Can we at least agree on this?

[BWK]

Back in the 1950s the two parties were not that far apart. The differences between Truman, Ike weren't big. Then in the 1960s and on, a similar story, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, even Clinton, were no where near as far apart as today between Trump/Desantis and the democrat candidates, Biden, Kamala, Newsom, Warren, Bernie Sanders, & Buttplug.

Here is a video that may answer your questions:

That doesn't answer my questions at all, because those thoughts of his are made from thin air. It's all made up. As a matter of fact, the very things he accuses others of not wanting or doing, is exactly what those same folks want. The problem that guy has, he tries to distort the truth by scapegoating. He doesn't see through the entire prism at all.

Here's what I am talking about; all of us want the same damn things, and for a while, a large population of us did. Here's where that broke down and the answer is simple. Once the wealthy took charge of our economy, that's when the country drifted apart. You see, at the end of the day, it's all about the money, our safety and security. When the wealthy stopped supporting a middle class by way of its high tax rates, everything stood still. The Vulture Chart teaches this; Once you break the back of the middle class, then the blame game begins. It's all by design. It's how the Romans controlled the peasants and slaves. The partisanship wasn't born from me being a Democrat, it was born from greed of a very few number of people. When the middle class falls, so does everything else. I've been trying to explain this for decades, and the other side doesn't get it.

 

[BWK]

They investigated the russian collusion story, when they knew it was made up in the beginning.

Russian collusion was proven, and Bill Barr got caught covering for Trump by way of his hidden memo.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump once said, “Then, I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.” It would appear no one in his admin or inner circle dared to inform him of his colossal misunderstanding of Article II powers. But he's finding out now.

But this thread isn't about the sordid MaL affair. It's about whether we all can agree the absolute power to pardon people possessed by the POTUS needs to be reformed?

One of the features of Trump's presidency was the extent to which he exposed weaknesses in the laws, rules, and protocols governing a prez's behavior. Weaknesses that existed because no one ever contemplated that a prez would so extensively exploit them. This article explores some of the areas in need of reform and suggests remedies to address them.

Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform

What should be done in a post-Trump world to restore the rule of law?

www.lawfareblog.com

One of them being.............-Pardon reform. There can be little doubt of two things. First, as currently constructed, the president’s pardon power is nearly absolute. Second, President Trump’s use of the pardon power has transgressed the Founders’ expectations. Indeed, the idea that a president might pardon his own criminal confederates (as is arguably the case with Roger Stone) is exactly why George Mason opposed the pardon power altogether. At some point, Congress might give serious consideration to a constitutional amendment that, for example, makes pardons illegal for individuals personally known to the president and makes the misuse of the power judicially reviewable.

As the author points out, Stone is the most glaring example of an abuse because he possessed information that related to Trump's exposure in the Mueller investigation. After making it clear to Stone his silence would be rewarded Stone was in fact pardoned. I can think of no other example of a previous prez so manifestly abusing his authority.

The question at hand being, can we agree no POTUS should be allowed to pardon someone who could act as a hostile witness to the prez in a civil or criminal case or in an impeachment trial?

As usual, the libtard claim ^ is divorced from context.

Yes, the former President did say those words. But no, he didn’t mean it the way libtards insist on interpreting it. When Trump said it (on a couple of occasions) he was saying he was allowed to fire a subordinate. Context matters. Libtards always manage to avoid that fact when they engage in such tactics.

Trump claimed Article 2 of the Constitution gives him the right to do 'whatever I want as president,' but that's not true

Trump on more than one occasion contended he had the authority under the Constitution to fire the former special counsel Robert Mueller.

www.businessinsider.com

Although business insider misreported it, at least they acknowledged the context. The above article also links to Trump’s earlier (similar) comment to George Stephanapolous. But that link provides the video; and again, it is clear that what he was referencing was his authority, as President, to fire subordinates.

He didn’t fire Mueller. But he was right in the sense that he absolutely could have.

 

[jknowgood]

Nope.

Putting an end to an ubiquitous meme from Trump loyalists

It has been asserted hundreds of times by occupants of Trumpworld........the collusion hoax. It comes up in all manner of contexts. Most recently as a way to dismiss the 1/6 committee's work. Let's see what the facts say. Manafort conspired with Kilimnik to give the Kremlin internal polling...

www.usmessageboard.com

Even the fbi said it wasn't true, give it up.

 

[jknowgood]

Russian collusion was proven, and Bill Barr got caught covering for Trump by way of his hidden memo.

Bull the fbi even said it was not true.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump once said, “Then, I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.” It would appear no one in his admin or inner circle dared to inform him of his colossal misunderstanding of Article II powers. But he's finding out now.

But this thread isn't about the sordid MaL affair. It's about whether we all can agree the absolute power to pardon people possessed by the POTUS needs to be reformed?

One of the features of Trump's presidency was the extent to which he exposed weaknesses in the laws, rules, and protocols governing a prez's behavior. Weaknesses that existed because no one ever contemplated that a prez would so extensively exploit them. This article explores some of the areas in need of reform and suggests remedies to address them.

Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform

What should be done in a post-Trump world to restore the rule of law?

www.lawfareblog.com

One of them being.............-Pardon reform. There can be little doubt of two things. First, as currently constructed, the president’s pardon power is nearly absolute. Second, President Trump’s use of the pardon power has transgressed the Founders’ expectations. Indeed, the idea that a president might pardon his own criminal confederates (as is arguably the case with Roger Stone) is exactly why George Mason opposed the pardon power altogether. At some point, Congress might give serious consideration to a constitutional amendment that, for example, makes pardons illegal for individuals personally known to the president and makes the misuse of the power judicially reviewable.

As the author points out, Stone is the most glaring example of an abuse because he possessed information that related to Trump's exposure in the Mueller investigation. After making it clear to Stone his silence would be rewarded Stone was in fact pardoned. I can think of no other example of a previous prez so manifestly abusing his authority.

The question at hand being, can we agree no POTUS should be allowed to pardon someone who could act as a hostile witness to the prez in a civil or criminal case or in an impeachment trial?

As usual, the libtard claim ^ is divorced from context.

Yes, the former President did say those words. But no, he didn’t mean it the way libtards insist on interpreting it. When Trump said it (on a couple of occasions) he was saying he was allowed to fire a subordinate. Context matters. Libtards always manage to avoid that fact when they engage in such tactics.

And if you dislike the Constitution’s grant of authority to the President to pardon people, go ahead and try to amend the Constitution.

Hell, I’m all for a Constitutional Convention of the States. You libtards might not like all you get from opening what you will eventually regret to see as a Pandora’s box.

 

[ColonelAngus]

OP cant even admit the Hunter Biden laptop is not a Putin plant.

 

[kyzr]

That doesn't answer my questions at all, because those thoughts of his are made from thin air. It's all made up. As a matter of fact, the very things he accuses others of not wanting or doing, is exactly what those same folks want. The problem that guy has, he tries to distort the truth by scapegoating. He doesn't see through the entire prism at all.

Here's what I am talking about; all of us want the same damn things, and for a while, a large population of us did. Here's where that broke down and the answer is simple. Once the wealthy took charge of our economy, that's when the country drifted apart. You see, at the end of the day, it's all about the money, our safety and security. When the wealthy stopped supporting a middle class by way of its high tax rates, everything stood still. The Vulture Chart teaches this; Once you break the back of the middle class, then the blame game begins. It's all by design. It's how the Romans controlled the peasants and slaves. The partisanship wasn't born from me being a Democrat, it was born from greed of a very few number of people. When the middle class falls, so does everything else. I've been trying to explain this for decades, and the other side doesn't get it.

The top 1% own about 90% of everything. This is why Biden and the dems always say they are going after the people making over $400,000/yr. That never works. As Sinema proved recently, the wealthy ALWAYS buy their "tax loopholes" from the pols they own. When Trump was in, the GOP cut taxes for the wealthy, trotting out the old GOP dogma that "GDP growth would hit 5%". It NEVER works.

Lately the uber-wealthy hi-tech oligarchs, like Zuckerberg, are spending their money on politics, buying elections. So the "wealth divide" isn't only between Rs & Ds. There are also "value divides", such as between "traditional values" and "woke values", or lack thereof, like for abortion. Its not only about money. There are many issues that divide us. Race, wealth, religion, political philosophy, region, education, etc. When the middle gets too pushy, like when unions make outrageous demands, the wealthy move factories overseas. In CA today, burger flippers are demanding $25/hr, so they are pricing themselves to the unemployment line.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Because Trump's pardon of Stone is unique in the level of self-serving corruption.

You're a moron. Just stop typing.

 

[berg80]

Even the fbi said it wasn't true, give it up.

When you can refute any aspect of my post get back to me.

 

[berg80]

He didn’t fire Mueller. But he was right in the sense that he absolutely could have.

MAGAnuts have frequently cited a prez's authority to do something, at least when Don was fouling the Oval Office by his presence, in a misguided attempt to justify it.

For years (at least since World War II, and perhaps earlier), the architecture of national security law has been one in which Congress expresses the normative requirements of law, while providing the executive with significant discretionary authority to deviate from those requirements in time of crisis. This structure is quite the opposite of the original Framers’ conception. That framework saw an executive far more subservient to the legislative branch and far more ministerial in nature (George Washington’s entire executive branch numbered fewer than 100 people).

The change away from the Framers’ conception has made sense in the modern world—especially in an era of significant national security threats. It was, however, premised on a fundamental assumption—that the nation could count on presidents to exercise their discretionary authority within the boundaries of expected behavior. That is to say that even though the public might disagree with individual exercises of the authority (see, for example, Truman’s unwise effort to nationalize the steel industry), the public could be confident that presidents would, generally, be acting for the benefit of the nation and out of motives that were relatively benign and well intentioned.

"It was, however, premised on a fundamental assumption—that the nation could count on presidents to exercise their discretionary authority within the boundaries of expected behavior." But not Trump.

 

[BackAgain]

MAGAnuts have frequently cited a prez's authority to do something, at least when Don was fouling the Oval Office by his presence, in a misguided attempt to justify it.

For years (at least since World War II, and perhaps earlier), the architecture of national security law has been one in which Congress expresses the normative requirements of law, while providing the executive with significant discretionary authority to deviate from those requirements in time of crisis. This structure is quite the opposite of the original Framers’ conception. That framework saw an executive far more subservient to the legislative branch and far more ministerial in nature (George Washington’s entire executive branch numbered fewer than 100 people).

The change away from the Framers’ conception has made sense in the modern world—especially in an era of significant national security threats. It was, however, premised on a fundamental assumption—that the nation could count on presidents to exercise their discretionary authority within the boundaries of expected behavior. That is to say that even though the public might disagree with individual exercises of the authority (see, for example, Truman’s unwise effort to nationalize the steel industry), the public could be confident that presidents would, generally, be acting for the benefit of the nation and out of motives that were relatively benign and well intentioned.

"It was, however, premised on a fundamental assumption—that the nation could count on presidents to exercise their discretionary authority within the boundaries of expected behavior." But not Trump.

A ^ very empty and typically petty and pointless screed. However, your post is otherwise devoid of any utility.

 

[jknowgood]

When you can refute any aspect of my post get back to me.

Tell me this. What collusion did Mueller find? With unlimited resources and money?

 

[berg80]

A ^ very empty and typically petty and pointless screed. However, your post is otherwise devoid of any utility.

You being a MAGAnut, I can see why you'd think so.

 

[berg80]

Tell me this. What collusion did Mueller find? With unlimited resources and money?

See post #100.

 

[The Original Tree]

What's wrong with having controversial pardons subject to review by an independent board?

The FBI and DOJ should know how Court Orders work, right? Why haven't they produced The Operation Russian Collusion Crossfire Hurricane Documents, DUPE?

They were ordered to produce them in a Federal Court over two years ago.

Why would anyone want to agree with the biggest Obama DemNazi Fascist Globalist Cocksucker on the board?

DemNazis, Same as Them Nazis

 

[BackAgain]

You being a MAGAnut, I can see why you'd think so.

You, being a completely libtarded twat, would think otherwise.

Are there MAGA’s hiding in your closet or under your bed, you fucking retard?

 

[The Original Tree]

There’s a school of thought that it’s incumbent upon the people to choose their presidents wisely, to elect someone who won’t abuse the powers of the office, such as the power to pardon.

Reform, therefore, shouldn’t be needed if the people choose wisely.

Otherwise, when the people err, they deserve the bad government they get – Trump, of course, was the worst.

The Witch Hunt run by The Democrat Party at The State and Federal Levels costing taxpayers Billions of dollars over the past 6 years discounts everything any of you DemNazi scumbags have to say. Every last word out of your mouth is nothing but propaganda. and lies

You'll go to Hell for that.

 

[jknowgood]

See post #100.

Answer, he didn't find anything.

 

[berg80]

Answer, he didn't find anything.

Donnie J illegally conspiring to obtain dirt on Hillary from the Russian government is nothing?
Manafort giving internal polling data from the campaign to a Russian intel operative, polling data that ended up in the Kremlin, is nothing?

These things would have sent Trumpworld in to apoplectic hysteria if Dems did them.