Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Trump has more black support than any other GOP POTUS in modern history.
Dope #2 checks in.
If you believe the above then you are a complete moron.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Trump has more black support than any other GOP POTUS in modern history.
Dope #2 checks in.
If you believe the above then you are a complete moron.
Dick Tator wrote:
Sorry, but your Trump was not elected dictator. He is subject to laws of the US.
"Your" Trump.
LOL!
The Fokus wrote:
Dick Tator wrote:
Sorry, but your Trump was not elected dictator. He is subject to laws of the US.
"Your" Trump.
LOL!
He is one of "yours."
Apologies to all for giving Flagpole oxygen, but wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
"A pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt."
How does this work when the pardon is issued with the explicit rational that the party is innocent and/or was unjustly convicted?
A good question, and since I am not defending my correct view on this, I will answer.
The power of the President isn't unlimited. He or she doesn't get to determine innocence or not. If the person in question is indeed innocent and they want to be known as innocent and found to be innocent (or not guilty), then they need to go through appeal and other legal channels to get that done.
Also, only the courts can determine that someone was unjustly convicted. A President doesn't just get to decide that. A President might THINK that a person was unjustly convicted, but that doesn't make it so.
The Fokus wrote:
Right. And all of your points will be in the report. The report will not charge Trump with anything. It then becomes a political football. The Democrats will not have the votes to convict on an impeachment. Therefore the only way Trump is removed from office is by being voted out.
You missed one possibility.
Resignation
Nixon resigned before an impeachment vote was held to avoid the embarrassment of being impeached.
Maybe Clinton should have resigned before facing his trial.
A Senate trial after impeachment is going to bring a lot of the Mueller facts to light. We don't know everything now, but we would find out in a trial.
If there is some bad stuff in there, Trump could resign to save face.
And the politics of a vote for conviction could change. Right now you're not going to get 15-20 Republican senators to vote to convict. But that could change as more details come out.
In fact, even though he is stubborn, I'd bet that Trump would resign before taking an impeachment conviction and being forced out.
The Fokus wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Wow...you don't know what you're talking about.
Cohen has said Trump was a co-conspirator and even the director of two felonies that directly violate campaign finance laws.
He has obstructed justice openly.
He has admitted to conspiracy with regard to Don Jr., and Mueller for sure has proof that Trump knew about the TT meeting ahead of time.
We also have the Emoluments clause case out there, the look into Trump Foundation case out there, very likely bank fraud and wire fraud and if Cohen is to be believed, a hacking charge.
Clinton was impeached for far less. Nixon wasn't as bad, and he would have been impeached and convicted, so he resigned.
I'm no dope brother. I am the great predictor, and I will be proven right.
You are like a lot of people who don't believe anything has changed until the conviction is sealed. Lots of dominoes to fall, but that first one has been pushed, and they will all fall.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done, and we shall see who is the dope on that one. Tip...it won't be me.
Right. And all of your points will be in the report. The report will not charge Trump with anything. It then becomes a political football. The Democrats will not have the votes to convict on an impeachment. Therefore the only way Trump is removed from office is by being voted out.
When it is all laid out clearly what Trump did, the Senate will vote to convict. They will tell Trump they have the votes to do so ahead of time, and, if he hasn't already resigned due to a plea deal, he will resign then, though he could surprise me and make the Senate vote him out. He will not finish his term.
Don't forget that Trump can be indicted after he is no longer in office. His big bargaining chip right now to stay out of prison is to say he will resign if they don't pursue prison time.
Republicans backed Nixon all the way until the very end when they didn't. Same will happen here.
L L wrote:
The Fokus wrote:
Right. And all of your points will be in the report. The report will not charge Trump with anything. It then becomes a political football. The Democrats will not have the votes to convict on an impeachment. Therefore the only way Trump is removed from office is by being voted out.
You missed one possibility.
Resignation
Nixon resigned before an impeachment vote was held to avoid the embarrassment of being impeached.
Maybe Clinton should have resigned before facing his trial.
A Senate trial after impeachment is going to bring a lot of the Mueller facts to light. We don't know everything now, but we would find out in a trial.
If there is some bad stuff in there, Trump could resign to save face.
And the politics of a vote for conviction could change. Right now you're not going to get 15-20 Republican senators to vote to convict. But that could change as more details come out.
In fact, even though he is stubborn, I'd bet that Trump would resign before taking an impeachment conviction and being forced out.
I think you are right. Just too much potential leverage for him to resign. I suppose if the Senate comes to him and says the votes are close or JUST over the line, he might take a chance on trying to sway some votes, but that seems risky. He is so illogical though, so it is tough to know for sure what he will do. I'm sure he wishes to God that he never ran for President...I'm sure Cohen and others wish that too.
quit while you're ahead wrote:
Flagpole, you are obviously not a lawyer, and from the way he/she writes, it seems likely that Fat Hurts is one, or at least knows more about the law than you. I think you ought not offer such confident opinions about thinks you are not really expert in.
Ha! Look, I like Flagpole (mostly) on this thread, I think he's done a good job (though his habit of repeating his little mantra is a bit annoying, and was EXTREMELY annoying on the pre-election thread: "100% Hillary will win. 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100% , 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, etc, etc.............I begged him to stop, he wouldn't listen). And I think he's overall improved a lot as a poster. In fact, I think he's made some very good posts on this thread. However, your advice above (bolded) won't be heeded. Because that's Flagpole's specialty: claiming expertise waaaaay above and beyond what he actually has (I've seen tell countless experts in various topics on this board that they were dead wrong, and he was right because......he's Flagpole. He told me I had no idea what I was talking about on a nutrition topic, and should "find a new subject" to debate him on, when he was 100% wrong on what he was talking about, and his knowledge and education on the topic was dwarfed by mine. He didn't care, he's Flagpole. But I guess lots of other people do that too.)
35,400
"Manafort not guilty on all charges!!!!"
///
Did I get that right, 'Manafort acquittal' ? You know, I don't want to be misquoting you.
Cohen flipped and is talking. The only winning move from Trump is not to play. Bye bye.
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
quit while you're ahead wrote:
Flagpole, you are obviously not a lawyer, and from the way he/she writes, it seems likely that Fat Hurts is one, or at least knows more about the law than you. I think you ought not offer such confident opinions about thinks you are not really expert in.
Ha! Look, I like Flagpole (mostly) on this thread, I think he's done a good job (though his habit of repeating his little mantra is a bit annoying, and was EXTREMELY annoying on the pre-election thread: "100% Hillary will win. 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100% , 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, etc, etc.............I begged him to stop, he wouldn't listen). And I think he's overall improved a lot as a poster. In fact, I think he's made some very good posts on this thread. However, your advice above (bolded) won't be heeded. Because that's Flagpole's specialty: claiming expertise waaaaay above and beyond what he actually has (I've seen tell countless experts in various topics on this board that they were dead wrong, and he was right because......he's Flagpole. He told me I had no idea what I was talking about on a nutrition topic, and should "find a new subject" to debate him on, when he was 100% wrong on what he was talking about, and his knowledge and education on the topic was dwarfed by mine. He didn't care, he's Flagpole. But I guess lots of other people do that too.)
Nobody does it quite like Flaggy! I've seen him do the same thing on financial topics, sports . . . even bigfoot sightings. He's an all around know-it-all (even when he is wrong). And not admitting his own errors is a specialty of his.
Still, he has been a net positive on this thread.
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
quit while you're ahead wrote:
Flagpole, you are obviously not a lawyer, and from the way he/she writes, it seems likely that Fat Hurts is one, or at least knows more about the law than you. I think you ought not offer such confident opinions about thinks you are not really expert in.
Flagpole ... was EXTREMELY annoying on the pre-election thread: "100% Hillary will win. ... (I begged him to stop, he wouldn't listen). ... your advice above (bolded) won't be heeded. Because that's Flagpole's specialty: claiming expertise waaaaay above and beyond what he actually has....
Completely lost on both you klowns (quit while you're ahead and ]Tyrone ReXXXing) is that you have assigned yourselves as uber-experts in deciding who is an expert, and who is not. Both of you boys need to go take your nap. Run along now.
Flagpole wrote:
I am the great predictor ....
Very few people could write the above without being ironic/sarcastic after having guaranteed something would happen for months, and months, and months, only to have that 100% guaranteed prediction spectacularly blow up in his face the way it did for Flagpole. Very few (and also after having made MANY other incorrect predictions on this board in the past [Webb won't beat Ritz in 10k, etc, etc] ).
Seriously Flagpole, "the Great Predictor" ???? How about, the great coin flipper?
(I am only giving you grief because while I agree with you here, you have been spectacularly wrong on so many occasions, with the Hillary guarantee still fresh in everyone's mind. And also because you love to make this about YOU. This isn't about you. It's about Trump)
1100 wrote:
"Manafort not guilty on all charges!!!!"
///
Did I get that right, 'Manafort acquittal' ? You know, I don't want to be misquoting you.
Manafort has lots of options to pursue. Jury was not sequestered. Mistrial declared on more than half of the charges.
Suck on that, hillary loving fairies.
Tea ReXXXing wrote:
Completely lost on both you klowns (quit while you're ahead and ]Tyrone ReXXXing) is that you have assigned yourselves as uber-experts in deciding who is an expert, and who is not. Both of you boys need to go take your nap. Run along now.
If you put that in English I will respond. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are rambling on about.
It ain’t over wrote:
1100 wrote:
"Manafort not guilty on all charges!!!!"
///
Did I get that right, 'Manafort acquittal' ? You know, I don't want to be misquoting you.
Manafort has lots of options to pursue. Jury was not sequestered. Mistrial declared on more than half of the charges.
Suck on that, hillary loving fairies.
lol. Brilliant reply to the guy razzing you.
You do understand that a "mistrial" was declared on a bunch of charges because......the jury was not unanimous in finding him guilty on those particular charges, right? It doesn't mean there were any unfair actions by the prosecutor, or judge, or jury.
Don't get your hopes up for "great guy" Manafort. Well, except for the Trump pardon. I'm sure he'll get that.
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
If you put that in English I will respond. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are rambling on about.
^ Being a language clown is a sure sign of a person who has lost a discussion.
Flagpole wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
It's definitely not the law. I defy you to find a single statute that says accepting a pardon is an assumption of guilt. Whether or not Burdick even applies here is an open question. One obscure dictum in a single case from 1912 does not make it the law. There are plenty of expert legal minds that agree with me.
But since neither of us is actually a lawyer, I'll make this my last post on the subject. Feel free to have the last word.
Since Fat hurts started this by calling me out on something I was right about, I WILL respond to him.
It was 1915 by the way, not 1912. Perhaps you don't have the rest of it right either.
President Ford used the Burdick v. United States case to justify pardoning Nixon!
The SCOTUS ruled. There is no SCOTUS decision that overturns that decision.
Sorry Fat hurts, but you are wrong. SOME legal minds might agree with you (I haven't seen any evidence of that), but that's only because you have dissenting views on ANY case. Sometimes a court case comes up down the line that challenges a case and then IT becomes the defining one.
As we sit today, if you accept a pardon, you are admitting guilt.
"A pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt."
You can reject a pardon if you so choose.
That can not be more clear, and Ford used that to rationalize pardoning Nixon, because Ford felt ok with it because it didn't remove guilt from Nixon.
Make darn sure you are right in the future before calling me out, because I am hardly ever wrong, and I am not wrong here.
Since you accused me of poor preparation, I'll have to go back on my word. I suggest you Google "does accepting a pardon imply guilt". You will find plenty of good legal minds who disagree with you.
Then Google "obiter dictum and stare decicis". Your argument ignores these legal principles. Your error is in assuming that every utterance in a decision is considered to be law. It is only those arguments central to the case that form precedent. So the question is whether or not your cherished quote is crucial to the logic used to arrive at the Burdick decision. Some say yes. Others say no. It's an open question.
Language Clowns wrote:
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
If you put that in English I will respond. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are rambling on about.
^ Being a language clown is a sure sign of a person who has lost a discussion.
Grammar trolls are the scum of the interwebs.
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06