independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 22nd Jun 2018 6:10am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Trump: I have 'absolute right to pardon myself'
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 4 of 4 <1234
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #90 posted 06/13/18 8:25am

benni

poppys said:

benni said:

Wasn't sure where to put this, but Mueller has filed a request in a Virginia federal court for 150 blank subpoenas (or 75 sets) to be available on the first day of trial in VA (July 25th).

Here's a link to the document cloud for the format of those subpoenas:


https://www.documentcloud...oenas.html


It says Manafort, right?


Yes, it is in relation to the case being made against Manafort.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #91 posted 06/13/18 8:25am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I know and I have not said otherwise

yes and?

and? but the letter of the constitution the pres could pardon himself prior to...


or so someone told you

.

Yellow: Saying you know something whilst missing the implications of what you think you know only demonstates that you missed the point. You said impeachment is SPECIFICALLY about holding the president to account - Yet you now highlight in bright yellow that you know it is NOT SPECIFICALLY to hold the president to account. "Specifically" is not the same as "not specifically". They are opposites. When you say one, then state you know the other is true and say you have not said the first then you have said otherwise.

.

Green: And? You first stated impeachment is to HOLD the president to account and now say "yes" to a paragraph that states it is NOT TO HOLD the president to account. Again it cannot be both.

.

Blue: You only finish with ... because you didn't want to finsh the sentence by saying Trump could pardon himself prior to the charges for his alleged crimes before they are openly laid and disclosed to the public. This would be the act of a person covering up their crimes rather than seeking to defend their innocence - and this is about a person who has a history of aggressively defending himself through the courts etc regularly. You have constantly demonstated a slim and highly partisan understanding of the law over many years here. Whether Trump has found a loop hole to get away with what he has done by pardoning himself if necessary or the constitutional experts who disagree with this are right is not determined by your use of highlighters or the selection of who you believe. You state you are just reading the letter of the constitution but you said the constitution "specifically says the president can not pardon himself to escape impeachment". It does not - read the text - it says nothing about specifically limiting the president's powers to not being able to pardon themselves from the decision of the house that his continuance in office must be reviewed by the Senate as a result of charges for commiting federal high crimes and misdemeaners. It only says the president cannot pardon impeachment charges - impeachment charges are not only possible against the president.

.

Purple: This is your silliest of statements. The person who told me impeachment is specifically to hold the president to account is you. I quoted you. The paragraph is an analysis of your statements. The someone who told me the things in the purple paragraph is you. It is your spin I am commenting on.

[Edited 6/11/18 22:54pm]

so much of what you said is so wrong it is not worth it to go point by point so here are a FEW corrections to what you said....


I never once said impeachment was just for the POTUS. I said Impeachment was how a president was to be held accountable. And yeah I know impeachment is the indictment and then there is a hearing/trial. As I have said many times clinton was one of the only 2 presidents to be impeached (A Johnson was the other). Saying that is not at all the same as saying impeachment is just for the president. A doesn't imply B.

Again if a president were to pardon himself for anything he or she could be impeached. So yes impeachment would then be used to hold them accountable even if they are found not guilty the process is the same as it would be in a court. Keep in mind being found not guilty is NOT the same as justice not having been served.

When I said "or so someone told you" I was referring to your so-called and highly flawed analysis--which IS based on you haveing been told or having read that the president can not pardon himself.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #92 posted 06/13/18 8:28am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni said:

Wasn't sure where to put this, but Mueller has filed a request in a Virginia federal court for 150 blank subpoenas (or 75 sets) to be available on the first day of trial in VA (July 25th).

Here's a link to the document cloud for the format of those subpoenas:


https://www.documentcloud...oenas.html

that is very common and they almost always order 2 or 3 times as many as they need... i am not sure why they would not get 1 and make their own copies? but who cares.... and you KNOW that the Manafort case has ZERO to do with the original investgaion.. just some fruit that fell off a truck.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #93 posted 06/13/18 1:45pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

IanRG said:

.

Yellow: Saying you know something whilst missing the implications of what you think you know only demonstates that you missed the point. You said impeachment is SPECIFICALLY about holding the president to account - Yet you now highlight in bright yellow that you know it is NOT SPECIFICALLY to hold the president to account. "Specifically" is not the same as "not specifically". They are opposites. When you say one, then state you know the other is true and say you have not said the first then you have said otherwise.

.

Green: And? You first stated impeachment is to HOLD the president to account and now say "yes" to a paragraph that states it is NOT TO HOLD the president to account. Again it cannot be both.

.

Blue: You only finish with ... because you didn't want to finsh the sentence by saying Trump could pardon himself prior to the charges for his alleged crimes before they are openly laid and disclosed to the public. This would be the act of a person covering up their crimes rather than seeking to defend their innocence - and this is about a person who has a history of aggressively defending himself through the courts etc regularly. You have constantly demonstated a slim and highly partisan understanding of the law over many years here. Whether Trump has found a loop hole to get away with what he has done by pardoning himself if necessary or the constitutional experts who disagree with this are right is not determined by your use of highlighters or the selection of who you believe. You state you are just reading the letter of the constitution but you said the constitution "specifically says the president can not pardon himself to escape impeachment". It does not - read the text - it says nothing about specifically limiting the president's powers to not being able to pardon themselves from the decision of the house that his continuance in office must be reviewed by the Senate as a result of charges for commiting federal high crimes and misdemeaners. It only says the president cannot pardon impeachment charges - impeachment charges are not only possible against the president.

.

Purple: This is your silliest of statements. The person who told me impeachment is specifically to hold the president to account is you. I quoted you. The paragraph is an analysis of your statements. The someone who told me the things in the purple paragraph is you. It is your spin I am commenting on.

[Edited 6/11/18 22:54pm]

so much of what you said is so wrong it is not worth it to go point by point so here are a FEW corrections to what you said....


I never once said impeachment was just for the POTUS. I said Impeachment was how a president was to be held accountable. And yeah I know impeachment is the indictment and then there is a hearing/trial. As I have said many times clinton was one of the only 2 presidents to be impeached (A Johnson was the other). Saying that is not at all the same as saying impeachment is just for the president. A doesn't imply B.

Again if a president were to pardon himself for anything he or she could be impeached. So yes impeachment would then be used to hold them accountable even if they are found not guilty the process is the same as it would be in a court. Keep in mind being found not guilty is NOT the same as justice not having been served.

When I said "or so someone told you" I was referring to your so-called and highly flawed analysis--which IS based on you haveing been told or having read that the president can not pardon himself.

.

Ahh, the old "You are so wrong, I cannot explain it defense!"

.

You are going in circles to cover your error - You DID say (A) Impeachment is SPECIFICALLY to hold the president accountable. You then agreed with me that (B) Impeachment is NOT SPECIFICALLY to hold the president accountable. (A) is not the same as (B). I have made it easy for you - look at the words in ALL CAPS. Following your lead, I have highlighted them. You said SPECIFICALLY, I argued it is NOT SPECIFICALLY and you agreed with my position - Why are you continuing? The point is moot, you have agreed with me.

.

What happened to two former US presidents is irrelevent to me - I am not from the USA. You only raise it in your partisan way as an attack against the other US major political party. To me that is a meaningless "So what?" Both parties are why america is not great anymore.

.

Yes, being found not guilty means justice has been served. It is served by finding the charged person innocent of the charges and not culpable for the alleged crimes as they have been failed to be proven, specifically, they can stay in their job and not be barred from future employment. This means Clinton is innocent and not culpable - he served his full term in his job without penalty. Nixon avoided legal and impeachment charges but was removed from office in deal - his effective confession was made so he would not have to serve any term in gaol. If Trump covers up his crimes by pardoning himself pre-emptively before any charges are made public, then he has not been found innocent and he has only been excused from culpability by a perversion of a power meant to offer equity to others when justice fails. In this case, justice has not been served, it has been avoided.

.

Your sillyness prevails: What you highlighted in purple did not say anything about whether Trump can or cannot pardon his own crimes at all - read it. I said to you just before that section that "whether Trump has found a loop hole to get away with what he has done by pardoning himself if necessary or the constitutional experts who disagree with this are right is not determined by your use of highlighters or the selection of who you believe." This does not express an opinion that the president can or cannot pardon themselves. My position has been that the act of claiming he could pardon himself is gameplay, nothing else. In the act of seeking to pre-emptively pardon himself for undisclosed crimes is a cover-up that implies Trump's guilt, just as it did, Nixon's. It will not save time as whether this pardoning is an allowed power will almost certainly be challenged through the courts (I don't know and have not said what your courts would decide here - and neither do you). The pre-emptive self-pardoning does not mean the Trump is found innocent, it just means he may have found a loop hole to get away with Federal crimes. Your legal skills as demonstrated here and in prior posts stands before you and they are only good in your own mind.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 4 of 4 <1234
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Trump: I have 'absolute right to pardon myself'