Democrats are TERRIFIED that President Trump is going to do EXACTLY what Democrats have done to President Trump..

THAT is the ONLY reason these pre-emptive pardons are being considered..

Personally, I would LOVE to see Democrats get what's coming to them... What they deserve...

But, knowing President Trump and his magnanimity, I am sure it's not going to happen.. :(

058

My primary takeaway is similar to my last comment: the only reason this is even being debated by the White House and the commentariat is that Trump is behaving uniquely badly by US political standards.

My primary takeaway is similar to my last comment: the only reason this is even being debated by the White House and the commentariat is that Trump is behaving uniquely badly by DEMOCRAT political standards.

There.. Fixed it for you.. :eyeroll:

On that basis, I would say Biden is justified in granting blanket pardons to those who (as you say) have agreed to accept them no matter what the reputational cost might be. Yes it sets a bad precedent, but Trump is a bad precedent in his own right, and subsequent bad precedents follow directly from that fact.

So, you acknowledge that a whole bunch of Democrats have committed criminal acts that they need pardons for...

That's a great first step

This ALSO means that, if President Trump does follow suit and issue a whole slew of pre-emptive pardons in the waning days 2028, that you won't say dick about it...

I'll hold you to that...

As you say, none of Trump's intended victims have actually committed or participated in any crimes. Their testimony in supposed trials about those crimes would be meaningless - there were no crimes.

But you have already said that those people HAVE committed crimes and THAT is why they should be pre-emptively pardoned...

You can't have it both ways, JMCT....

Either these Democrats have committed as whole slew of crimes that they need pardoned for...

OR

These Democrats have committed NO CRIMES and therefore NO PARDONs are warranted..

Yer a typical Demon'rat... Trying to talk out BOTH sides of yer ass...

Ya'all are also missing one very salient point.. Even if Basement Biden does issue a blanket pardon for all the crimes committed by people in Basement Biden's employ, that WON'T preclude or prevent any investigations..

I could readily see the House go thru HUNDREDS of investigations of the crimes committed by Basement Biden et al and submit their finds to the public, oh let's say, a few weeks before the mid-term elections..

One of the VERY few instances where the court of public opinion WOULD matter. :D

So, face reality JMCT.. Justice will be served...

You can count on it..

I can't speak for "ya'all" but as far as i personally am concerned, having done something that is illegal is guilt.

And HOW does one determine if someone has done something illegal??

By a legitimate court case in a court of law..

i'd probably make a lousy juror, since i've been influenced by exposure to pertinent information outside of a courtroom.

IE, ideology... So. Yes.. You would make a lousy juror.. Because you are ONLY supposed to be influenced by what you see and here in the court that is pertaining to your particular case...

Which is why OJ Simpson was COMPLETELY and 100% innocent of the murders. Because, based on the facts that the prosecution presented in court, there was simply NO WAY that OJ could have committed those murders. It was a physical impossibility.

kevin Spacey was also found not guilty, in his case not guilty of seven counts of sexual assault.

Which means that Spacey is COMPLETELY and 1000% INNOCENT of all charges and accusations against him..

THAT is how the law works..

Put another way...

Was someone guilty if a racist hate crime against Jussie Smollet??

I mean, he made the accusation against someone.. So, based on ya'all's "logic" SOMEONE must be guilty of that crime, eh??

Kyle Rittenhouse?? Was he guilty of murder just because someone accused him of murder??

Daniel Penny?? Was he guilty of manslaughter just because someone accused him of that??

Darren Wilson??? George Zimmerman??

Were they guilty of crimes, JUST because they were accused???

Nope...

ALL of those people are completely and 100% innocent of any crimes or accusations..

Just like President ELECT Trump..

the court of public opinion and the supreme court of the United States are on donald's side regarding the crimes he committed and subsequently got away with. good for him.

THAT is a matter of opinion. In these discussion, the court of Public Opinion is irrelevant, as it is based on subjectivity and ideology...

In this discussion, the ONLY parameter that has any bearing is the law as dictated by the courts..

Given this FACT:

Jussie Smollet---100% INNOCENT of all charges and accusations

Daniel Penny----100% INNOCENT of all charges and accusations

Kevin Spacey----100% INNOCENT of all charges and accusations

Darren Wilson----100% INNOCENT of all charges and accusations

George Zimmerman----100% INNOCENT of all charges and accusations

"It doesn't matter what I know!!! It only matters what I can PROVE!!!"
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

his civil cases are still pending.

Civil cases are the biggest forms of BS US jurisprudence in all the annals of BS US jurisprudence..

If someone is found NOT GUILTY in a criminal case, that automatically should mean they cannot be found liable..

Civil cases are nothing more than useless morons trying to extort money from innocent people..

Neely's father is a PERFECT example of a scumbag civil case litigant would the Goldman's (of OJ fame) following a close second..

056

My primary takeaway is similar to my last comment: the only reason this is even being debated by the White House and the commentariat is that Trump is behaving uniquely badly by US political standards. That he could use his tame Justice Dept. to harass dozens of his 'enemies' with federal prosecutions that are eventually thrown out but meanwhile cost the victims very high legal fees, seems pretty clear. Yes, he could do that; he is and has been threatening to do it, and has shown in the past his love for vendetta-by-lawsuit.

On that basis, I would say Biden is justified in granting blanket pardons to those who (as you say) have agreed to accept them no matter what the reputational cost might be. Yes it sets a bad precedent, but Trump is a bad precedent in his own right, and subsequent bad precedents follow directly from that fact.

The one thing I would say is a red herring in your accounting is the 'Fifth Amendment' issue. OK, so once you accept a pardon, you can't claim immunity from testifying in a legal case due to fear of self-incrimination. But how on earth does that apply here? As you say, none of Trump's intended victims have actually committed or participated in any crimes. Their testimony in supposed trials about those crimes would be meaningless - there were no crimes.

Finally and pre-emptively, I'd note another argument you didn't make but which I've read elsewhere: that Biden's granting of blanket pardons would facilitate future blanket pardons by Trump, or other imagined future presidents. Nonsense. Trump will do what he wants with the pardon power - like pardoning every January 6th defendant and convict, as he has already said he intends to do - no matter what Biden does in this matter in the next few weeks. As with the Hunter Biden pardon, arguments 'what-about-Trump-if-Biden-does-X' assume that Trump thinks and operates in good faith regarding precedents and traditions.

He doesn't. That's the whole problem in the first place, which Biden simply has to deal with as best he can.