Tim the Tank Nut Posted January 20 Posted January 20 It seems that President Biden has managed to surprise me. I did not expect Mr Fauci to be pardoned. Now I am wondering what he was pardoned for? Recently media said that Anthony Fauci was a dedicated public servant and the top choice in his field for the post that he held. Now, he's receiving a pardon when he hasn't been indicted for anything. A suspicious person may conclude the Mr. Fauci has some sort of secret to hide that could land him in trouble? If we compare and contrast to the treatment of Mike Flynn I think that a double standard is visible here. So many "dedicated" public servants seem to be acting as if they had done something wrong. It's really inexplicable, the actions being taken for so many innocents to seek shelter from investigation. A person could find themselves wondering if the power of the pardon is this absolute...
sunday Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Wondering when the meme name for bad MDs would be Fauci instead of Mengele.
Mr King Posted January 20 Posted January 20 For people who didnt commit any crimes, they sure are getting a lot of pardons
Ssnake Posted January 20 Posted January 20 19 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: I did not expect Mr Fauci to be pardoned. Now I am wondering what he was pardoned for? He didn't do anything wrong. You can't prove it. He promised not to do it again. And now he's pardoned. What baffles me is that US law makes it possible to pardon someone without a prior trial, let alone conviction. It seems fundamentally illogical to me.
DKTanker Posted January 20 Posted January 20 First order of business for the respective congressional judicial committees, haul those individuals, "preemptively" pardoned and, have them allocute to their crimes for which they have been pardoned. The people have a right to know what crimes have been committed and are being covered up. Second order of business is for the Department of Justice to have SCOTUS weigh in on this abomination of executive overreach. Crimes cannot and must not be allowed to be free from an open trial, the people have a right to know what, if any, crimes have been committed. The Department of Defense must reinstate General Milley's active duty status and immediately conduct an Article 32 investigation concerning Milley's public confession of surreptitiously conducting talks with the Chinese government with the express intent to undermine President of the United States. The people have a right to know if their military leaders are not beholden to civilian control and are possibly traitors. This "preemptive" nonsense must not be allowed to stand.
DKTanker Posted January 20 Posted January 20 9 minutes ago, Ssnake said: What baffles me is that US law makes it possible to pardon someone without a prior trial, let alone conviction. It seems fundamentally illogical to me. There is no law nor constitutional writing that says this is permissible. This is an outrage and must not be allowed to stand.
Ivanhoe Posted January 20 Posted January 20 48 minutes ago, sunday said: Wondering when the meme name for bad MDs would be Fauci instead of Mengele. If I had any graphics talent, I'd gin up a meme with Mengele as Dr. Evil and Fauci as Mini-Me.
Ivanhoe Posted January 20 Posted January 20 If the incoming administration is smart, they'll find a cooperative judge that will accept an argument that a preemptive pardon is evidence of a crime and thus cause for unlimited search warrants. As for Fauci, I am hoping that multiple state attorney generals will indict him for some sort of crime based on violating informed consent. Let's use the "process as punishment" to set an example.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 20 Posted January 20 (edited) 34 minutes ago, DKTanker said: There is no law nor constitutional writing that says this is permissible. This is an outrage and must not be allowed to stand. But wasnt this also a precident set by Nixon, who had also not been convicted, nor been put on trial, but was still given a blanket pardon by President Ford? Whether its right or wrong it does seem its not before time it was all codefied, because this was, from what Ive read about Watergate, one of the areas the founding fathers all left really very vague, presumably because they didnt want to think about it too much. Edited January 20 by Stuart Galbraith
Tim the Tank Nut Posted January 20 Author Posted January 20 I thought that a person accepting a pardon was waiving their rights regarding not testifying?
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Didnt they do that to one of the Watergate plumbers? Forcing a pardon on him, so they could make him testify?
DKTanker Posted January 20 Posted January 20 30 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: But wasnt this also a precident set by Nixon, who had also not been convicted, nor been put on trial, but was still given a blanket pardon by President Ford? Whether its right or wrong it does seem its not before time it was all codefied, because this was, from what Ive read about Watergate, one of the areas the founding fathers all left really very vague, presumably because they didnt want to think about it too much. The only precedent made was Ford perhaps granting an unconstitutional pardon. This was actually quite controversial by Democrats and Republicans alike being considered an overreach of executive power to pardon. However, most people agreed that it was for the best, of the nation and the institution of the executive, to allow the "preemptive" pardon to go unchallenged. Ford apparently rationalized his act with the belief that the acceptance of a pardon was an implied admission of guilt. Which, getting back to the "preemptive" pardons Biden has issued, his closing paragraph said his pardon, and the acceptance of the pardon was not an admission of guilt. Quote 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. 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. And that is utter bullshit.
DKTanker Posted January 20 Posted January 20 23 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Didnt they do that to one of the Watergate plumbers? Forcing a pardon on him, so they could make him testify? Only Nixon was pardoned. I believe what you are referring to is a grant of immunity.
Ol Paint Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Quote Article 2 Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Regardless of abuse, diluting the absolute pardon power is not a wise move. It remains a key check and balance between the branches of government. As a separate power of the Presidency, it aligns with the intent of a system biased in favor of the accused and as a protection against governmental tyranny. We should not forget why our system is based on the concept that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and that there is an associated cost to be paid--that sometimes the guilty will not be imprisoned so that the innocent are not unjustly punished. Doug
Stargrunt6 Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Prepardons reminds me of this bit. https://youtu.be/xHj3uTOZyoo
Murph Posted January 20 Posted January 20 A pardon is absolute. It is also a tacit admission of guilt. What it does NOT do, is prevent civil actions, and state actions. Milley, however looks to free and clear, he will never be prosecuted for treason.
seahawk Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Well that should be a good starting point for plenty civil lawsuits by victims of the so called vaccines.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 20 Posted January 20 1 hour ago, DKTanker said: The only precedent made was Ford perhaps granting an unconstitutional pardon. This was actually quite controversial by Democrats and Republicans alike being considered an overreach of executive power to pardon. However, most people agreed that it was for the best, of the nation and the institution of the executive, to allow the "preemptive" pardon to go unchallenged. Ford apparently rationalized his act with the belief that the acceptance of a pardon was an implied admission of guilt. Which, getting back to the "preemptive" pardons Biden has issued, his closing paragraph said his pardon, and the acceptance of the pardon was not an admission of guilt. And that is utter bullshit. Not disputing it was the right thing to do, just that it was a prescident. Although yes in fairness it was one Reagan didn't choose to follow for Oliver North or Admiral Pointdexter.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 20 Posted January 20 1 hour ago, DKTanker said: Only Nixon was pardoned. I believe what you are referring to is a grant of immunity. Thanks, you're right,
DKTanker Posted January 20 Posted January 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ol Paint said: Regardless of abuse, diluting the absolute pardon power is not a wise move. Regardless of abuse? Is it thus your contention that a president can preemptively pardon everybody and anybody for any past or future crimes they might commit in the advancement of his authoritarian and totalitarian rule? Edited January 20 by DKTanker
DKTanker Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Less than an hour ago Biden granted a "preemptive" pardon to his entire crime family syndicate. Chip Roy (R) Texas, has stated that all of these recipients of "preemptive" pardons need to be brought before congress so they may allocute to their crimes and test the constitutional reach thereof.
Mr King Posted January 20 Posted January 20 By accepting the pardons it will be a tacit admission of guilt. Right wing conspiracy nuts proven correct yet again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States
Murph Posted January 20 Posted January 20 53 minutes ago, DKTanker said: Less than an hour ago Biden granted a "preemptive" pardon to his entire crime family syndicate. Chip Roy (R) Texas, has stated that all of these recipients of "preemptive" pardons need to be brought before congress so they may allocute to their crimes and test the constitutional reach thereof. And I agree since if they lie, they can be prosecuted for that. But notice the date on ALL the pardons: 1 January 2014. What happened then? Is that when the ChiComs/Ukrainians and others bought and paid for the Biden Crime Cartel? The Pardon power is absolute, but they can still be sued in Civil Court, and States can still file criminal charges against them. I am sick that Milley got pardoned, he needed to be the first four star general hung for treason.
Murph Posted January 20 Posted January 20 1 minute ago, Mr King said: By accepting the pardons it will be a tacit admission of guilt. Right wing conspiracy nuts proven correct yet again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States Yes, you are correct. Acceptance equals guilt.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now