Trump admits to attempted collusion with Russians

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
I honestly think theres millions of people trying to spend decades in self-denial. When they finally wake up they are gonna be SOOO friggen scared!
This is what I find puzzling, everyone saw dump cowtow like a total coward in Helsinki, this was not "media interpretation" but live for all to see, somehow these twats play this off as a "win" for Trump, sad, sad indeed.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
So what? You've moved from an open indictment of a sitting president to a sealed indictment to be executed after he's out of office to naming him as a co-conspirator in an indictment against an alleged co-conspirator. Impeachment is an entirely separate issue.

Not necessarily. If the shit hits the fan, there will be massive leaks. They could disclose Donnie has an indictment against him. Also, from my understanding that's still what the argument is about. Some even think you shouldn't even be able to label him as an unidicted co-cospirator.

So, your assertion that "they" (as in any judge) have "ruled" against a president pardoning co-conspirators was mistaken. Various legal experts' opinion isn't any kind of "ruling" & we both know it. The only Constitutional limit on Presidential pardons is in the document itself-

"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 Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

A self pardon would violate natural law on which the Constitution is based.

Did you look at the articles? The first one, for example, uses a constitutional clause to argue it. The second one draws up some hypotheticals to show some of the absurdity over the "absolute" interpretation. There's more -- I was hastily posting. There's a ruling from Schick v. Reed that says the following:

"Additionally, considerations of public policy and humanitarian impulses support an interpretation of that power so as to permit the attachment of any condition which does not otherwise offend the Constitution."

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/419/256.html

If it's something that can lead to impeachment, there's also no reason to think that the judiciary has to enforce it.

The GOP will turn on Trump in a heartbeat if they see it as their best move, deal with the consequences down the road. They'd like to avoid that but I doubt they'll be able. If Dems take the HOR then Senatorial Repubs will be forced to deal with it. Those who have 4-6 years left on their terms can vote for conviction with relative impunity, anyway. HOR Republicans can all vote against in order to hold the base in 2020.

One good thing about the Democrats taking HOR is that they'll make the emoluments case more ironclad and Donnie will have to divest or resign to not violate the Constitution.

Of course Pence has to pardon Trump to hold the base & also to keep Trump from implicating him, as well. Of course it would hurt him with swing voters but it's still his best choice.

It'll cause a shitstorm with everyone else, though, and they'll lose the more independent voters. I think you're also assuming Trump's alleged crimes won't be that wild when that seems to be the direction this is going in. But we'll see.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Your second paragraph is so muddled as to be meaningless word salad.

Look up Natural Law, read the Federalist Papers, and the principle of "Nemo iudex in causa sua" which does not mean that a person is a literal judge in his own interests.

Maybe someone who's style is easier for you could explain.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
It'll cause a shitstorm with everyone else, though, and they'll lose the more independent voters. I think you're also assuming Trump's alleged crimes won't be that wild when that seems to be the direction this is going in. But we'll see.

There is an good chance that Dems will take the House. As long as they don't do what they did with the Iraq War and sweep things under the rug, Pence pardons at his peril. Flynn's relationship bears closer inspection and Nunes can cry in his beer when investigations in the House begin. I don't believe Pence could survive in that case.

Those who believe Dems don't have the courage to pursue justice may be right, but I hope not.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,086
146
Left out in the cold without their Trump binky's and MAGA caps to comfort themselves with? Absolutely, for without Trump to protect them from those Mexican rapists and those Muslim terrorists and those baby murdering godless liberal leftists who can they now turn to? Ly'in Ted? Low Energy Jeb? Little Marco? Giuliani? Chris Christie? Kanye West? Any of those other Repub primary opponents that Trump disgraced and ridiculed into obscurity? lol

Steven Segal
 
  • Like
Reactions: trenchfoot

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Not necessarily. If the shit hits the fan, there will be massive leaks. They could disclose Donnie has an indictment against him. Also, from my understanding that's still what the argument is about. Some even think you shouldn't even be able to label him as an unidicted co-cospirator.



Did you look at the articles? The first one, for example, uses a constitutional clause to argue it. The second one draws up some hypotheticals to show some of the absurdity over the "absolute" interpretation. There's more -- I was hastily posting. There's a ruling from Schick v. Reed that says the following:

"Additionally, considerations of public policy and humanitarian impulses support an interpretation of that power so as to permit the attachment of any condition which does not otherwise offend the Constitution."

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/419/256.html

If it's something that can lead to impeachment, there's also no reason to think that the judiciary has to enforce it.



One good thing about the Democrats taking HOR is that they'll make the emoluments case more ironclad and Donnie will have to divest or resign to not violate the Constitution.



It'll cause a shitstorm with everyone else, though, and they'll lose the more independent voters. I think you're also assuming Trump's alleged crimes won't be that wild when that seems to be the direction this is going in. But we'll see.

Your original contention was "They've already ruled in certain cases that a pardon can't be done."

No Court has made such a ruling. Your link to Schick v Reed merely affirms the presidential right to commute sentences under whatever terms he sees fit so long as the terms are less harsh than the original sentence.

Petitioner's claim must therefore fail. The no-parole condition attached to the commutation of his death sentence is similar to sanctions imposed by legislatures such as mandatory minimum sentences or statutes otherwise precluding parole; 7 it does not offend the Constitution. Similarly, the President's action derived solely from his Art. II powers; it did not depend upon Art. 118 of the UCMJ or any other statute fixing a death penalty for murder. It is not correct to say that the condition upon petitioner's commutation was "made possible only through the court-martial's imposition of the death sentence." Post, at 269-270. Of course, the President may not aggravate punishment; the sentence imposed by statute is therefore relevant to a limited extent. But, as shown, the President has constitutional power to attach conditions to his commutation of any sentence. Thus, even if Furman v. Georgia applies to the military, a matter which we need not and do not decide, it could [419 U.S. 256, 268] not affect a conditional commutation which was granted 12 years earlier.

You're dancing all over the countryside trying to say that some court somewhere has limited a president's right to pardon when that's not true at all.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Look up Natural Law, read the Federalist Papers, and the principle of "Nemo iudex in causa sua" which does not mean that a person is a literal judge in his own interests.

Maybe someone who's style is easier for you could explain.

You merely obfuscate further. I contended that no man has the right to judge their own case, including the President. That means he can't pardon himself. I also contend that such has no bearing on the impeachment process, either. It's immaterial. Congress can throw him out of office anyway.

Any attempt at self pardon would only come into play after the President leaves office however that might occur.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,735
28,908
136
Anyone see how Fox News is spinning the fact Trump's have been thing the entire time about this meeting?