Donald Trump 2018

[Chuckie Finster 23,070]

13 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Opinion: Trump has the power to pardon himself and anybody else convicted of crimes re: Russia etc....

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-can-president-donald-trump-pardon-himself-yes/

Sweet, can you next please let me know Rush and Hannity's thoughts on the topic too?

[GSU&UT 1,799]

Who the fuck was saying it was complete hyperbole that Trump is acting like a dictator? Care to speak up now?

[TheStoicPaisano 9,953]

3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

I hear it’s bound in rich Corinthian leather.

Corinth is famous for its leather!

[Hornius Emeritus 12,803]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Well, he may not be a lawyer, but he did go to Oral Roberts U...I guess the matter is settled.

 

The article  cites  UCal-Berkley law professor and former legal adviser to the Geoge W. Bush administration John Yoo, who presumably is a lawyer.  

[David Dennison 19,538]

People who still support this man are un-American. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,860]

3 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

The article  cites  UCal-Berkley law professor and former legal adviser to the Geoge W. Bush administration John Yoo, who presumably is a lawyer.  

He's a goddamned immigrant, and should shut up and go home!!!

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

The founding fathers were all about having the leaders be above the law right? 

[safe sex 12,007]

10 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

The article  cites  UCal-Berkley law professor and former legal adviser to the Geoge W. Bush administration John Yoo, who presumably is a lawyer.  

Ah yes, one of the architects and defenders of the Bush torture programs.

Edited June 4, 2018 by trauma babe

[Chuckie Finster 23,070]

Quote

Pruitt had aide do numerous personal tasks, including a hunt for a used Trump hotel mattress

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/pruitt-had-aide-do-numerous-personal-tasks-including-a-hunt-for-a-used-trump-hotel-mattress/2018/06/04/a1f72c84-6043-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html?utm_term=.b709fcc99fdc

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[lemonlime 5,503]

15 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

The article  cites  UCal-Berkley law professor and former legal adviser to the Geoge W. Bush administration John Yoo, who presumably is a lawyer.  

Oh, yes, the lawyer who the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility concluded committed "intentional professional misconduct" when he "knowingly failed to provide a thorough, objective, and candid interpretation of the law" for his memo in support of torturing people.  Good times.

[Hornius Emeritus 12,803]

5 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Oh, yes, the lawyer who the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility concluded committed "intentional professional misconduct" when he "knowingly failed to provide a thorough, objective, and candid interpretation of the law" for his memo in support of torturing people.  Good times.

 

This would be a relevant observation were it true that just because a man was wrong in one instance it means he is wrong in another.  

 

[BrickHorn 18,447]

2 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

This would be a relevant observation were it true that just because a man was wrong in one instance it means he is wrong in another.  

 

Yoo’s history of advocating for despotism should affect the weight you assign to his opinion.  

Edited June 4, 2018 by BrickHorn

[SubliminalHorn 7,009]

16 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

The founding fathers were all about having the leaders be above the law right? 

Which makes it all the more mysterious that they even included an arguably complete pardon power. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12,803]

2 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Yoo’s history of advocating for despotism should affect the weight you assign to his opinion.  

Okay,  so Yoo is Hitler incarnate.  But is he wrong?

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

4 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Which makes it all the more mysterious that they even included an arguably complete pardon power. 

They included many things that have led to losing arguments. If you couldn't make arguments, we wouldn't need a supreme court.  

[BrickHorn 18,447]

5 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Okay,  so Yoo is Hitler incarnate.  But is he wrong?

Your first sentence misses the point.  You cite Yoo as an expert on law, as a way to buttress his view with his credentials.  My point is: Yoo has shown a clear bias in favor of authoritarianism in previous legal analyses, and you have to weigh that against his alleged expertise when gauging his credibility.

Whether he’s right or wrong here, I don’t know.  I haven’t read the article nor have I closely studied the law on pardon power.  

Edited June 4, 2018 by BrickHorn

[safe sex 12,007]

I've studied him enough to know he's a piece of shit, right or wrong on this issue.

[Brisketexan 106,890]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I can’t believe a U.S. Senator was denied access to a detention center, any detention center.  

Those security guards have some serious balls because getting on the wrong side of a U.S. Senator is not advisable as a government employee.

Oh....you seem to be operating under the presumption that we still have "U.S. Senators."  

You're adorable.

We have "Party Members" and "not Party Members."  That's how dictatorships work -- did you not get that memo?  If you are part of Team Trump, you have a role in this government.  If not, you should shut up and count yourself lucky that you aren't being arrested.

[Mdhorn 6,166]

1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

There are two ways to spell council/counsel and somehow this fuck picked neither.  

Pretty sure he'd f'k up the word pencil too.

[lemonlime 5,503]

2 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

This would be a relevant observation were it true that just because a man was wrong in one instance it means he is wrong in another.  

 

It's not that he was "wrong."  It's that in the past he lied about what the law said, leading to a referral to the state ethics committee.  And you are the one citing to his credentials in support of a legal argument.  

[Hornius Emeritus 12,803]

Just now, lemonlime said:

It's not that he was "wrong."  It's that in the past he lied about what the law said, leading to a referral to the state ethics committee.  And you are the one citing to his credentials in support of a legal argument.  

I admitted that he is Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the Boston Strangler all rolled up into one person.  But is he wrong?

[jimmyjazz 47,183]

1 minute ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

I admitted that he is Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the Boston Strangler all rolled up into one person.  But is he wrong?

Based on limited observation, I don't think there is a clear consensus on that issue.  So . . . who knows?  

[DDD Dad 14,648]

1 minute ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

I admitted that he is Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the Boston Strangler all rolled up into one person.  But is he wrong?

Well he has a history of intentionally misleading with his legal analysis, but we should ignore that because even a broken watch is right twice a day.

[wildcat09 29,579]

16 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Okay,  so Yoo is Hitler incarnate.  But is he wrong?

Yes, he's wrong. It's the one thing he's very good at being.

Edited June 4, 2018 by wildcat09

[Hornius Emeritus 12,803]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Well he has a history of intentionally misleading with his legal analysis, but we should ignore that because even a broken watch is right twice a day.

 

Wow,  false equivalency and ad hominem in one sentence. Care to go for any more logical fallacies?

Do I have to list other legal scholars who agree with him before my question ("Is he right?")  is actually addressed?

 

[DDD Dad 14,648]

 

4 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

Wow,  false equivalency and ad hominem in one sentence. Care to go for any more logical fallacies?

Do I have to list other legal scholars who agree with him before my question ("Is he right?")  is actually addressed?

 

41 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Oh, yes, the lawyer who the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility concluded committed "intentional professional misconduct" when he "knowingly failed to provide a thorough, objective, and candid interpretation of the law" for his memo in support of torturing people.  Good times.

 

I know you're just asking questions, trolling but what is false equivalency and ad hominem was there in my response?

It's not that he might have been wrong in the past that detracts from his credibility, it's that he "knowingly failed to provide a thorough, objective, and candid interpretation of the law."

Others have addressed your question.  It's unprecedented, so who knows at this point?  

Edited June 4, 2018 by DDD Dad

[Biff Tannen 46,165]

Did someone hijack Hornius' account?

[Hornius Emeritus 12,803]

10 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

 

I know you're just asking questions, trolling but what is false equivalency and ad hominem was there in my response?

It's not that he might have been wrong in the past that detracts from his credibility, it's that he "knowingly failed to provide a thorough, objective, and candid interpretation of the law."

 

I'm not trolling.  You drew an equivalency between Mr. Yoo and a clock that is broken but right twice a day. That is a false equivalency.    The ad hominem is in the implication that because he was wrong in the past that he must be  wrong when it comes to this question. That's attacking the source. Also, it's plainly not true. 

Clearly, this man is credible enough to be a Constitutional Law professor at UC Berkeley.  The language of article II is quite explicit in giving the president the power of pardon over federal offenses, the only exception being that of impeachment.  I think it's possible that the President can make a textual case for the right to self-pardon, which is the point the editorial that I posted made.  If you disagree with this, please explain why.  This is a discussion forum and I ask that we discuss this legal scholar's opinion of a Constitutional question. 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Hornius Emeritus

[DDD Dad 14,648]

1 minute ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

I'm not trolling.  You drew an analogy between Mr. Yoo and a clock that is broken but right twice a day. That is a false equivalency.    The ad hominem is in the implication that because he was wrong in the past he is wrong when it comes to this question. That's attacking the source.

Clearly, this man is credible enough to be a Constitutional Law professor at UC Berkeley.  The language of article II is quite explicit in giving the president the power of pardon over federal offenses, the only exception being that of impeachment.  I think it's possible that the President can make a textual case for the right to self-pardon, which is the point the editorial that I posted made.  If you disagree with this, please explain why.  This is a discussion forum and I ask that we discuss this legal scholar's opinion of a Constitutional question. 

 

 

Start a thread then. 

I haven't formed a firm opinion on the president's right to self-pardon because I haven't researched the issue.  As I said, it's unprecedented.  That alone should give one pause as to whether the right exists.  

Let's not derail this thread with that discussion.  Fair?

[Hornius Emeritus 12,803]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

 

Let's not derail this thread with that discussion.  Fair?

 

Let's not derail a thread about Donald Trump ----- who is tweeting regarding whether or not he can pardon himself ------ with an editorial that address that question and cites a legal scholar regarding it?   What?  

[Pescado_Rojo 19,587]

Hitler Yoo talk not going away. 

[hpslugga 4,097]

Even if he does possess such power, and even if he chooses to exercise it, that’s the surest path to impeachment and removal.

[jimmyjazz 47,183]

2 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

The ad hominem is in the implication that because he was wrong in the past he is wrong when it comes to this question. That's attacking the source.

That's not what anyone is implying.  The point is that it is unwise to blindly trust Yoo's interpretation of the law, inasmuch as he has intentionally tried to mislead his audience in the past.

 

Quote

Clearly, this man is credible enough to be a Constitutional Law professor at UC Berkeley.  

Obama was the same at University of Chicago and people attacked his credibility often . . . nobody is exempt in politics.

[DDD Dad 14,648]

OK this will be the last time I take your bait.

Let's not derail this thread with an in depth discussion of the merits of an argument whether a sitting president can pardon himself or herself.

This is a meta thread.  If you want a real discussion on that issue, start another thread.  Stop shitting in this one.

[triplehorn 2,664]

“That Psychopath is Going Down”: Inside Trumpworld, A Bizarre Counter-narrative Takes Hold

"People in Trump’s orbit have become convinced that anti-Trump forces in the F.B.I. entrapped his advisers using informants to plant evidence about Russian collusion—and that former C.I.A. director John Brennan is somehow behind the plot. “If I were him, I’d break the capsule and swallow it now,” one longtime confidant says."

[Washpark 176]

 

[Chad Fuck 18,134]

5 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Even if he does possess such power, and even if he chooses to exercise it, that’s the surest path to impeachment and removal.

It isn't though, because this is a one party system now.  The R party is not impeaching their guy no matter how flagrant the violation of law or norms.  

[Biff Tannen 46,165]

The very fact that our president is talking about this and we are discussing it shows a) what a fucked up place we are in and b) that anyone who is innocent, as he claims to be, would not be fucking bringing this bullshit up.  Tar and feather this motherfucker.

[wildcat09 29,579]

7 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Even if he does possess such power, and even if he chooses to exercise it, that’s the surest path to impeachment and removal.

I'm not sure why anyone still believes this. The Republican Party has made it damned clear that there is no line they will not permit him to cross. As long as they have enough votes to prevent his removal, they will. There are a few GOP Senators who would probably vote to remove, but not nearly enough.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

The idea that the president can be his own judge and jury with a pardon for himself seems like it is directly opposed to what the founding fathers intended.

[staboner 5,084]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm not sure why anyone still believes this. The Republican Party has made it damned clear that there is no line they will not permit him to cross. As long as they have enough votes to prevent his removal, they will. There are a few GOP Senators who would probably vote to remove, but not nearly enough.

yeah i don't see anything like impeachment happening. for that to happen we need adults in charge, which is plainly obvious isn't the case. kiddos with numero uno in mind only - top to bottom. with a leader that is missing a soul and radiates self absorbed american asshole in some kind of amazing fashion never before seen. 

i can pardon myself. lol. 

well pardon me

[Chad Fuck 18,134]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The idea that the president can be his own judge and jury with a pardon for himself seems like it is directly opposed to what the founding fathers intended.

Of course it is.  

But how much faith do you have in the current Congress to hold him to task if he did cross this most basic tenet upon which our country was founded?  

 

[staboner 5,084]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The idea that the president can be his own judge and jury with a pardon for himself seems like it is directly opposed to what the founding fathers intended.

statement only matters to people of party opposite to president in question

ergo nothing matters

[Tuco 5,093]

31 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

The ad hominem is in the implication that because he was wrong in the past that he must be  wrong when it comes to this question. That's attacking the source. Also, it's plainly not true. 
 

 

 

People normally use "ad hominem" as short-hand for "ad hominem fallacy."  There are certainly times where it is perfectly logical to attack the source.  You've presented his credentials in support the argument. If the source has lied (or even was simply wrong) about a legal opinion in the past, it's perfectly logical to use that as a counterargument.  You can't have it both ways.  If you are claiming the argument stands on its own, then his credentials (and history of lying) are irrelevant.  If the argument does not stand on its own, then both are relevant.

Does his argument stand on its own?  I think for most non-legal scholar types, it's pretty hard to make that determination.  My plain reading of the Constitution would tend to state that he could pardon himself as long as there were no impeachment implications.  (For example, if he had already received non-removal verdict from the Senate for something that's illegal.)  If there are impeachment implications, I think it's arguable.  But I'm not a lawyer.  I would be interested in what "Constitutional scholars" would have to say on the subject, and their credentials and history would be important in determining their bias and competency.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Tuco

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I want to see the GOP Congress put in an uncomfortable position before the midterms.  I’m not so much concerned with what they would do.

Mueller issues report than conclusively illustrates Trump obstructed justice or Trump pardoning himself or his family members would force congress to either act or not act.

[GSU&UT 1,799]

18 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm not sure why anyone still believes this. The Republican Party has made it damned clear that there is no line they will not permit him to cross. As long as they have enough votes to prevent his removal, they will. There are a few GOP Senators who would probably vote to remove, but not nearly enough.

Yeah they aren't going to do shit if they haven't tried to rein him in by now. They've hitched their wagon to Lord Cheeto.

Edited June 4, 2018 by GSU&UT

[RomaVicta 30,583]

14 hours ago, retread said:

America 2018. He never gained access.

 

Wow. A US Senator denied access? Go, Merkley! Shine some light.

[retread 2,951]

We're purportedly separating children from their parents and interning them in an old Walmart with the windows blacked out. America 2018.

[RomaVicta 30,583]

3 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I know I shouldn't be... I know... but I am still amazed that "of course he would commit perjury if interviewed" is a generally accepted talking point about THE PRESIDENT.  Now he's openly talking about pardoning himself, good lord.

Of course he will pardon himself; he's innocent! Ipse dixit.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,169]

45 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

I'm not trolling.  You drew an equivalency between Mr. Yoo and a clock that is broken but right twice a day. That is a false equivalency.    The ad hominem is in the implication that because he was wrong in the past that he must be  wrong when it comes to this question. That's attacking the source. Also, it's plainly not true. 

Clearly, this man is credible enough to be a Constitutional Law professor at UC Berkeley.  The language of article II is quite explicit in giving the president the power of pardon over federal offenses, the only exception being that of impeachment.  I think it's possible that the President can make a textual case for the right to self-pardon, which is the point the editorial that I posted made.  If you disagree with this, please explain why.  This is a discussion forum and I ask that we discuss this legal scholar's opinion of a Constitutional question. 

 

 

Don't complain about logical fallacies in the same post you are going to make an appeal to authority, man.