This article takes the position that Trump can no longer be pardoned for crimes committed while in office.
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysi...cant-be/23816/
Senior Member
This could be an interesting turn
This article takes the position that Trump can no longer be pardoned for crimes committed while in office.
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysi...cant-be/23816/
Tom
Lurking since 1997
Re: This could be an interesting turn
.
Now THAT is interesting! Worth a c&p:
On the night of July 20, 1969, I went outside and looked up at the moon in the night sky under which I stood and said to myself, “Tonight I live in a world where man has walked on the moon.” It was a personally revolutionary moment dividing my existence in two, the time before man walked on the moon and the time after. The significance of that moment and the divide it represented has never left me.
Today is a new day of similar bifurcation. When Donald Trump awoke on Wednesday morning it was still possible for him to resign and be pardoned. It may have even been possible (some have argued) for him to lose the 2020 election and pardon himself before leaving office. Those days are over. Come what may, it is no longer possible for Donald John Trump to receive a pardon for any crimes he committed while president of the United States.
How do I know this? Because the Constitution of the United States says so. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution says “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment” [italics added]. In other words, because Trump is, after Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton, the third president to be impeached, he is now and for all time ineligible for presidential pardon.
Recall that in September of 1973, Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. The only reason he was able to do this is because, though the House of Representatives had drafted and passed in committee articles of impeachment against Nixon, no vote of the complete House had been taken and thus Nixon had still not yet been impeached and so, Constitutionally speaking, he was therefore pardonable.
Recall further that before leaving office, Bill Clinton confessed to the American people that he lied under oath officially by admitting that he was guilty of “testifying falsely” when he denied an affair with Monica Lewinsky during a deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit. By so doing he effectively put out of reach any prosecution for perjury he may have faced. Clinton understood that there was no pardon mechanism available to rescue him from such a charge, and it was doubtful that George W. Bush would avail himself of it in any event.
So we may now rest easier. Come what may, a pardon for Trump is now off the table and for all time. But this call for easier rest comes with a caveat. Trump is now doubly dangerous. His safe exits out of the Oval Office are now blocked. We must therefore work diligently and work together to see him out of office and gone from political life in 2020.
"They have a lot of stupid people that vote in their primaries. They really do. I'm not really supposed to say that but it's an obvious fact. But when stupid people vote, you know who they nominate? Other stupid people." -- James Carville on the plethora of low-quality GQP candidates in the mid-term election.
Senior Member
Re: This could be an interesting turn
How do I know this? Because the Constitution of the United States says so.
Hey buddy, this is "The Post Truth Era". Where you been?
Banned
Re: This could be an interesting turn
Hmm,Originally Posted by Tom Wilkinson
Robert Harrington, Author at Palmer Report
https://www.palmerreport.com › author › robert-harrington
Robert Harrington is an American expat living in Britain.
He is a portrait painter.
Last edited by Rum_Pirate; 12-19-2019 at 03:15 PM.
Landlocked
Re: This could be an interesting turn
We all know it comes down to the vote. Here's to America coming to her senses.
I was in Kentucky today while McTurtle was telling us that, essentially, there will be no trial in the Senate. We all know the outcome but now McTurtle has gone on record announcing that the idea of an impartially judged outcome is off the table.
Serious constitutional crisis.
One of the most enduring qualities of an old wooden boat is the smell it imparts to your clothing.
Senior Member
Re: This could be an interesting turn
He has already been impeached, he just hasn't been removed.
Tom
Senior Member
Re: This could be an interesting turn
The way I read it, the Prez can't be pardoned for the charges on which he was impeached, and for which he was convicted in the Senate. Those weren't crimes in the ordinary sense in the first place, therefore he can be pardoned for all of his ordinary crimes.
If Russia wins, there will be no Ukraine; if Ukraine wins, there will be a new Russia.
-- Dmytro Kuleba, Foreign Minister of Ukraine
me 𑀩 thinking
Re: This could be an interesting turn
The intermediate step being trial and conviction in the Senate.
Lurking since 1997
Re: This could be an interesting turn
So you are saying you do not believe that Article II, section 2 of the Constitution says “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment”?"
"They have a lot of stupid people that vote in their primaries. They really do. I'm not really supposed to say that but it's an obvious fact. But when stupid people vote, you know who they nominate? Other stupid people." -- James Carville on the plethora of low-quality GQP candidates in the mid-term election.
Landlocked
Re: This could be an interesting turn
Indeed but the trial is held in the Senate. The impeachment comes as a result of the hearings. McTurtle is saying that there will be no witnesses called, that the thing will be short and that he is working with Trump's layers. Hence, there will be no real trial.
That comes as no surprise.
One of the most enduring qualities of an old wooden boat is the smell it imparts to your clothing.
Banned
Re: This could be an interesting turn
Just observing that so much credence is given to a 'portrait painter' and such an 'extreme' source.
Had one of the 'reds' quoted such a (right biased) source there would have been tons of disparaging ridicule heaped on that similar 'right extremist' source.
T Palmer.jpg
Senior Member
Re: This could be an interesting turn
Agreed.
Tom
Senior Member
Re: This could be an interesting turn
So refute the content of the article if you believe it to be false. All I did was present what the article is claiming.
Tom
Banned
Re: This could be an interesting turn
LOL
As I posted: Just observing that so much credence is given to a 'portrait painter' and such an 'extreme' source.
Senior Member
Re: This could be an interesting turn
I have trouble envisioning him being tried in criminal court for bribing Ukraine or for defying house subpoenas.
There remain many crimes NOT covered in the impeachment he can be tried for.
My guess remains; if he loses the election, he resigns with Pence promising a pardon. I'm not sure he can trust Pence to deliver that pardon.
I not convinced McConnell actually wants a trial in the senate. The big fear, IMO, is failure to remove Trump behind Art. 2. I doubt McConnell wants any president to be able to deny congressional subpoenas as a blanket policy, and McConnell does not want Trump removed.
That's a true dilemma. The only way out, as I see it, is to not have the senate trial. The way to not have a senate trial is to publicly say he's in no way impartial and is coordinating all his efforts with the subject of the trial.
Pelosi decides not to send the articles to the senate unless the senate establishes rules that are somewhat fair. Senate won't do that.
Trump is impeached, but no senate trial is held. I see that as a distinct possibility. And I'm not at all sure it's not the best outcome.
"Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book
Senior Member
Re: This could be an interesting turn
You know better. See what kind of **** you get for engaging with a troll.
Senior Member
Re: This could be an interesting turn
Absolutely correct, IF you fully understand the difference in function of the house and senate.
Trying to be reasonable
Re: This could be an interesting turn
As much as I'd like it to be true, the argument seems dubious. The language of the Constitution is somewhat ambiguous, but it does not say 'A president, once impeached, cannot be pardoned for any offense.' You could just as plausibly read it as 'Pardons don't apply to impeachment proceedings; the president can't derail impeachment by pardoning people.' It's never been tested, and the Supreme Court would have to decide it if it comes up.
Last edited by Keith Wilson; 12-19-2019 at 11:14 PM.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
for nature cannot be fooled."
Richard Feynman
That Richard Guy
Re: This could be an interesting turn
Are you not understanding that the info presented was from the Constitution? The fact that it was brought to light by a painting is immaterial.
As I posted: Just observing that so much credence is given to a 'portrait painter' and such an 'extreme' source.
Seriously, if you're unable to pick up on that distinction, just stop posting.
Last edited by Old Dryfoot; 12-19-2019 at 04:40 PM.
Old Grey Inquisitive One
Re: This could be an interesting turn
Yes, but.
It was not presented by a RWW so it is wrong, irrelevant, and FAKE NEWS!
Least-ways, that is how it sits in Rummys universe.
It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.
The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.
Banned
Re: This could be an interesting turn
It was brought to light by a painting?
As I posted: Just observing that so much credence is given to a 'portrait painter' and such an 'extreme' source.
Lurking since 1997
Re: This could be an interesting turn
My but you certainly are determined.
"They have a lot of stupid people that vote in their primaries. They really do. I'm not really supposed to say that but it's an obvious fact. But when stupid people vote, you know who they nominate? Other stupid people." -- James Carville on the plethora of low-quality GQP candidates in the mid-term election.
That Richard Guy
Re: This could be an interesting turn
The credence is being given to the Constitution, fool.It was brought to light by a painting?
As I posted: Just observing that so much credence is given to a 'portrait painter' and such an 'extreme' source.
As for the typo, I'm standing in the bottom of an elevator pit in low light without glasses, don't be a wad.
Senior Member
Re: This could be an interesting turn
Generally speaking, I refrain from posting items from the Palmer report. The Interactive Media Bias Chart rates the Palmer report not only seriously biased, but with serious reliability issues. While this article cites a passage from the Constitution, it then goes on to present an interpretation of the passage. While I have no problem with the language of the Constitution, I would prefer to see interpretations of that language from acceptably moderate sources.
Truthfully, the Palmer Report prints stories which I would dearly love to be true -- which is a primary reason I find it suspect.
“Aren’t you supposed to be the gentlemen who lie for the good of their country?”
“That’s diplomats. We’re not gentlemen.”
“So you lie to save your hides.”
That’s politicians. Different game entirely.”
LPBC member
Re: This could be an interesting turn
From Wikipedia:
This would have to be settled by the Supreme Court, not some expat in Britain.Pardons and reprieves may be granted by the president, except in cases of impeachment. There is currently no universally accepted interpretation of the impeachment exception. Some argue that the president simply cannot use a pardon to stop an officeholder from being impeached, while others suggest that crimes underlying an impeachment cannot be pardoned by the president.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
