ago

But these are all precedents for the successor he thinks is a threat to democracy. It’s reckless, spiteful, and incandescently stupid

How do progressives struggle so mightily to understand this principle?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    2 days ago

Trump is reckless with his words, and the Republican committees are reckless with their actions.  A "threat environment" for Fauci, Milley, Cheney etc existed, not because of their illegal actvities but because of Trump and Congresses recklessness. 

They can turn down the pardons if they want. I think Kinzinger has previously said he didnt want one.   What would possibly be the rationale for trying to put Adam Kinzinger in prison?   There is none, and yet Trump said it. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.2    2 days ago
.  A "threat environment" for Fauci, Milley, Cheney etc existed, not because of their illegal actvities

Crazy how you flipped exactly  on January 20 from believing the innocent have nothing to fear from criminal prosecution to believing the "threat" of prosecution somehow justifies pardons for innocent people.  

Similar to Senator Whitehouse and other supporters of the Bragg prosecution,  suddenly going on about how wrong it is for  a prosecutor to target a person and then  find a crime to charge him or her with.  Just another example of progressives having no other principle than persecuting their enemies and protecting their friends.  They, like Biden, will yet again flip 180 degrees on every principle they claimed to hold when in power. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9  seeder  JohnRussell    2 days ago

Trump supporters begin to file into Capitol for his second inauguration.

h_720,w_1280

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
9.1  George  replied to  JohnRussell @9    2 days ago

Yes, there are many of the party of the klan there, Bill Clinton, the head of the racist party is in the front row.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
9.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  George @9.1    2 days ago
klan there, Bill Clinton

When was Bill Clinton a member of the KKK? Please, present your proof...

512

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @9.1.1    2 days ago

256 \

hmmm

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
9.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.2    2 days ago
hmmm

There is no way that a governor of Arkansas could possibly be associated with the KKK.  Just because people called him Bubba Clinton doesn't mean anything.  Is irony made in China nowadays?

(In the language of the detached elite, this is acerbic trenchancy.  But to Bubba it's just plain sarcasm.)

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
9.1.4  George  replied to  Nerm_L @9.1.3    2 days ago

The ignorance of the left when it comes to Clinton is legendary. 

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
10  George    2 days ago

Biden just pardoned his entire family, including wives and [children][]

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
10.1  MrFrost  replied to  George @10    2 days ago
[deleted][]
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11  seeder  JohnRussell    2 days ago
 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
11.1  George  replied to  JohnRussell @11    2 days ago

Because that’s the important part of his speech. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  George @11.1    2 days ago

He has been president for 10 minutes and hes already lying. 

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
11.1.2  George  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.1    2 days ago

Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian propaganda. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
11.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.1    2 days ago

He has been president for 10 minutes and hes already lying. 

He never stops lying. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12  seeder  JohnRussell    2 days ago

Trumps comments, occurring right now, at an overflow room, are going sideways (he is off the teleprompter. )   America is immensely embarrassed by this utter buffoon. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @12    2 days ago

He's been talking for about 10 minutes about Lynn Cheney , Pelosi, and the J6 committee, and Milley.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
13  Nerm_L    2 days ago

This actually good news.  None of these people can now claim fifth amendment protections or refuse to testify.  And these pardons won't provide any protection against future perjury.  

Joe Biden is a gift that keeps giving for Republicans.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
13.1  Freewill  replied to  Nerm_L @13    2 days ago
None of these people can now claim fifth amendment protections or refuse to testify.  And these pardons won't provide any protection against future perjury. 

Do we know this for sure?  I was thinking a similar case might evolve now that Hunter can no longer plead the Fifth in any further investigation into his dealings with Ukraine when his dad was VP.  But I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how that might work, or how Biden (and/or his advisors) didn't see that coming if it is indeed a potential issue.   

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
13.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Freewill @13.1    yesterday
Do we know this for sure?  I was thinking a similar case might evolve now that Hunter can no longer plead the Fifth in any further investigation into his dealings with Ukraine when his dad was VP.  But I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how that might work, or how Biden (and/or his advisors) didn't see that coming if it is indeed a potential issue. 

A pardon is coupled with immunity from prosecution (within the scope of the pardon).  So, a pardoned witness cannot claim fear of self incrimination and prosecution because they already have immunity from prosecution.  A pardoned witness cannot be prosecuted for anything that may be revealed by testimony so there cannot be fear of self incrimination.

But exoneration of past crimes doesn't avoid prosecution for future crimes, such as perjury.  A pardoned witness (with immunity from prosecution) cannot get away with lying under oath.  And the pardoned witness can be compelled to testify without fear of self incrimination and prosecution.  So the only tactic left is to claim executive privilege.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
13.1.2  Freewill  replied to  Nerm_L @13.1.1    14 hours ago
A pardoned witness (with immunity from prosecution) cannot get away with lying under oath.

Well they can if you can't prove they are lying beyond a reasonable doubt.

So the only tactic left is to claim executive privilege

Only if one was indeed covered as an "executive" within the executive branch.  None of those Biden preemptively pardoned were "executives", although their testimony could prove to be damaging to Biden himself.  So given that possibility, does Biden's executive privilege (either as VP in 2014, or President more recently) make pursuing such lines of questioning, investigation, or fact finding, off limits?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
14  seeder  JohnRussell    2 days ago
 None of these people can now claim fifth amendment protections or refuse to testify.  And these pardons won't provide any protection against future perjury.  

you should try and control imagination.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
14.1  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @14    2 days ago
you should try and control imagination.

What do you care?  Democrats have already thrown Joe Biden under the bus and there won't be another Biden running for office anytime soon.

The leadership of the Democratic Party coronated Kamala Harris.  Remember?  And Harris' record is clean because she didn't do anything.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
15  GregTx    yesterday

Thank God that POS is gone...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
15.1  CB  replied to  GregTx @15    5 hours ago

God has little to nothing to do with Trump being president. This presidency is done (allowed by God if you will) by the will of 'Man.'

The church is morally wrong to proclaim and associate God with any unrepentant felon. Speaking of felon. . . our nation has just inaugurated and proceeds to celebrate a felonious man as its leader. . . again, God (who detests liars and loveless people) has nothing to do with this man. Again, the church has brought shame upon itself for participating in dishonoring Jesus. Calling a good man (Biden) a nasty set of words while praising a man who seeks only self-interests for those who bend to his self-will is morally wrong.

Incidentally, at Trump's swearing in ceremony, with his wife with the 'show-stopping' hat present carrying two bibles on his left, . . . Trump would not GIVE GOD THE GLORY. . . which he 'kept' for himself. The oath itself was to the state (not to the God inside the pages of the Bible. Symbolizing that his oath as president when needed he will take to a court of man's making
not any spirt deity.

 
 

Who is online


39 visitors