• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

As Paul Manafort Goes to jail, Rudy Giuliani Suggests Trump Could Issue Pardons

Xelor said:
??? Who was preemptively pardoned in the Watergate matter? Ford's pardon of Nixon didn't even rise to the level that's being bandied about as a possible tack Trump may take. The key contextual difference is that no POTUS has used the pardon power to interdict the progression of extant jurisprudential processes focused on the behavior and intentions of persons related to a current presidential administration and/or a sitting POTUS' own election campaign.
Click to expand...

By accepting Ford's pardon Nixon acknowledged his guilt. Brilliant move, President Ford.
 
Excon said:
iLOL No I am not wrong.
Woulda, shoulda, coulda isn't precedent. No matter how it is spun, it simply is not precedent.
Do you really not understand that?

The articles of Impeachment were not voted on as Nixon resigned.
He was not actually impeached.


Had Congress voted to impeach on that specific but non-existent article of Impeachment, it would then be precedent for an Article of Impeachment, but not for Law.
But since no such Article was voted on, it isn't precedent for anything, except apparently make believe.

FFS! No one can even say that Congress would have accepted that non-existent Article anyways. Or didn't you now that Congress didn't accept two Articles in the Nixon proceeding?
Click to expand...

Excon, you have no credibility. Your lack of knowledge is stunning and embarrassing.
 
Excon said:
While I am sure you believe that, there is no support for your argument.
A Constitutional clause is not beholden to legislation.
You can not use legislation to claim the exercise of a Constitutional authority is illegal, regardless of circumstance.
Click to expand...

Oh but there is a precedent. As MovingPictures just noted. Richard Nixon and Watergate. Which ironically enough Trump and his Administration has closely paralleled. There is a Nixon White House tape from Watergate in which Nixon had summoned Haldeman ans couple other close aides to the White House to tell them that Sam Ervin and his investigators were quickly closing in on him and he may be going down soon and so he has no choice but to ask for their resignations. Nixon tried to talk them up saying it was all his fault and urged them to "stay strong and to keep the faith" because there may be some relief coming for them down the road if they hang tough. Haldeman realized that Nixon was really saying there may be a pardon in their future and he immediately interjected; 'No, No, don't say that. don't say it!' Because Haldeman knew Nixon in discussing a possible pardon for them was committing another crime right then and there.
 
Last edited:
Parrish said:
Excon, you have no credibility. Your lack of knowledge is stunning and embarrassing.
Click to expand...
Lets see? You fail to refute what I pointed out and then instead of attempting to make a reasoned argument you instead engage in adhom.
Well, besides from projecting, you are wrong on all counts and your reply shows you have no valid argument.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda is not precedent.

This pail is for you.
:failpail:
 
Excon said:
Lets see? You fail to refute what I pointed out and then instead of attempting to make a reasoned argument you instead engage in adhom.
Well, besides from projecting, you are wrong on all counts and your reply shows you have no valid argument.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda is not precedent.

This pail is for you.
:failpail:
Click to expand...

See post 53. And then Sam Dash's remarks. Your ignorance of facts is as I previously said is stunning and embarrassing.
 
Parrish said:
See post 53. And then Sam Dash's remarks. Your ignorance of facts is as I previously said is stunning and embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Who needs facts when one's got iLOL. :mrgreen:
 
Atomic Kid said:
Oh but there is a precedent. As MovingPictures just noted. Richard Nixon and Watergate.
Click to expand...
No that is not precedent in law, and is not precedent for impeachment.
A Judiciary Committee for establishing Articles of Impeachment does not establish precedent.

Had the Articles of Impeachment been accepted by the House then it would be precedent for Impeachment purposes, but again, not law.


Atomic Kid said:
Which ironically enough Trump and his Administration has closely paralleled.
Click to expand...
iLOL No it hasn't.
That is make believe.


Atomic Kid said:
There is a Nixon White House tape from Watergate in which Nixon had summoned Haldeman ans couple other close aides to the White House to tell them that Sam Ervin and his investigators were quickly closing in on him and he may be going down soon and so he has no choice but to ask for their resignations. Nixon tried to talk them up saying it was all his fault and urged them to "stay strong and to keep the faith" because there may be some relief coming for them down the road if they hang tough. Haldeman realized that Nixon was really saying there may be a pardon in their future and he immediately interjected; 'No, No, don't say that. don't say it!' Because Haldeman knew Nixon in discussing a possible pardon for them was committing another crime right then and there.
Click to expand...
You are attaching meaning to it that you want to be there.
Unless Haldeman said that is what he meant, you only have speculation, which does not suffice.
 
Parrish said:
See post 53. And then Sam Dash's remarks. Your ignorance of facts is as I previously said is stunning and embarrassing.
Click to expand...
See poat 53? iLOL Try again, no valid argument exists there.


Sam Dash's remarks are irrelevant. No precedent has been established for impeachment purposes.
Nor do any exist for purposes of Law.
 
PoS said:
Who needs facts when one's got iLOL.
Click to expand...
Absolutely iLOL!

I am the one speaking to facts here.
No precedent has been set.

Were the Articles of Impeachment accepted by Congress? No they were not, and therefore it is not precedent. That is a fact.

And there can be not OOJ in law. Unless stated in the Constitution, a Constitutional Power is not beholden to legislation (Law). Another irrefutable fact.
 
Parrish said:
By accepting Ford's pardon Nixon acknowledged his guilt. Brilliant move, President Ford.
Click to expand...


IMG_1362-1.jpg
 
Originally posted by Excon
No that is not precedent in law, and is not precedent for impeachment.
A Judiciary Committee for establishing Articles of Impeachment does not establish precedent.

Had the Articles of Impeachment been accepted by the House then it would be precedent for Impeachment purposes, but again, not law.
Click to expand...

You may want to bone up on your American history. Nixon resigned before any articles of impeachment were issued. There is no precedent 'in law' because so far no one has had the audacity or been stupid enough to try it. But that doesn't mean that there won't be a first time.

Originally posted by Excon
iLOL No it hasn't.
That is make believe.
Click to expand...

There are lot of connections between Trump and Nixon. Roy Cohn, Roger Stone, Henry Kissinger, and Roger Ailes for example. Trump was a big admirer of Nixon.

Originally posted by Excon
You are attaching meaning to it that you want to be there.
Unless Haldeman said that is what he meant, you only have speculation, which does not suffice.
Click to expand...

Haldeman knew enough about the law to know that Nixon's dangling a pardon before them was a criminal act. Sam Ervin and the other Watergate investigators never heard about that particular tape until well after Nixon had resigned. They stated that if they had heard that tape while Nixon was still President they would indicted Nixon for obstruction of justice right there on the spot. No question about it.
 
Parrish said:
By accepting Ford's pardon Nixon acknowledged his guilt. Brilliant move, President Ford.
Click to expand...
No. That is not settled law.

After Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, intimates said that the former President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision that suggested that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt. [highlight]Legal scholars have questioned whether that portion of Burdick is meaningful or merely dicta.[/highlight][SUP][2][/SUP] President Ford made reference to the Burdick decision in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 17, 1974.[SUP][3][/SUP] However, said reference related only to the portion of Burdick that supported the proposition that the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders.[SUP][4][/SUP]

Wiki | Burdick v. United States​




Atomic Kid said:
You may want to bone up on your American history. Nixon resigned before any articles of impeachment were issued.
Click to expand...
Hello? That is what I told you and others. Are you not paying attention?


Atomic Kid said:
There is no precedent 'in law' because so far no one has had the audacity or been stupid enough to try it. But that doesn't mean that there won't be a first time.
Click to expand...
There is npo [recedent in Law becasue there can be no such precident.
A Constitutional clause, unless stated in the Constitution is not beholden to legislation. It is legislation that is beholden to the Constitution.


Atomic Kid said:
iLOL No it hasn't.
That is make believe.
Click to expand...
There are lot of connections between Trump and Nixon. Roy Cohn, Roger Stone, Henry Kissinger, and Roger Ailes for example. Trump was a big admirer of Nixon.
Click to expand...
Dishonest deflection.
This was your original "make believe" argument. "Which ironically enough Trump and his Administration has closely paralleled."


Atomic Kid said:
Haldeman knew enough about the law to know that Nixon's dangling a pardon before them was a criminal act. Sam Ervin and the other Watergate investigators never heard about that particular tape until well after Nixon had resigned. They stated that if they had heard that tape while Nixon was still President they would indicted Nixon for obstruction of justice right there on the spot. No question about it.
Click to expand...
No
Again.
You are attaching meaning to it that you want to be there.
Unless Haldeman said that is what he meant, you only have speculation, which does not suffice. ​

Even if you could show that is exactly what he thought, it doesn't mean what he thought is accurate.
The argument carries no weight or relevance.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
That would be called double jeopardy. You can't charge somebody twice for the same crime.
Click to expand...

Not paying your state taxes is a crime.
Not paying your federal taxes is a different crime.
 
Excon said:
Again. Supremacy clause, so not comparable.
And no. No such law supersedes a Constitutional provision, nor could it. This is what is beyond dispute.
Click to expand...

You twice now have said the words SUPREMACY CLAUSE. So make your argument as to how that reference refutes or negates the following that I have stated:

A Goveronor is the head of the state Executive branch of government.
A President is the head of the national Executive branch of government.
They are both the head of the Executive branch of government in their respective jurisdictions.
And both obtain their powers from constitutions.
And when they use any of those powers corruptly or for the commission or furtherance of a crime, they can be subject to prosecution as the Governor of Illinois was and is now in prison for it.

That is beyond dispute and beyond argument and beyond disagreeing with.
 
Chomsky said:
(CCBS NEWS) As Paul Manafort Goes to Jail, Rudy Giuliani Suggests Trump Could Issue Pardons

Obviously, the second paragraph has the money quote.

In the interest of respecting the bipartisan nature of a BN MSN OP, I'll withhold my personal opinion to posting in the thread.
Click to expand...

If the law had been equally applied to the members of both campaigns, then the abuses of civil liberties by the Gestapo-inspired Mueller tactics would not be so egregious.

In light of the Hillary gang being proven to have entered into conspiracies to break the law, obstruct justice and destroy evidence and then get immunity, the treatment of the Trump gang seems a little out of line.

This whole 10 year exercise is the ongoing abuse of power by the most corrupt and corrupting administration in the history of our republic.

If yopu think there is not a thing that has been referred to as the Deep State, then you must be deaf and blind.

35,000 FBI employees and only Strzok was qualified, according to the folks who assign duties, to conduct the Hillary, the Trump and the Russia investigations? C'mon, man!
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Not paying your state taxes is a crime.
Not paying your federal taxes is a different crime.
Click to expand...

Those are 2 different crimes. State taxes and federal taxes are not the same thing.
 
You can believe whatever you want to believe in your own little dream world. I'm done with trying to fix stupid here.
 
No matter what happens going forward, I appreciate Judge Jackson's decision ordering Manafort into custody!

Immediately after U.S. District Judge Amy Jackson revoked Manafort's bail, he was led from a packed courtroom by U.S. marshals. Meanwhile, Manafort’s wife, Kathleen, left the courthouse, forced to walk a gauntlet of photographers to the door of a black SUV. The family made no comment.
Click to expand...

My wish, as posted in Breaking News on June 5th, came true.
Trippy Trekker said:
Not that my opinion likely impacts Manafort's case, I hope a judge deems these latest allegations as grounds to revoke bond. Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!
Click to expand...
 
code1211 said:
This whole 10 year exercise is the ongoing abuse of power by the most corrupt and corrupting administration in the history of our republic.
Click to expand...
Pruit alone has engaged in more corruption than the entire 8 years of Obama. No idea what you are talking about.
And if you look at cirminality, Obama had what..zero? Trump is up to two jailed, a handful pleading guilty, quite a few more indicted, with the best left to come.

Maybe you added Obama 8 years + 2 years of the Hillary administration where she ruled the world by sheer evilness from her private email server.

Be serious code1211.
 
Excon said:
While I am sure you believe that, there is no support for your argument.
A Constitutional clause is not beholden to legislation.
You can not use legislation to claim the exercise of a Constitutional authority is illegal, regardless of circumstance.
Click to expand...
It's sad that you would put so much energy into defending such an egregious abuse of power.

Likewise Congress can use their constitutional power to impeach in a manner they see fit. They are the sole arbiters of what constitutes "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Most likely, a Democratic majority (or even a Republican majority that didn't rely on Trump's rabid base to make it past the primaries) would consider it an impeachable offense.
 
haymarket said:
You twice now have said the words SUPREMACY CLAUSE. So make your argument as to how that reference refutes or negates the following that I have stated:
Click to expand...
The argument was already made. Supremacy clause, so not comparable.

Are you really ignorant of the Supremacy clause or why it is relevant here?


haymarket said:
That is beyond dispute and beyond argument and beyond disagreeing with.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual haymarket. The Supremacy clause put your irrelevant comparisons into the proper light.
 
Excon said:
Supremacy clause, so not comparable.
Click to expand...

Throwing out those two words is NOT an argument.

Can you... will you... make one that gives us a whole lot more than just those two words?
 
Chomsky said:
(CCBS NEWS) As Paul Manafort Goes to Jail, Rudy Giuliani Suggests Trump Could Issue Pardons

Obviously, the second paragraph has the money quote.

In the interest of respecting the bipartisan nature of a BN MSN OP, I'll withhold my personal opinion to posting in the thread.
Click to expand...


• Static link to an article from a bona-fide news organization.
• Dateline within the past 48 hours.
• Exact same title as the cited article.
• Quoted short excerpts from the article.
• Your own unique content to spur discussion.

you lost me ............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom