Andrew Yang: I would pardon Donald Trump

[beagle9]

I know this will come as shock to some here but one has to be convicted of a crime before they can be pardoned.

I know, it will come as a shock to everyone on here, but blackhawk is too ignorant to know anything, too lazy to research it, and too stupid to conceal either.

Was Nixon ever convicted for one of the crimes he committed while president? Naw, he wasn't. So, what the hell was Ford doing, pardoning him? Haven't we been told that is impossible?

Ah, and here's the list of worthies just as stupid, lazy and ignorant as blackhawk:

Funny and Agree!! x 4
Grampa Murked U
daveman
CrusaderFrank
beagle9

Thank You! x 1
Chuz Life​

This was the basis for Fords decision.
After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision that suggested that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that its acceptance carries a confession of guilt Ford was not pardoning Nixon of a crime he was using the pardon to say Nixon committed a crime and if he had not resigned he would have likely been convicted.

Huh ? The pardon was used after the resignation wasn't it ?? Why would a pardon be used after his resignation in which was suggested that his resignation was the very thing that saved him from his perceived conviction to come ? No pardon needed right ? I figured that he pardoned Nixon in an act of mercy and compassion after all that Nixon had been through. Probably wrong but oh well I tried.

 

[beagle9]

I know this will come as shock to some here but one has to be convicted of a crime before they can be pardoned.

I know, it will come as a shock to everyone on here, but blackhawk is too ignorant to know anything, too lazy to research it, and too stupid to conceal either.

Was Nixon ever convicted for one of the crimes he committed while president? Naw, he wasn't. So, what the hell was Ford doing, pardoning him? Haven't we been told that is impossible?

Ah, and here's the list of worthies just as stupid, lazy and ignorant as blackhawk:

Funny and Agree!! x 4
Grampa Murked U
daveman
CrusaderFrank
beagle9

Thank You! x 1
Chuz Life​

What are you some slimeball stalker ?

 

[Olde Europe]

This was the basis for Fords decision.
After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision that suggested that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that its acceptance carries a confession of guilt Ford was not pardoning Nixon of a crime he was using the pardon to say Nixon committed a crime and if he had not resigned he would have likely been convicted.

That's almost desperate. Yeah, I know about Ford's self-serving excuse.

Guilt is specific, tied to individual, identifiable crimes and statutes. Ford, however, did his friend a solid, and pardoned (!) him for any and all crimes he may have committed while in office. So, the presumed guilt wasn't established.

Anyway, that doesn't change one whit.

Nixon was never indicted, much less convicted. That, according to you, tells us he couldn't have been pardoned, and yet he was. How about you own up to it? Is that too much to ask?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Don't want Yang then. LOL. I would not pardon him, make his sit in jail like Cohen is doing now.

Can you PLEASE cite which law Trump allegedly broke? If you cannot do that, you should just STFU until you can!

The silence from the left would be deafening!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I know this will come as shock to some here but one has to be convicted of a crime before they can be pardoned.

Technically, that is not correct. Nixon was pardoned, yet never convicted.

You should at least have a crime in mind when it comes to pardoning someone.

 

[Uncensored2008]

With nothing to lose, long shot candidate Andrew Yang told NBC that he would pardon Trump if elected:
Yang says he’d consider pardoning Trump

Pardon him for what? Winning the 2016 election? Would he pardon Pelosi, Schitt, and Nadler for impeaching a president for the purpose of corrupting a presidential election?

 

[there4eyeM]

If that would help cure the disastrous divide in this nation, why not?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Pardon Trump for what?

Did I miss a crime he has been charged with?

Can anyone list the crimes Trump committed that he should be pardoned for?

Well, Trump abused power by impeaching a sitting president for the express purpose of altering and corrupting a presidential election, as Trump lieutenant Al Green said, "if we doesn't impeach the president, he'll win reelection." Without even making a charge of a high crime or misdemeanor, Trump is impeaching the president 100% for the purpose of corrupting our elections.

And Trump is obstructing congress. The Constitution dictates that impeachment is adjudicated by the Senate. Trump has refused to send the sham impeachment to the Senate, thus obstructing the process in order to prolong this to further influence the 2020 election, further abuse of power.

Wait, it IS TRUMP who did this impeachment and is obstructing congress, right? Well, whoever it is is GROSSLY abusing power and obstructing congress.

 

[blackhawk]

This was the basis for Fords decision.
After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision that suggested that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that its acceptance carries a confession of guilt Ford was not pardoning Nixon of a crime he was using the pardon to say Nixon committed a crime and if he had not resigned he would have likely been convicted.

That's almost desperate. Yeah, I know about Ford's self-serving excuse.

Guilt is specific, tied to individual, identifiable crimes and statutes. Ford, however, did his friend a solid, and pardoned (!) him for any and all crimes he may have committed while in office. So, the presumed guilt wasn't established.

Anyway, that doesn't change one whit.

Nixon was never indicted, much less convicted. That, according to you, tells us he couldn't have been pardoned, and yet he was. How about you own up to it? Is that too much to ask?

The pardon was issued to try and get an admission of guilt without anyone being convicted of a crime the use if a pardon is to set aside or lessen the punishment for a federal crime one has been convicted of you are trying to make this very, very, very, rare exception the norm which it is not. You know this or should so you can own up to that or move on I really don't care which.

 

[my2¢]

I know this will come as shock to some here but one has to be convicted of a crime before they can be pardoned.

I know, it will come as a shock to everyone on here, but blackhawk is too ignorant to know anything, too lazy to research it, and too stupid to conceal either.

Was Nixon ever convicted for one of the crimes he committed while president? Naw, he wasn't. So, what the hell was Ford doing, pardoning him? Haven't we been told that is impossible?

Ah, and here's the list of worthies just as stupid, lazy and ignorant as blackhawk:

Funny and Agree!! x 4
Grampa Murked U
daveman
CrusaderFrank
beagle9

Thank You! x 1
Chuz Life​

This was the basis for Fords decision.
After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision that suggested that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that its acceptance carries a confession of guilt Ford was not pardoning Nixon of a crime he was using the pardon to say Nixon committed a crime and if he had not resigned he would have likely been convicted.

Huh ? The pardon was used after the resignation wasn't it ?? Why would a pardon be used after his resignation in which was suggested that his resignation was the very thing that saved him from his perceived conviction to come ? No pardon needed right ? I figured that he pardoned Nixon in an act of mercy and compassion after all that Nixon had been through. Probably wrong but oh well I tried.

At the time the media claimed part of Nixon's decision to resign was because if forced from office he would lose his presidential pension and all the benefits that went with it. After his resignation there was some slight debate on weather to continue with a federal criminal trial, Ford put an end to any further discussion of that with his pre-emptive pardon.

It was on my 20th birthday, the same day of Evil Knievel's attempted jump of the Snake River Canyon. From what I recall Knievel's unsuccessful attempt was way more cause of public outrage that day with folks claiming that after all the event's hype, he bailed.

 

[there4eyeM]

Ford, the only selected and never elected President, pardoned the only President ever to resign in an administration where the original VP was forced from office for malfeasance. What a rat's nest of corruption and vileness and all quietly set aside in the public mind (if it can be called a mind).
The capacity of this country to just forget about war crimes and other gross misconduct is only made more incredible by its tendency to seize upon silly things like blow jobs and telephone calls to leaders of minor countries.
The top to bottom, virulent corruption of the two party dictatorship should make America gag just before spewing them all out of power. Yet, all continues....

 

[BluesLegend]

Pardon Trump for what?

Hurting the Dems feelings and being mean to the fake news. Trump is so mean he mocks us and hurts our feelings

 

[Olde Europe]

Ford, the only selected and never elected President, pardoned the only President ever to resign in an administration where the original VP was forced from office for malfeasance. What a rat's nest of corruption and vileness and all quietly set aside in the public mind (if it can be called a mind).
The capacity of this country to just forget about war crimes and other gross misconduct is only made more incredible by its tendency to seize upon silly things like blow jobs and telephone calls to leaders of minor countries.
The top to bottom, virulent corruption of the two party dictatorship should make America gag just before spewing them all out of power. Yet, all continues....

There is something to the above.

What good did it do to let Nixon skate for his third rate burglary? He should have shared a cell with Johnson for the war crimes in Viet Nam.

What good did it do to let Reagan skate for Iran-Contra and the mass murder in South America? He should have shared a cell with Bush, the Elder.

What good did it do to let Bush, the Lesser, and his henchmen skate for lying the country into a war, and torture? He should have shared a cell with Cheney and Rumsfeld, not to mention Yoo and a host of others.

The empire doesn't do accountability, no matter how high the bodies pile up in far-away countries. Their pursuit of happiness, their dignity, their self-determination, their lives plainly do not show up on the imperial ledger. That's just how it is.

This failure of accounting shows up, unfailingly, in near-everybody's judgment, like, "telephone calls to leaders of minor countries." Minor countries, of no concern, populated by lesser humans who are, by definition, also not anyone's concern. In that, the country achieves near perfect unity. Examples to the contrary are very few, and very far between.

The nation, of course, knows that punishment, swift and harsh, is a necessary prerequisite to deter criminality. Just in their imperial pashas this principle is not applicable: Maintaining an empire requires, by necessity entails, body counts elsewhere, and exacting punishment for it would be a contradiction to the very status of an imperial nation, and a threat to the MIC that maintains, and profits from, it. And that's why no punishment is inflicted. Everyone, however vaguely, is aware you can have an empire, or a democracy and the rule of law, but not both.

Now, of course, getting all upset about "telephone calls to leaders of minor countries" looks petty by comparison, a ledger grotesquely skewed, scales ridiculously tilted, and resulting judgments so preposterously unreasonable as to be laughable. So, it is actually a reasonable question to ask, why are about half of the imperial subjects so upset? The answer should be obvious: Imperial masters are supposed to subdue Those people, people abroad, not seek their petty personal advantage. Moreover, recruiting foreign influence on domestic elections thwarts the subjects' remaining right to choose between two sets of imperial masters to govern and to maintain the empire. This choice, of course, is the necessary precondition for the subjects to maintain the illusion they are the sovereigns in charge of the empire. And that's why, yes, "telephone calls to leaders of minor countries" led to impeachment, while, say, the War on Iraq did not. It will, of course, not lead to conviction and removal, because the other half of the imperial subjects are convinced they are entitled to be in charge, and near unanimous in support of the imperial sovereign no matter what.

So, there was never a chance Trump would be indicted, much less convicted, for the crimes committed while in office. The imperial subjects' rage over that would be out of bounds. Yang just spilled the beans.