Jump to content

Origin of Covid-19


statsman

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This new preemptive pardon landscape is like no other in history.  No President has ever preemptively pardoned anyone.

Oh, wait, some have?  Including Gerald Ford's preemptive pardon of Richard Fucking Nixon?

Never mind. #gilda

 

Ford’s pardon of Nixon created a bad precedent
Marshall H. Tanick
September 8, 2023 2:02 pm

Most of former President Trump’s rivals for the Republican presidential nomination have given full-throated support for him in his current criminal travails, even saying they would pardon him if he is convicted of any – or all – of the 90-something charges.

The notion that a president could be pardoned for criminal offenses would have been unthinkable at one time. But the precedent for doing so — which helps fuel the blessing given to a Trump pardon by his GOP opponents — occurred about a half century ago this week.

On a September Sunday in 1974, President Gerald R. Ford issued a “full, free and absolute” pardon to his predecessor, Richard M. Nixon.

The pardon took place within a month of Nixon’s resignation and the corresponding elevation of Ford.

The pardon shared the news cycle with another event of epic proportions that day: Daredevil Evel Knievel’s highly-vaunted motorcycle leap across the chasm of the Snake River Canyon in Idaho.

The stuntman heavily promoted his plan to traverse a span of the river at the bottom of the gorge, in a souped-up rocket-powered motorcycle. It was the kind of “can’t miss” event that attracted a great deal of attention,

He plunged into the river 500 feet below, due to what was deemed to be a parachute malfunction, although he suffered only minor injuries and continued his daring events until his death in 2007.

But as Evel was preparing for his leap that Sunday morning, Ford was engaged in preparation of another sort: Putting the final touches on the pardon that he issued to the prior occupant of the White House. In so doing, Ford explained that he made the decision to pardon Nixon while Watergate criminal cases were swirling.

The pardon was issued unilaterally by Ford under his constitutional authority in Article II. (In Minnesota, pardons are decided by a board consisting of the governor, attorney general, and chief justice of the state Supreme Court.)

Ford’s pardon was criticized at the time, which prompted him to make an unprecedented appearance before a congressional panel to deny that there was any deal made between him and Nixon, who had resigned a month earlier, on August 9th.

His public explanation quelled some of the critics, and over time it was seen as a somewhat heroic gesture, earning plaudits from many, including the Profile in Courage Award given by the family of one of Ford’s other predecessors, John F. Kennedy.
Pardon precedent

But that recent adulation for Ford’s pardon of Nixon looks foolish in retrospect. By failing to hold Nixon accountable for his wrongdoing, Ford created a precedent that allows many Trump supporters to maintain that he should not be subject to criminal prosecution or penalties for his actions, no matter how improper.

And now a would-be tyrant is plotting a return to the White House, promising vengeance on his perceived foes, and a recently-expressed pledge to “jail” his political opponents.

Had Nixon suffered the fate of other common criminals, including a guilty verdict and jail time, we’d have a template for future presidents who break the law and are afforded the same rights as every other citizen — no more, no less.

Ford’s pardon contributed to the current climate of impunity. Trump’s main GOP rivals promptly raised their hands when asked at the recent GOP debate about whether they would support him for president, even if he were to be convicted.

Many of them have already promised a pardon if they make it to the Oval Office.

Had Ford not pardoned Nixon and won plaudits for doing so, it’s possible many in the GOP would be less inclined to promise a pardon for Trump, were he to be convicted.

The notion that Trump has floated in the past that he has the “authority” to pardon himself would also be laughable, were it not for the template derived from Ford’s pardon of his predecessor.

Call it an Evel precedent.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Bevo
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh no, someone thought that pardon set a bad precedent.

That was my point in all this - It sets a bad precedent. And that article was recent. There were many, many people who said the same thing when Ford did it. In fact, it kept him from winning the election.

 

 

Quote

I see. You can conflate of bunch of things that are conceptually different, confuse opinions with facts, have no idea how to link something, and have a very loose understanding of history. 

 

I'm not sure what you are arguing, but I'll bet you @Dahobbs $250 that Trump will make a preemptive pardon. And if that occurs, I'll bet you another $250 that people on this board will complain about it.

Edited by Bevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bevo said:

Had Ford not pardoned Nixon and won plaudits for doing so, it’s possible many in the GOP would be less inclined to promise a pardon for Trump, were he to be convicted.

I guess you like reading articles written by stupid people. To blame the modern GOP for acting like cult member lapdogs because Ford pardoned Nixon for his criminal behavior at a time when the country was at historic divisiveness because of the Vietnam war is something someone could only come up with while on mushrooms. 

All of the cult members pledged to support him even if he was convicted of his many and varied criminal enterprises.   None of the cult members even remotely care what happened in the early 1970s….although I have heard from many that nothing Nixon did was as bad as wearing a tan suit and eating fancy mustard.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I guess you like reading articles written by stupid people. To blame the modern GOP for acting like cult member lapdogs because Ford pardoned Nixon for his criminal behavior at a time when the country was at historic divisiveness because of the Vietnam war is something someone could only come up with while on mushrooms. 

All of the cult members pledged to support him even if he was convicted of his many and varied criminal enterprises.   None of the cult members even remotely care what happened in the early 1970s….although I have heard from many that nothing Nixon did was as bad as wearing a tan suit and eating fancy mustard.

 

 

I do prefer quoting left leaning articles as it eliminates some of the ad hominem. But in case you were wondering about the opinion of the preemptive Ford pardon of Nixon: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-nixon-pardon-in-retrospect

The Nixon pardon in constitutional retrospect

September 8, 2024 | by NCC Staff

President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon on this day in 1974 generated a national controversy, but in recent years, some of the pardon’s biggest critics have changed their tunes on the unprecedented move.

Watergate reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward had vehemently opposed the pardon after Ford went on national television on September 8, 1974, to announce it. But in recent years, the former Washington Post journalists have approved of Ford’s move to absolve Nixon of any criminal charges related to the Watergate break-in and its cover-up.

In a July 2014 panel hosted by the Post, Woodward called the pardon “an act of courage.” He had talked with Ford decades after the pardon and said the former President made a “very compelling argument” for his actions based on national security and economic needs.

The late Senator Ted Kennedy said in 2001 that while he initially opposed the pardon, he had come to accept it as the best move for the country. And Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor and a Democrat, wrote about the pardon shortly after Ford’s passing in 2006.

“Did Ford make the right decision in pardoning his predecessor? The answer to that question is more nuanced than either the howls of outrage that greeted the pardon three decades ago or the general acceptance with which it is viewed now,” Ben-Veniste said in a commentary for the Post.

“The decision to pardon Nixon was a political judgment properly within the bounds of Ford's constitutional authority,” he argued. “Jerry Ford acted in accord with what he sincerely felt were the best interests of the country; that there was no secret quid pro quo with Nixon for a pardon in return for resignation; and that Ford, a compassionate man, was moved by the palpable suffering of a man who had lost so much.”

But in the months after the pardon back in 1974, most Americans didn’t approve of Ford’s move. In a Gallup poll taken 43 years ago, 53 percent of those polled disapproved of the pardon. However, in a 1986 Gallup poll, 54 percent of Americans said they now approved of the presidential pardon.

Ford appeared in front of a House judiciary committee in October 1974 to explain the pardon.

“I was absolutely convinced then as I am now that if we had had [an] indictment, a trial, a conviction, and anything else that transpired after this that the attention of the President, the Congress and the American people would have been diverted from the problems that we have to solve. And that was the principle reason for my granting of the pardon,” he told Representative Elizabeth Holtzman.

At a 2014 panel discussion, Ford’s lawyer during that period, Benton Becker, explained an additional element that influenced Ford’s decision to issue a presidential pardon: a 1915 Supreme Court decision. In Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that a pardon carried an "imputation of guilt" and accepting a pardon was "an admission of guilt.”. Thus, this decision implied that Nixon accepted his guilt in the Watergate controversy by also accepting Ford’s pardon.

Prior to Ford’s issuance of the pardon, Becker was tasked with the difficult job of mediating the negotiations between Ford and Nixon. Becker said he took copies of the Burdick decision to California when he met with former President Nixon, and under Ford’s instructions, walked through the decision with Nixon.

Becker said the discussion with Nixon was very difficult, and the former President kept trying to change the subject way from Burdick. Finally, Nixon acknowledged Becker’s argument about what the Supreme Court decision meant.

After he left the White House, Ford carried part of the Burdick decision with him in his wallet in case someone brought up the pardon. In a later interview with Woodward for Caroline Kennedy’s book, “Profiles in Courage for Our Time,” Ford pulled out the dog-eared decision and read the key parts of it to Woodward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bevo said:

That was my point in all this - It sets a bad precedent. And that article was recent. There were many, many people who said the same thing when Ford did it. In fact, it kept him from winning the election.

I don't think you understand what the word "precedent" means.  (By the way, Ford's preemptive pardon of Nixon wasn't the first, either.)

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFC, trump and friends committed legitimate crimes, and prosecuting them is not "weaponization." Lil' donny has talked about prosecuting political enimies where no crimes exist, which is the textbook definition of "weaponization." Of course the majority of the braindead electorate belives the opposite is true, because feelings matter more than facts. There's no use in debating these issues. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

 

Ford’s pardon of Nixon created a bad precedent
Marshall H. Tanick
September 8, 2023 2:02 pm

Most of former President Trump’s rivals for the Republican presidential nomination have given full-throated support for him in his current criminal travails, even saying they would pardon him if he is convicted of any – or all – of the 90-something charges.

The notion that a president could be pardoned for criminal offenses would have been unthinkable at one time. But the precedent for doing so — which helps fuel the blessing given to a Trump pardon by his GOP opponents — occurred about a half century ago this week.

On a September Sunday in 1974, President Gerald R. Ford issued a “full, free and absolute” pardon to his predecessor, Richard M. Nixon.

The pardon took place within a month of Nixon’s resignation and the corresponding elevation of Ford.

The pardon shared the news cycle with another event of epic proportions that day: Daredevil Evel Knievel’s highly-vaunted motorcycle leap across the chasm of the Snake River Canyon in Idaho.

The stuntman heavily promoted his plan to traverse a span of the river at the bottom of the gorge, in a souped-up rocket-powered motorcycle. It was the kind of “can’t miss” event that attracted a great deal of attention,

He plunged into the river 500 feet below, due to what was deemed to be a parachute malfunction, although he suffered only minor injuries and continued his daring events until his death in 2007.

But as Evel was preparing for his leap that Sunday morning, Ford was engaged in preparation of another sort: Putting the final touches on the pardon that he issued to the prior occupant of the White House. In so doing, Ford explained that he made the decision to pardon Nixon while Watergate criminal cases were swirling.

The pardon was issued unilaterally by Ford under his constitutional authority in Article II. (In Minnesota, pardons are decided by a board consisting of the governor, attorney general, and chief justice of the state Supreme Court.)

Ford’s pardon was criticized at the time, which prompted him to make an unprecedented appearance before a congressional panel to deny that there was any deal made between him and Nixon, who had resigned a month earlier, on August 9th.

His public explanation quelled some of the critics, and over time it was seen as a somewhat heroic gesture, earning plaudits from many, including the Profile in Courage Award given by the family of one of Ford’s other predecessors, John F. Kennedy.
Pardon precedent

But that recent adulation for Ford’s pardon of Nixon looks foolish in retrospect. By failing to hold Nixon accountable for his wrongdoing, Ford created a precedent that allows many Trump supporters to maintain that he should not be subject to criminal prosecution or penalties for his actions, no matter how improper.

And now a would-be tyrant is plotting a return to the White House, promising vengeance on his perceived foes, and a recently-expressed pledge to “jail” his political opponents.

Had Nixon suffered the fate of other common criminals, including a guilty verdict and jail time, we’d have a template for future presidents who break the law and are afforded the same rights as every other citizen — no more, no less.

Ford’s pardon contributed to the current climate of impunity. Trump’s main GOP rivals promptly raised their hands when asked at the recent GOP debate about whether they would support him for president, even if he were to be convicted.

Many of them have already promised a pardon if they make it to the Oval Office.

Had Ford not pardoned Nixon and won plaudits for doing so, it’s possible many in the GOP would be less inclined to promise a pardon for Trump, were he to be convicted.

The notion that Trump has floated in the past that he has the “authority” to pardon himself would also be laughable, were it not for the template derived from Ford’s pardon of his predecessor.

Call it an Evel precedent.

 

 

 

 

 

IMG_7401.gif

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

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think you understand what the word "precedent" means.  (By the way, Ford's preemptive pardon of Nixon wasn't the first, either.)

Well precedent means an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. So, literally, the first preemptive pardon set a precedent for the next. However, if many years go by as in Nixon to Biden, Biden would have been using a legal precedent but it is unclear whether the actual facts behind Nixon's pardon influenced his decision. With that said, I am supremely confident that this will become a regular event, most likely continuing within 4 years. There was a big difference as @Gatorubet mentioned, between the preemptive pardon to heal the nation following the Vietnam War and a man that probably 35% of America couldn't properly identify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bevo said:

 

The weaponization of the Department of Justice has happened but because it is inherently political people will disagree based on their political leanings. And congressmen have absolutely threatened criminal prosecution of their political enemies. Shit, right now Chuck Schumer announced that he and other Senate Democrats will work to advance legislation to strip former President Trump of the immunity he was granted under a recent Supreme Court ruling protecting a president’s official acts from criminal prosecution. And Congressman Bennie Thompson filed a federal suit against Trump. And six Democratic members of Congress sued Bush maintaining that only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war. And Tulsi Gabbard sued Hillary Clinton over defamation. And those were actual lawsuits, not just threats.

You realize none of those are threats of criminal prosecution, right? And none by anyone with any control over the DOJ. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

The point is that targeting political enemies predates even Hoover. Andrew Jackson targeted his political enemies. And John Adams targeted political enemies through the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. It is not new and neither is a weaponized justice department, FBI, or any other federal agency. And private lawsuits filed by congressmen aren't made in a vacuum. And all of this is only tangentially related to the point that preemptive pardons set a bad precedent and will become the norm. If anyone wants to make a bet, I'll put $100 down that Trump will make preemptive pardons within 4 years. And I'll make another bet that someone on here will post that it is a travesty after Trump does it or even when the press indicates that Trump may do it.

 

Obama's Weaponized Justice Department

Cato Institute
https://www.cato.org
Oct 30, 2015 — In the last presidential debate, Governor Chris Christie asserted that the Obama administration was running a “political Justice Department,” basing its


Democrats' weaponization of the DOJ
Republican National Committee
https://gop.com
Aug 28, 2011 — Joe Biden and the Democrats are weaponizing the Department of Justice to attack commonsense election integrity laws.

Obama's Weaponization of Government
Forbes
https://www.forbes.com › Opinion
Jan 31, 2014 — I scarcely think he cares at this point. A tired, graying Barack Obama stood before Congress this week as a political figure, party leader, and progressive ...

Courthouse News
https://www.courthousenews.com
The Department of Justice under the George W. Bush administration took off the blindfold and aimed the sites of prosecution on Democratic officials, a panel of ...

 

 

 

God damn dude. 

Criminal. Prosecution. Enemies. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

That was my point in all this - It sets a bad precedent. And that article was recent. There were many, many people who said the same thing when Ford did it. In fact, it kept him from winning the election.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you are arguing, but I'll bet you @Dahobbs $250 that Trump will make a preemptive pardon. And if that occurs, I'll bet you another $250 that people on this board will complain about it.

I'm arguing that you're talking out of your ass. See @TwiceHorn's posts. 

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

49 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

God damn dude. 

Criminal. Prosecution. Enemies. 

 

It is really odd to conflate civil suits against someone in their official capacity for the purpose of challenging their legal authority (e.g., a lawsuit that the official cannot do a course action) or lawsuits against someone in their personal capacity for damages (e.g., a defamation suit) with criminal prosecution by the government. Like, those things aren't even kind of the same thing. I'm not sure how the first one could ever constitute the "targeting of political enemies." The fact that he is unable to see how criminal prosecution is qualitatively different is stupefying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It is really odd to conflate civil suits against someone in their official capacity for the purpose of challenging their legal authority (e.g., a lawsuit that the official cannot do a course action) or lawsuits against someone in their personal capacity for damages (e.g., a defamation suit) with criminal prosecution by the government. Like, those things aren't even kind of the same thing. I'm not sure how the first one could ever constitute the "targeting of political enemies." The fact that he is unable to see how criminal prosecution is qualitatively different is stupefying. 

I mean Bevo's not dumb.

And it is true that political retribution is fairly normal in various forms, but not this one.  As are political shifts in the civil end of DOJ, which is another animal altogether.

Maybe he's another victim of the normalization/sanewashing of Trump.

And, while Nixon's pardon was pre-emptive, its purpose was at least somewhat noble in intention:  he was out of office, let's just move on from this.  He was going to be prosecuted by another R administration.

This is NOT normal.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

God damn dude. 

Criminal. Prosecution. Enemies. 

 

 

You seem to be saying that John Adams didn't go after his political enemies with criminal charges?

 

 

President John Adams oversees passage of first of Alien and Sedition Acts

1798
President John Adams oversees passage of first of Alien and Sedition Acts

President John Adams oversees the passage of the Naturalization Act, the first of four pieces of controversial legislation known together as the Alien and Sedition Acts, on June 18, 1798. Strong political opposition to these acts succeeded in undermining the Adams administration, helping Thomas Jefferson to win the presidency in 1800.

At the time, America was threatened by war with France, and Congress was attempting to pass laws that would give more authority to the federal government, and the president in particular, to deal with suspicious persons, especially foreign nationals. The Naturalization Act raised the requirements for aliens to apply for U.S. citizenship, requiring that immigrants reside in the U.S. for 14 years before becoming eligible. The earlier law had required only five years of residence before an application could be made.

Adams, in fact, never enforced the Naturalization Act. Nevertheless, he came under heavy fire from opponents, led by Vice President Thomas Jefferson, who felt that the Naturalization Act and its companion legislation was unconstitutional and smacked of despotism. So disgusted was Jefferson with Adams’ enthusiastic support of the law that he could no longer support the president and left Washington during the Congressional vote.

Former President George Washington, on the other hand, supported the legislation. Adams signed the second piece of the legislation, the Alien Act, on June 25. This act gave the president the authority to deport aliens during peacetime. The Alien Enemies Act, which Adams signed on July 6, gave him the power to deport any alien living in the U.S. with ties to U.S. wartime enemies. Finally, the Sedition Act, passed on July 14, gave Adams tremendous power to define treasonable activity including any false, scandalous and malicious writing. The intended targets of the Sedition Act were newspaper, pamphlet and broadside publishers who printed what he considered to be libelous articles aimed primarily at his administration. Abigail Adams urged her husband to pass the Sedition Act, calling his opponents criminal and vile.

Of the four acts, the Sedition Act was the most distressing to staunch First Amendment advocates. They objected to the fact that treasonable activity was vaguely defined, was defined at the discretion of the president and would be punished by heavy fines and imprisonment. The arrest and imprisonment of 25 men for supposedly violating the Sedition Act ignited an enormous outcry against the legislation. Among those arrested was Benjamin Franklin’s grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, who was the editor of the Republican-leaning Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora. Citing Adams’ abuse of presidential powers and threats to free speech, Jefferson’s party took control of Congress and the presidency in 1800.

 

Eugene Debs was also prosecuted for sedition because he was a political enemy.

 

Besides those two were there any others criminally prosecuted for being political enemies?

 

 

Edited by Bevo
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bevo said:

 

The weaponization of the Department of Justice has happened but because it is inherently political people will disagree based on their political leanings. And congressmen have absolutely threatened criminal prosecution of their political enemies. Shit, right now Chuck Schumer announced that he and other Senate Democrats will work to advance legislation to strip former President Trump of the immunity he was granted under a recent Supreme Court ruling protecting a president’s official acts from criminal prosecution. And Congressman Bennie Thompson filed a federal suit against Trump. And six Democratic members of Congress sued Bush maintaining that only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war. And Tulsi Gabbard sued Hillary Clinton over defamation. And those were actual lawsuits, not just threats.

What the fuck does this have to do with COVID? Take this to the appropriate forum and thread.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, royiv said:

What the fuck does this have to do with COVID? Take this to the appropriate forum and thread.

It's amazing how capriciously and inconsistently CR (and adjacent) content is moderated in the "News and Current Events" subforum of this board.

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

1 minute ago, Bevo said:

 

You seem to be saying that John Adams didn't go after his political enemies with criminal charges?

 

 

President John Adams oversees passage of first of Alien and Sedition Acts

1798
President John Adams oversees passage of first of Alien and Sedition Acts

President John Adams oversees the passage of the Naturalization Act, the first of four pieces of controversial legislation known together as the Alien and Sedition Acts, on June 18, 1798. Strong political opposition to these acts succeeded in undermining the Adams administration, helping Thomas Jefferson to win the presidency in 1800.

At the time, America was threatened by war with France, and Congress was attempting to pass laws that would give more authority to the federal government, and the president in particular, to deal with suspicious persons, especially foreign nationals. The Naturalization Act raised the requirements for aliens to apply for U.S. citizenship, requiring that immigrants reside in the U.S. for 14 years before becoming eligible. The earlier law had required only five years of residence before an application could be made.

Adams, in fact, never enforced the Naturalization Act. Nevertheless, he came under heavy fire from opponents, led by Vice President Thomas Jefferson, who felt that the Naturalization Act and its companion legislation was unconstitutional and smacked of despotism. So disgusted was Jefferson with Adams’ enthusiastic support of the law that he could no longer support the president and left Washington during the Congressional vote.

Former President George Washington, on the other hand, supported the legislation. Adams signed the second piece of the legislation, the Alien Act, on June 25. This act gave the president the authority to deport aliens during peacetime. The Alien Enemies Act, which Adams signed on July 6, gave him the power to deport any alien living in the U.S. with ties to U.S. wartime enemies. Finally, the Sedition Act, passed on July 14, gave Adams tremendous power to define treasonable activity including any false, scandalous and malicious writing. The intended targets of the Sedition Act were newspaper, pamphlet and broadside publishers who printed what he considered to be libelous articles aimed primarily at his administration. Abigail Adams urged her husband to pass the Sedition Act, calling his opponents criminal and vile.

Of the four acts, the Sedition Act was the most distressing to staunch First Amendment advocates. They objected to the fact that treasonable activity was vaguely defined, was defined at the discretion of the president and would be punished by heavy fines and imprisonment. The arrest and imprisonment of 25 men for supposedly violating the Sedition Act ignited an enormous outcry against the legislation. Among those arrested was Benjamin Franklin’s grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, who was the editor of the Republican-leaning Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora. Citing Adams’ abuse of presidential powers and threats to free speech, Jefferson’s party took control of Congress and the presidency in 1800.

 

Eugene Debs was also prosecuted for sedition because he was a political enemy.

 

Besides those two were there any others criminally prosecuted for being political enemies?

 

 

 

And again Dude ever heard of Debs?

Passing legislation to address perceived problems is again not the same as prosecuting your enemies.  Ever heard of the ex post facto clause?

Adams was dead 150 years before Eugene Debs.

 

Just give it up, your examples are shit and inapposite.

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

2 minutes ago, royiv said:

What the fuck does this have to do with COVID? Take this to the appropriate forum and thread.

Well, 20 people all of the same political persuasion are arguing with me because I said that the preemptive pardoning of Fausi set a dangerous precedent that others will follow in the future. They won't bet me that Trump will use a preemptive pardon within 4 years and they won't admit that it is a problem. And if you go back a page, you can see who made the original post regarding the Fausi pardon that I responded to.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Well, 20 people all of the same political persuasion are arguing with me because I said that the preemptive pardoning of Fausi set a dangerous precedent that others will follow in the future. They won't bet me that Trump will use a preemptive pardon within 4 years and they won't admit that it is a problem. And if you go back a page, you can see who made the original post regarding the Fausi pardon that I responded to.

Who the fuck is Fausi?

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

You seem to be saying that John Adams didn't go after his political enemies with criminal charges?

 

 

President John Adams oversees passage of first of Alien and Sedition Acts

1798
President John Adams oversees passage of first of Alien and Sedition Acts

President John Adams oversees the passage of the Naturalization Act, the first of four pieces of controversial legislation known together as the Alien and Sedition Acts, on June 18, 1798. Strong political opposition to these acts succeeded in undermining the Adams administration, helping Thomas Jefferson to win the presidency in 1800.

At the time, America was threatened by war with France, and Congress was attempting to pass laws that would give more authority to the federal government, and the president in particular, to deal with suspicious persons, especially foreign nationals. The Naturalization Act raised the requirements for aliens to apply for U.S. citizenship, requiring that immigrants reside in the U.S. for 14 years before becoming eligible. The earlier law had required only five years of residence before an application could be made.

Adams, in fact, never enforced the Naturalization Act. Nevertheless, he came under heavy fire from opponents, led by Vice President Thomas Jefferson, who felt that the Naturalization Act and its companion legislation was unconstitutional and smacked of despotism. So disgusted was Jefferson with Adams’ enthusiastic support of the law that he could no longer support the president and left Washington during the Congressional vote.

Former President George Washington, on the other hand, supported the legislation. Adams signed the second piece of the legislation, the Alien Act, on June 25. This act gave the president the authority to deport aliens during peacetime. The Alien Enemies Act, which Adams signed on July 6, gave him the power to deport any alien living in the U.S. with ties to U.S. wartime enemies. Finally, the Sedition Act, passed on July 14, gave Adams tremendous power to define treasonable activity including any false, scandalous and malicious writing. The intended targets of the Sedition Act were newspaper, pamphlet and broadside publishers who printed what he considered to be libelous articles aimed primarily at his administration. Abigail Adams urged her husband to pass the Sedition Act, calling his opponents criminal and vile.

Of the four acts, the Sedition Act was the most distressing to staunch First Amendment advocates. They objected to the fact that treasonable activity was vaguely defined, was defined at the discretion of the president and would be punished by heavy fines and imprisonment. The arrest and imprisonment of 25 men for supposedly violating the Sedition Act ignited an enormous outcry against the legislation. Among those arrested was Benjamin Franklin’s grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, who was the editor of the Republican-leaning Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora. Citing Adams’ abuse of presidential powers and threats to free speech, Jefferson’s party took control of Congress and the presidency in 1800.

 

Eugene Debs was also prosecuted for sedition because he was a political enemy.

 

Besides those two were there any others criminally prosecuted for being political enemies?

 

 

are you a bot?  you have to tell us if you're a bot.

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

23 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Well, 20 people all of the same political persuasion are arguing with me because I said that the preemptive pardoning of Fausi set a dangerous precedent that others will follow in the future. They won't bet me that Trump will use a preemptive pardon within 4 years and they won't admit that it is a problem. And if you go back a page, you can see who made the original post regarding the Fausi pardon that I responded to.

Yeah. You cloaked a DT  thread and got pantsed. Maybe take a break. 

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

JFC, trump and friends committed legitimate crimes, and prosecuting them is not "weaponization." Lil' donny has talked about prosecuting political enimies where no crimes exist, which is the textbook definition of "weaponization." Of course the majority of the braindead electorate belives the opposite is true, because feelings matter more than facts. There's no use in debating these issues. 

Wait, didn't they have a slogan about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Passing legislation to address perceived problems is again not the same as prosecuting your enemies.  Ever heard of the ex post facto clause?

Adams was dead 150 years before Eugene Debs.

 

Just give it up, your examples are shit and inapposite.

So you are saying using the Sedition act against your political enemies isn't the same as threatening to put a political enemy in jail?

And, I guess this is different because Trump is guilty?

Kamala Harris Says DOJ Would Prosecute Trump If She’s Elected https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/kamala-harris-prosecuting-donald-trump?srsltid=AfmBOooxmIKVj-Z15s048sXtCQb7LBdmPL67e2VLq-sdr0qgIdfErSZa
While Democrats in Congress are at loggerheads over whether to begin impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, Democrats on the campaign trail have been less constrained in their opinion that the president has committed crimes—and should be charged as soon as he is out of office. Jumping on the Lock Him Up bandwagon is California senator Kamala Harris, who told the NPR Politics Podcast in an interview that aired Wednesday that the Department of Justice would have “no choice” but to prosecute Trump once he is no longer president.

What about the political opponents who threatened to criminally prosecute Harry S. Truman for war crimes for his use of the atomic bomb in Japan. And Oppenheimer wasn't criminally charged but he was threatened with criminal charges. How is that different?

 

 

And who the fuck cares about this point - It doesn't change the fact that pardoning Fausi sets a dangerous precedent.

Why do you think it doesn't? Because Trump sucks as a person? I don't get your reasoning.

 

 

 

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/gore-lays-out-a-compelling-indictment-of-bush-actions/

But even after discounting for political motivations, it seems to me that Gore has done a service by laying out the case as clearly and copiously as he has done. His overall charge is that Bush has systematically broken the laws and bent the Constitution by his actions in the national security and domestic anti-terrorism areas. He is not the first to make that complaint. My e-mail has included many messages from people who have leaped far ahead of the evidence and concluded that Bush should be impeached and removed from office for actions they deem to be illegal.

Gore stops well short of that point and contents himself with citing the cases that cause many others concern. The first – and, to my mind, weakest – instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein’s military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did – and so did other governments in the Western alliance.

It is a reach to attempt to make a crime of a policy misjudgment.

But the other cases cited by Gore are more troubling. The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, for which only low-level military personnel have been punished, traces back through higher and untouched levels of command to the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House, all of which failed in their duties to assure that the occupation forces were adhering to recognized international standards for the treatment of prisoners.

Similarly, the administration’s resistance to setting and enforcing clear prohibitions on torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in the war on terrorism raises legitimate questions about its willingness to adhere to the rule of law. From the first days after 9/11, Bush has appeared to believe that he is essentially unconstrained. His oddly equivocal recent signing statement on John McCain’s legislation banning such tactics seemed to say he could ignore the plain terms of the law.

If Judge Samuel Alito is right that “no one is above the law,” then Bush’s supposition deserves to be challenged.

Gore’s final example – on which he has lots of company among legal scholars – is the contention that Bush broke the law in ordering the National Security Agency to monitor domestic phone calls without a warrant from the court Congress had created to supervise all such wiretapping. If – as the Justice Department and the White House insist – the president can flout that law, then it is hard to imagine what power he cannot assert.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has summoned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to a hearing on the warrantless wiretap issue, and that hearing should be the occasion for a broad exploration of the willingness of this administration to be constrained by the Constitution and the laws.

The committee should keep the attorney general on the witness stand as long as it takes – as long as it spent examining the qualifications of Judge Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, if it comes to that. The stakes for the country are that important.

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

So you are saying using the Sedition act against your political enemies isn't the same as threatening to put a political enemy in jail?

And, I guess this is different because Trump is guilty?

Kamala Harris Says DOJ Would Prosecute Trump If She’s Elected https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/kamala-harris-prosecuting-donald-trump?srsltid=AfmBOooxmIKVj-Z15s048sXtCQb7LBdmPL67e2VLq-sdr0qgIdfErSZa
While Democrats in Congress are at loggerheads over whether to begin impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, Democrats on the campaign trail have been less constrained in their opinion that the president has committed crimes—and should be charged as soon as he is out of office. Jumping on the Lock Him Up bandwagon is California senator Kamala Harris, who told the NPR Politics Podcast in an interview that aired Wednesday that the Department of Justice would have “no choice” but to prosecute Trump once he is no longer president.

What about the political opponents who threatened to criminally prosecute Harry S. Truman for war crimes for his use of the atomic bomb in Japan. And Oppenheimer wasn't criminally charged but he was threatened with criminal charges. How is that different?

And who the fuck cares about this point - It doesn't change the fact that pardoning Fausi sets a dangerous precedent.

Why do you think it doesn't? Because Trump sucks as a person? I don't get your reasoning.

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/gore-lays-out-a-compelling-indictment-of-bush-actions/

But even after discounting for political motivations, it seems to me that Gore has done a service by laying out the case as clearly and copiously as he has done. His overall charge is that Bush has systematically broken the laws and bent the Constitution by his actions in the national security and domestic anti-terrorism areas. He is not the first to make that complaint. My e-mail has included many messages from people who have leaped far ahead of the evidence and concluded that Bush should be impeached and removed from office for actions they deem to be illegal.

Gore stops well short of that point and contents himself with citing the cases that cause many others concern. The first – and, to my mind, weakest – instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein’s military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did – and so did other governments in the Western alliance.

It is a reach to attempt to make a crime of a policy misjudgment.

But the other cases cited by Gore are more troubling. The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, for which only low-level military personnel have been punished, traces back through higher and untouched levels of command to the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House, all of which failed in their duties to assure that the occupation forces were adhering to recognized international standards for the treatment of prisoners.

Similarly, the administration’s resistance to setting and enforcing clear prohibitions on torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in the war on terrorism raises legitimate questions about its willingness to adhere to the rule of law. From the first days after 9/11, Bush has appeared to believe that he is essentially unconstrained. His oddly equivocal recent signing statement on John McCain’s legislation banning such tactics seemed to say he could ignore the plain terms of the law.

If Judge Samuel Alito is right that “no one is above the law,” then Bush’s supposition deserves to be challenged.

Gore’s final example – on which he has lots of company among legal scholars – is the contention that Bush broke the law in ordering the National Security Agency to monitor domestic phone calls without a warrant from the court Congress had created to supervise all such wiretapping. If – as the Justice Department and the White House insist – the president can flout that law, then it is hard to imagine what power he cannot assert.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has summoned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to a hearing on the warrantless wiretap issue, and that hearing should be the occasion for a broad exploration of the willingness of this administration to be constrained by the Constitution and the laws.

The committee should keep the attorney general on the witness stand as long as it takes – as long as it spent examining the qualifications of Judge Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, if it comes to that. The stakes for the country are that important.

IMG_3981.jpeg.ade3ace93501482fb5a21b2214a7361c.jpeg

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

I spent about 90 seconds with Google and don’t understand the extent of legal protection provided by these “preemptive pardons.” Is Fauci protected from nonsense technicalities that could get him convicted via perjury, or is it a true blank check like if it turned out he killed 5 hookers at Johns Hopkins? Only for things that occurred prior to the pardon, or during Biden’s presidency, or anything he does today forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

I spent about 90 seconds with Google and don’t understand the extent of legal protection provided by these “preemptive pardons.” Is Fauci protected from nonsense technicalities that could get him convicted via perjury, or is it a true blank check like if it turned out he killed 5 hookers at Johns Hopkins? Only for things that occurred prior to the pardon, or during Biden’s presidency, or anything he does today forward?

Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anastasis said:

LOL. Political death spiral is real and has been trademarked since at least 2016. 

Yet we're still here and world keeps spinning. But you'll keep looking for that political purity. It's like the sun rising every morning until it no longer does. I love you, brother. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

See how this works out for you and everyone else. 

Yes, I'm sure that, in 4 years' time, we'll all be lamenting and regretting the time that the dude who has already been through lord knows how many Senate hearings and inquiries was pardoned for not committing any crimes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aggie08 said:

Yes, I'm sure that, in 4 years' time, we'll all be lamenting and regretting the time that the dude who has already been through lord knows how many Senate hearings and inquiries was pardoned for not committing any crimes.

He dissembled and lied under oath in those hearings.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

If everyone who lied under oath served a one day sentence for each, lie then the fat orange turd would currently be serving a life sentence

And if they tried us all for misplaced commas we, would all hang. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...