Jump to content

Trump Pardon Watch Thread

Hookah Horns

By Hookah Horns
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Popular Post
wildcat09

wildcat09 29564

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 minute ago, hullabelew said:

And THAT'S why I stay off of CR.  Thanks for your response.  

“You guys, I’ve got secret inside sources I can’t reveal that have told me these war criminals who massacred 17 civilians were actually framed and didn’t do it! What’s that? You want evidence? FUCK YOU HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME YOU MONSTER!”

  • Hook 'Em 9
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 553
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

washparkhorn
washparkhorn

The Turkeys Corn and Cob are not amused by all the anti-pardon rancor.   

HenryJames
HenryJames
Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Yep. However, one of my law school profs DID lead a lawsuit against Chile, for assassinating a Chilean dissident on US soil.  Chile said "fuck you, get your judgment and try to collect!"  So, he

Posted Images

Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted

If your friend had evidence to the contrary, he probably should have presented during their jury trial. 
 

The FBI probably were in on the railroad 

Quote

Federal agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians have found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case.

Investigators found no evidence to support assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians. That finding sharply contradicts initial assertions by Blackwater officials, who said that company employees fired in self-defense and that three company vehicles were damaged by gunfire.

Government officials said the shooting occurred when security guards fired in response to gunfire by other members of their unit in the mistaken belief that they were under attack. One official said, “I wouldn’t call it a massacre, but to say it was unwarranted is an understatement.”

The military were in on the railroading 

Quote

A separate military review of the Sept. 16 shootings concluded that all of the killings were unjustified and potentially criminal. One of the military investigators said the F.B.I. was being generous to Blackwater in characterizing any of the killings as justifiable.

And fellow blackwater contractors on the same team participated in the railroading 

Quote

WASHINGTON Three private security guards working for Blackwater Worldwide who witnessed a 2007 episode in Baghdad in which at least 17 Iraqi civilians were killed by other Blackwater guards told a federal grand jury that they believed the shootings were unjustified, according to newly unsealed court documents

Biggest railroading I’ve ever seen. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106662

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
2 hours ago, hullabelew said:

Those Blackwater guys got fucked.  Originally indicted in 2008, charges dropped in 2009, then Biden went to Baghdad and promised to reopen the case, and he got it done.    Without getting in to details on here, I can say that everything we have read and heard on the news is less than correct.  I have a good friend who has had to be in many meetings concerning this situation.  He told me he would be in meetings then when the news stories come out, they read nothing like what actually occurred in the meetings.   He said most times, it was like the reporters were in a completely different meeting.  And this is true of both sides of our current "news" media.  

 

You know who got actual evidence?  The court and jury who heard the case and convicted them.

You know who got the chance to introduce exculpatory evidence?  The guys on trial.

It don't make a shit what the media said or didn't say about the case.  The case wasn't tried on CNN.  It was tried in court.  With evidence, not thirdhand printed stories and shit.

  • Hook 'Em 11
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29564

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You know who got actual evidence?  The court and jury who heard the case and convicted them.

You know who got the chance to introduce exculpatory evidence?  The guys on trial.

It don't make a shit what the media said or didn't say about the case.  The case wasn't tried on CNN.  It was tried in court.  With evidence, not thirdhand printed stories and shit.

But don't you see, Brisket, he knows a guy who was in meetings!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21740

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, hullabelew said:

Those Blackwater guys got fucked.  Originally indicted in 2008, charges dropped in 2009, then Biden went to Baghdad and promised to reopen the case, and he got it done.    Without getting in to details on here, I can say that everything we have read and heard on the news is less than correct.  I have a good friend who has had to be in many meetings concerning this situation.  He told me he would be in meetings then when the news stories come out, they read nothing like what actually occurred in the meetings.   He said most times, it was like the reporters were in a completely different meeting.  And this is true of both sides of our current "news" media.  

 

I was roommates with an ex-Marine who was in Blackwater* circa 2009, and he said that a couple of the guys charged were known hot heads, hanging on by a thread. You're right: single source anecdotal evidence is fun!

*Well, technically it was Xe Services at the time, just before its 2nd rebrand to Academi.

Edited by aggie08
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't know anything more about the Blackwater trial/pardons than basic headlines.  But...

There's a long-standing, and very unwritten rule regarding western countries trying their own citizens for possible War Crimes.  It's that basically lots and lots of War Crimes go unreported, likely the vast majority.  So when one does come to light and goes on public trial, the judicial effort against the defendants is often (not always) more extreme, and the punishments more severe (not always, often).  

One thing I do know is that just as the frequently-lauded Trump federal judiciary appointments were not really his idea, but just a list given to him because so many vacancies were waiting for a GOP administration, any GOP administration, to be filled.  So too is this Pardon List.  Other than a handful of people he actually knows and that were involved in some of his crimes from 2015 to now...most of these are pardons are issued because of what his "handlers" are telling him to do.  He wouldn't know  a military war crime from a contractor war crime from a SAC/SOG war crime committed by his own CIA. 

You could tell Trump tomorrow that a Court Martial is where you go ask a judge to impose Martial Law in states you are contesting the elections of, and he'd make the call to fuel up Air Force One (just remember to spell it 'Marshall' in the memo, otherwise he'll think you're talking about Karate from shithole countries).

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106662

Posted
Posted
Just now, aggie08 said:

I was roommates with an ex-Marine who was currently in Blackwater* in 2010, and he said that a couple of the guys were known hot heads, hanging on by a thread. You're right: single source anecdotal evidence is fun!

*Well, technically it was Xe Services at the time, just before its 2nd rebrand to Academi.

Yep.  I know some vets who crossed paths with Blackwater over there, and their evaluations were....not good.  But again, anecdotal.  The charges and conviction were about what actually happened in one actual incident based on actual evidence that was introduced at an actual trial.  

Sometimes, Americans can do really bad shit.  Sometimes, American mercenaries do super seriously really bad shit.  This time, it was so bad that they were charged, tried, and convicted for it.

Just like the BP agents were convicted of shooting an unarmed subject in the back.  But, you know, he was a brown dude, and he'd been doing bad stuff, so a summary death penalty issued in the field by men with badges is absolutely the right way for the law to work.

That's what these pardons stand for.  It's horrific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106662

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Lobo said:

I don't anything more about the Blackwater trial/pardons than basic headlines.  But...

There's a long-standing, and very unwritten rule regarding western countries trying their own citizens for possible War Crimes.  It's that basically lots and lots of War Crimes go unreported, likely the vast majority.  So when one does come to light and goes on public trial, the judicial effort against the defendants is often (not always) more extreme, and the punishments more severe (not always, often).  

One thing I do know is that just as the frequently-lauded Trump federal judiciary appointments were not really his idea, but just a list given to him because so many vacancies were waiting for a GOP administration, any GOP administration, to be filled.  So too is this Pardon List.  Other than a handful of people he actually knows and that were involved in some of his crimes from 2015 to now...most of these are pardons are issued because of what his "handlers" are telling him to do.  He wouldn't know  a military war crime from a contractor war crime from a SAC/SOG war crime committed by his own CIA.  You could tell him tomorrow that a Court Martial is where you go ask a judge to impose Martial Law in states you are contesting the elections of and he'd make the call to fuel up Air Force One.  

If you think that "and come on, sir, the Blackwater guys were just doing what we're supposed to do over there -- wasting ragheads.  And the BP agents shot a mexican drug smuggler -- Duterte in the Philippines is giving out MEDALS for that!" wasn't part of the equation, you haven't been paying attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21477

Posted
Posted

So what is a blanket pardon going for?  I haven’t done anything in my life that I would need a pardon for, but better safe than sorry.  I might sleep a little better at night if I had a document stating that I was excused from any criminal acts I have ever committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 86993

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

“You guys, I’ve got secret inside sources I can’t reveal that have told me these war criminals who massacred 17 civilians were actually framed and didn’t do it! What’s that? You want evidence? FUCK YOU HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME YOU MONSTER!”

As usual, someone wades into CR, throws out something stupid without evidence and then cries and whines about it right after. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106662

Posted
Posted
Just now, Js1 said:

As usual, someone wades into CR, throws out something stupid without evidence and then cries and whines about it right after. 

No, fuckhead, he had evidence.  His best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw the Blackwater guys NOT shoot any civilians at 31 Flavors last night.   And that TOTALLY voids whatever "evidence" you think the "court" may have heard at the "trial."

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

With every hour that passes I love the "look my guy was in meetings!" more and more.

Like, ok? Meetings with whom?

It's becoming the new "A lot of people are saying" 

"My guy who was in meetings is saying that this Georgia recount effort is not over.  A lot of people down there are saying I won that state by a lot."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18096

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

So what is a blanket pardon going for?  I haven’t done anything in my life that I would need a pardon for, but better safe than sorry.  I might sleep a little better at night if I had a document stating that I was excused from any criminal acts I have ever committed.

Eventually it will come out.  Shits's going to come out for a long time on this one.  For example, it's coming out that Trump awarded contracts to build the wall...on land the US doesn't own.  Then argued in court that the US should get the land, because if it didn't, there would be a penalty.  We are going to be uncovering shit like this for years and plenty of shit will never be uncovered, because it's simply been open season for crooks for four years.  But hey, it certainly drives the libs nuts!

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12/23/trump-border-wall-land-texas/

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106662

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

You guys need to lay off Hulla.  He's good people. 

 

I like Hulla.  I really do.  Doesn't mean he's not off-base here.  Your friend's third-hand anecdotes probably don't trump actual evidence adduced at an actual trial resulting in an actual conviction.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18096

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I like Hulla.  I really do.  Doesn't mean he's not off-base here.  Your friend's third-hand anecdotes probably don't trump actual evidence adduced at an actual trial resulting in an actual conviction.

I didn't say he wasn't off base here.  If you're going come in and say something, you should back it up with evidence. 

It's the piling on gets a little manic around here sometimes.  Just calling it out like I see it.  Because that's what we do in the CR.  

Carry on, keyboard warrior brethren.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31996

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Defend this Trumpkins:

 

Not really gonna defend, but I will give some perspective.

FIrst, the immunity is not for the death of Khashoggi, it's for a civil case in which a Canadian filed in US court, against a Saudi, for acts occurring in Canada.

On occasion a US court will permit itself to be used in this fashion, to hear a dispute that has zero nexus with the United States.  But it's rare and I can't fathom why it should happen here.

A shortcut to that is that the Department of State can grant a foreign sovereign representative sovereign immunity in US courts as sort of an "international comity" thing.    As the article makes clear it is a pretty common thing, as US courts ruling on or against foreign sovereigns can be srs business.  It's not like immunity from prosecution.  I actually see no way US courts could exercise criminal jurisdiction over this, anyway.

So, really, a whole lot of mostly nothin here.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not really gonna defend, but I will give some perspective.

FIrst, the immunity is not for the death of Khashoggi, it's for a civil case in which a Canadian filed in US court, against a Saudi, for acts occurring in Canada.

On occasion a US court will permit itself to be used in this fashion, to hear a dispute that has zero nexus with the United States.  But it's rare and I can't fathom why it should happen here.

A shortcut to that is that the Department of State can grant a foreign sovereign representative sovereign immunity in US courts as sort of an "international comity" thing.    As the article makes clear it is a pretty common thing, as US courts ruling on or against foreign sovereigns can be srs business.  It's not like immunity from prosecution.  I actually see no way US courts could exercise criminal jurisdiction over this, anyway.

So, really, a whole lot of mostly nothin here.

Yep. The chances of a US court trying a Saudi Prince for a criminal case are way lower than trump himself getting tried for a crime. The latter is actually possible, but unlikely. The former will never happen.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 28093

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Defend this Trumpkins:

 

Can someone explain under what jurisdiction the US would bring any potential charges? Without a doubt it was horrible event, but how is our government in a position to mete out justice on him as an individual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106662

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not really gonna defend, but I will give some perspective.

FIrst, the immunity is not for the death of Khashoggi, it's for a civil case in which a Canadian filed in US court, against a Saudi, for acts occurring in Canada.

On occasion a US court will permit itself to be used in this fashion, to hear a dispute that has zero nexus with the United States.  But it's rare and I can't fathom why it should happen here.

A shortcut to that is that the Department of State can grant a foreign sovereign representative sovereign immunity in US courts as sort of an "international comity" thing.    As the article makes clear it is a pretty common thing, as US courts ruling on or against foreign sovereigns can be srs business.  It's not like immunity from prosecution.  I actually see no way US courts could exercise criminal jurisdiction over this, anyway.

So, really, a whole lot of mostly nothin here.

Yep.

However, one of my law school profs DID lead a lawsuit against Chile, for assassinating a Chilean dissident on US soil.  Chile said "fuck you, get your judgment and try to collect!"  So, he did.

Problem with Chile's strategy was that, at the time, LAN Chile was a state-owned airline.  So, he showed up at JFK with the US Marshals and his $15 million judgment, and had them seize a LAN Chile 747 in satisfaction of the judgment.

Payment of the $15 million followed very shortly thereafter.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31996

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Can someone explain under what jurisdiction the US would bring any potential charges? Without a doubt it was horrible event, but how is our government in a position to mete out justice on him as an individual?

See post above.  This isn't even directly related to Khashoggi.  It's some other dude who allegedly had a hit squad come after him in Canada.

The lawsuit apparently alleges some tiny nexus to the US, but it isn't clear what.

Also, this is not a criminal case.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31996

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.

However, one of my law school profs DID lead a lawsuit against Chile, for assassinating a Chilean dissident on US soil.  Chile said "fuck you, get your judgment and try to collect!"  So, he did.

Problem with Chile's strategy was that, at the time, LAN Chile was a state-owned airline.  So, he showed up at JFK with the US Marshals and his $15 million judgment, and had them seize a LAN Chile 747 in satisfaction of the judgment.

Payment of the $15 million followed very shortly thereafter.

Tigar was a most amusing cat.

That story always conjured this.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.

However, one of my law school profs DID lead a lawsuit against Chile, for assassinating a Chilean dissident on US soil.  Chile said "fuck you, get your judgment and try to collect!"  So, he did.

Problem with Chile's strategy was that, at the time, LAN Chile was a state-owned airline.  So, he showed up at JFK with the US Marshals and his $15 million judgment, and had them seize a LAN Chile 747 in satisfaction of the judgment.

Payment of the $15 million followed very shortly thereafter.

That’s a great story. Was it a default judgment or did they actually have a trial? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21477

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.

However, one of my law school profs DID lead a lawsuit against Chile, for assassinating a Chilean dissident on US soil.  Chile said "fuck you, get your judgment and try to collect!"  So, he did.

Problem with Chile's strategy was that, at the time, LAN Chile was a state-owned airline.  So, he showed up at JFK with the US Marshals and his $15 million judgment, and had them seize a LAN Chile 747 in satisfaction of the judgment.

Payment of the $15 million followed very shortly thereafter.

Was the class he taught called fuck around and find out?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29564

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I didn't say he wasn't off base here.  If you're going come in and say something, you should back it up with evidence. 

It's the piling on gets a little manic around here sometimes.  Just calling it out like I see it.  Because that's what we do in the CR.  

Carry on, keyboard warrior brethren.

We need to have higher expectations of our "good people." If he's not a troll and if he actually had a friend who told him something along the lines of "look, I was in some meetings, ok, and these guys got a raw deal and are actually good guys" and didn't bother to think critically about it for even one second, that's a problem. You have that sort of gullibility about shit you want to believe and millions of Americans preferring to be gullible about shit like this rather than acknowledge some hard truths about what has been done in their name are why we have QAnon now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106662

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Tigar was a most amusing cat.

That story always conjured this.

 

Tigar did indeed have the best "war stories" of any of our profs.  Mostly because he'd actually gone to war plenty of times.  Would tell stories of "defending individuals who were accused of engaging in business activities with gentlemen whose names ended in vowels," that sort of thing.

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

That’s a great story. Was it a default judgment or did they actually have a trial? 

Pretty sure it was a default judgment, but can't recall exactly.

1 minute ago, conVINCEd said:

Was the class he taught called fuck around and find out?

Close.  "Federal Civil Procedure."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...