• 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!

Barr: It would be a crime for president to pardon someone in exchange for their silence

I knew you didn't have the balls to answer question.

I answered it, full stop.

You could not answer me when I asked

What particular misconduct would that be?

Therefore, since you do not know, you are dreaming, or indulging in daydreams or fantasies about something greatly desired.
 
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...a-crime-if-a-president-pardoned-individual-in

William Barr, President Trump's nominee to serve as attorney general, said on Tuesday that it would be illegal for a U.S. president to pardon an individual if that person agreed not to incriminate the commander in chief in a criminal offense.

"Do you believe a president could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient's promise not incriminate him?" Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Barr during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"No, that would be a crime," Barr said.
========================================
I'm sure this option has either crossed Trump's mind or been discussed among his legal defense team.

Isn't this the same Barr who doesn't know what the emoluments clause says?
 
I answered it, full stop.

You could not answer me when I asked



Therefore, since you do not know, you are dreaming, or indulging in daydreams or fantasies about something greatly desired.

It's going to be funny as hell if Barr burns some of the members of Mueller's team. :lamo
 
Isn't this the same Barr who doesn't know what the emoluments clause says?

Liberals shouldn't have a problem with that, since very few of them have ever read The Constitution.
 
Liberals shouldn't have a problem with that, since very few of them have ever read The Constitution.

Yeah, it seems if the Conservatives have read the Constitution they don't really understand it... :roll:

Ya do remember that short-lived ignorant stunt House Republican'ts tried to pull requiring all new bills ti cite the Constitutional basis for allowing such a new law...

Wanna say it was 2010 or so, the Republican'ts grandstanding with Obama in office. Apparently wrapping oneself up in the Constitution while making speeches doesn't educate you on the contents... :peace
 
It's going to be funny as hell if Barr burns some of the members of Mueller's team. :lamo

Keep up the dreams brother!
 
Yeah, it seems if the Conservatives have read the Constitution they don't really understand it... :roll:

Ya do remember that short-lived ignorant stunt House Republican'ts tried to pull requiring all new bills ti cite the Constitutional basis for allowing such a new law...

Wanna say it was 2010 or so, the Republican'ts grandstanding with Obama in office. Apparently wrapping oneself up in the Constitution while making speeches doesn't educate you on the contents... :peace

Liberals are clueless when it comes to The Constitution.
 
Liberals are clueless when it comes to The Constitution.

LOL...Liberals understand the Constitution, they just don't believe so-called conservatives' opinion is sacred.... :roll:

But the Republican'ts proved they don't understand the Constitution when they forced themselves to cite the part that applies to their bill...

the so-called Constitutional 'ex-spurts' quietly dropped their citation requirement... :peace
 
Liberals shouldn't have a problem with that, since very few of them have ever read The Constitution.

Based on what I've been seeing, it looks like it's conservatives who don't read the constitution.
 
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...a-crime-if-a-president-pardoned-individual-in

William Barr, President Trump's nominee to serve as attorney general, said on Tuesday that it would be illegal for a U.S. president to pardon an individual if that person agreed not to incriminate the commander in chief in a criminal offense.

"Do you believe a president could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient's promise not incriminate him?" Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Barr during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"No, that would be a crime," Barr said.
========================================
I'm sure this option has either crossed Trump's mind or been discussed among his legal defense team.



I liked that he said that, but he did say some other things which I thought were red flags, such as "I'll send you my summary of the Mueller report", yeah, right.

But.. this

https://www.thecut.com/2019/01/william-barr-trump-attorney-general-nominee.html


Chilling stuff, this guy's a hard right winger, on that point there is no question.


On the issue of the shutdown, Trump/repubs vs Dems, he said "it takes two to tango", implying responsibility is on both sides of the shutdown.


I realize a lot of righties would love everyone to believe that, that would be like saying a rapist, forcing a woman to have sex, and thus exclaiming "it takes two to tango". In other words, taking people hostage to get your way in congress to compensate for your inability to make a deal is a one way street, there no "two" in this tango.
 
Ok but...Barr suggests Mueller’s long-awaited report might not be made public.

I ask you why am I not surprised ?

I think this in the right's (GOP) DNA...cover-up ? There is no other reason to keep Mueller's report classified.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ef28312c8b9_story.html?utm_term=.5b11eb6b230d

It won't be possible to withhold Mueller because much of it is already copied for state prosecution as well, which cannot be classified in the same way, not by Congress.
 
I liked that he said that, but he did say some other things which I thought were red flags, such as "I'll send you my summary of the Mueller report", yeah, right.

But.. this

https://www.thecut.com/2019/01/william-barr-trump-attorney-general-nominee.html


Chilling stuff, this guy's a hard right winger, on that point there is no question.


On the issue of the shutdown, Trump/repubs vs Dems, he said "it takes two to tango", implying responsibility is on both sides of the shutdown.


I realize a lot of righties would love everyone to believe that, that would be like saying a rapist, forcing a woman to have sex, and thus exclaiming "it takes two to tango". In other words, taking people hostage to get your way in congress to compensate for your inability to make a deal is a one way street, there no "two" in this tango.

Especially when the hostage taker already announced that he is the owner of the hostage drama.
 
I liked that he said that, but he did say some other things which I thought were red flags, such as "I'll send you my summary of the Mueller report", yeah, right.

But.. this

https://www.thecut.com/2019/01/william-barr-trump-attorney-general-nominee.html


Chilling stuff, this guy's a hard right winger, on that point there is no question.


On the issue of the shutdown, Trump/repubs vs Dems, he said "it takes two to tango", implying responsibility is on both sides of the shutdown.


I realize a lot of righties would love everyone to believe that, that would be like saying a rapist, forcing a woman to have sex, and thus exclaiming "it takes two to tango". In other words, taking people hostage to get your way in congress to compensate for your inability to make a deal is a one way street, there no "two" in this tango.
Lol...you guys really do think that in or out of power that things need to have your approval don't you?....Stunning

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom