• 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!

Excellent Maddow on Pardons

Renae said:
Doh, good call, she's still over half the time twisting the truth to lying. You are welcome to let her rot your noggin, i'll pass.
Click to expand...

If Rachel played baseball, she'd be the guy that was always swinging for the fences.

So yes, she misses sometimes, she also swings too hard at other times.

But she still has a lot to offer. She was the person that brought the poisoning of Flint Michigan to national attention. That was a home run.

She also takes the time to go through complicated situations step by step. Nobody does that better.

So you have a point, she ain't perfect. But, to borrow a line from a movie, she's as good as it gets.
 
Just a reminder, the President can only pardon someone at the Federal level, for State crimes/charges that is up to the State Governor. Do not forget to get your drink and popcorn for the show.
 
haymarket said:
Last night, on the Rachel Maddow Show, she had a long segment (27 minutes) on presidential pardons and when you can do them and when you can't do them. And like many of her opening segments, there is lots of history, this time with Nixon and Watergate and some fascinating stuff.

Trump sends signal with pardons, could face rude awakening

It is well worth viewing if you missed it last night and gives cause to think about just what Trump can do in the way of the pardon power.
Click to expand...

The number of Presidential pardons by President in the 20th Century to present ranked from the most pardons to the least:

Franklin D. Roosevelt: 2,819 pardons
Harry S. Truman: 1,913 pardons
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1,110 pardons
Woodrow Wilson: 1,087 pardons
Lyndon Johnson: 960 pardons
Richard Nixon: 863 pardons
Calvin Coolidge: 773 pardons
Herbert Hoover: 672 pardons
Theodore Roosevelt: 668 pardons
Jimmy Carter: 534 pardons
John F. Kennedy: 472 pardons
Bill Clinton: 396 pardons
Ronald Reagan: 393 pardons
William H. Taft: 383 pardons
Gerald Ford: 382 pardons
Warren Harding: 300 pardons
William McKinley: 291 pardons
Barack Obama: 212 pardons
George W. Bush: 189 pardons
George H.W. Bush: 74 pardons

There were some notable pardons that did generate negative public comment such as Clinton's pardon of his friend Marc Rich that even some Democrats condemned as abuse of power. Congressman Barney Frank said about that: “It was a real betrayal by Bill Clinton of all who had been strongly supportive of him to do something this unjustified. It was contemptuous.”

But it seems to be necessary to the Trump haters to make a huge deal out of pardons that address injustices done to the parties involved even if they actually did the crimes of which they were convicted. I have no problem really with President Trump commuting Blagojevich's sentence. It would not pardon the crime, but it would allow him to go home to his family where he would present no danger to the public whatsoever.

With all the people out there who are a danger to themselves and/or others and should be locked up, I cannot see how it improves my life in any way to put people in jail who present no danger to themselves and/or others. Martha Stewart is a good example. Did she deserve a very large fine? Yes. Prison? No.
 
late said:
If Rachel played baseball, she'd be the guy that was always swinging for the fences.

So yes, she misses sometimes, she also swings too hard at other times.

But she still has a lot to offer. She was the person that brought the poisoning of Flint Michigan to national attention. That was a home run.

She also takes the time to go through complicated situations step by step. Nobody does that better.

So you have a point, she ain't perfect. But, to borrow a line from a movie, she's as good as it gets.
Click to expand...

Hey who cares is most of what she says isn't true, it's her EFFORT that matters!
 
late said:
If Rachel played baseball, she'd be the guy that was always swinging for the fences.

So yes, she misses sometimes, she also swings too hard at other times.

But she still has a lot to offer. She was the person that brought the poisoning of Flint Michigan to national attention. That was a home run.

She also takes the time to go through complicated situations step by step. Nobody does that better.

So you have a point, she ain't perfect. But, to borrow a line from a movie, she's as good as it gets.
Click to expand...

Maddow wouldn't make it of spring training. She wouldn't even be sent back down.
 
haymarket said:
I agree with you on the futility of the Madison remedy in the Congress of today. They simply will NOT act against Trump and the GOP will continue to care about one thing above all and that is their own skins which they tie to the Trump supporters.

What happens when Trump pardons himself? Will that be a bridge too far for the GOP or will they simply assume the Kevin Bacon position in ANIMAL HOUSE and bark out "thank you sir may I have another?"
Click to expand...

I have a 40% hope that right now Congress is just being shrewed (assholes). Since there is no formal accusation from DOJ that Trump was involved in any high crimes, there is simply no cause to impeach.
If Mueller's report is that there is sufficient evidence to warrant that he's been engaged in crimes (obstruction, abuse of power, conspiracy), then I think they may finally act. (40%).
If it's just perjury, they definitely won't (ala Clinton). Even though obviously lying about an affair that they shouldn't have been investigating was a non-issue in reality, would be much different than obstructing a real criminal investigation. But I digress.

I think right now we're all just waiting. And once that report and/or the final round of indictments roll in, then and only then will any of us realistically be able to weigh in.
And my commitment still stands, that if Trump acts in a big way in an attempt to get out of this, I'll start the daily phone calls, emails, and donations, and activism, to try and reverse it. I hope it doesnt' come to that. I suspect I won't be the only one. They say people in NY and some other city honked their horns days and nights for weeks in protest of Nixon. I can see tweeting every day all day about removing him, email spam, calls, etc. It will warrant it. It hasn't yet, because the formal investigation is ongoing. Let Mueller's team give us what they can, and see from there.
 
Renae said:
Would you watch a Hannity episode if someone said it was great?
Click to expand...

Yes. And I have. I watch Hannity partially at least once a week. It's trash and I really cannot believe anyone thinks it's serious.

You really never learned a lesson about accepting information from opposing points of view and trying to evaluate them on their merits rather than with your (tribalism is the word of the year).? I thought most sensible adults did this.
 
Mach said:
Yes. And I have. I watch Hannity partially at least once a week. It's trash and I really cannot believe anyone thinks it's serious.

You really never learned a lesson about accepting information from opposing points of view and trying to evaluate them on their merits rather than with your (tribalism is the word of the year).? I thought most sensible adults did this.
Click to expand...

If I want fiction, I'll read a book. Like The Expanse, which I am currently reading for the 3rd time.
 
Renae said:
Would you watch a Hannity episode if someone said it was great?
Click to expand...

Why did you not answer my direct question?

If Hannity presented a fact based presentation that was worth watching - I just might if a leading intellectual of the right like yourself advised it.
 
Renae said:
It was certain to be at least 50%+ bull****, if I want to watch bull**** I'll watch wrestling.
Click to expand...

So you are completely ignorant of anything that was said on the show but yet you pontificate as if you studied it. :doh:roll: Got it.
 
Bullseye said:
I have to say, it's hard to conceive a sentence containing "Maddow" and "excellent" without a negative in it.
Click to expand...

I see you are a self identified Right- Libertarian.
 
apdst said:
Claiming that the president doesn't have pardon power is one of the stupidest things Maddow has ever said.
Click to expand...

I do not remember her claiming that. Can you provide that quote or segment for us so we know this is just not you making crap up?
 
Mach said:
I have a 40% hope that right now Congress is just being shrewed (assholes). Since there is no formal accusation from DOJ that Trump was involved in any high crimes, there is simply no cause to impeach.
If Mueller's report is that there is sufficient evidence to warrant that he's been engaged in crimes (obstruction, abuse of power, conspiracy), then I think they may finally act. (40%).
If it's just perjury, they definitely won't (ala Clinton). Even though obviously lying about an affair that they shouldn't have been investigating was a non-issue in reality, would be much different than obstructing a real criminal investigation. But I digress.

I think right now we're all just waiting. And once that report and/or the final round of indictments roll in, then and only then will any of us realistically be able to weigh in.
And my commitment still stands, that if Trump acts in a big way in an attempt to get out of this, I'll start the daily phone calls, emails, and donations, and activism, to try and reverse it. I hope it doesnt' come to that. I suspect I won't be the only one. They say people in NY and some other city honked their horns days and nights for weeks in protest of Nixon. I can see tweeting every day all day about removing him, email spam, calls, etc. It will warrant it. It hasn't yet, because the formal investigation is ongoing. Let Mueller's team give us what they can, and see from there.
Click to expand...

I hope your 40% probability is correct. I do not have your faith and am far far pessimistic. if the GOP is in charge of the House, I peg their chances of impeaching Trump at perhaps 15%. If he is impeached, I peg the chances of the Senate convicted him with a GOP majority at maybe 25%.
 
haymarket said:
I hope your 40% probability is correct. I do not have your faith and am far far pessimistic. if the GOP is in charge of the House, I peg their chances of impeaching Trump at perhaps 15%. If he is impeached, I peg the chances of the Senate convicted him with a GOP majority at maybe 25%.
Click to expand...

Of course I really think yours is probably more realistic, I just don't want to go there for my sanity :)
 
haymarket said:
I do not remember her claiming that. Can you provide that quote or segment for us so we know this is just not you making crap up?
Click to expand...

She's claiming limits on the presidentsl's pardon power. There aren't any.
 
apdst said:
She's claiming limits on the presidentsl's pardon power. There aren't any.
Click to expand...

Can he pardon himself?

Can he pardon someone to further a criminal enterprise from which be benefits?

Can he pardon himself to further a cover-up of his own criminal actions for which he is being investigated?

Can he pardon a person who committed crime that he himself participated in and perhaps even authorized?

Again, did you watch it and can you give me her statement?
 
Mach said:
Of course I really think yours is probably more realistic, I just don't want to go there for my sanity :)
Click to expand...

It probably depends on the Mueller report. If the man issues a voluminous report chronicling decades of financial ties to Russia and all manner of illegal and improper financial ties to Russia, that would be devastating in the light of all his statements denying any connection to Russia. Add to that a report which offers hard evidence that Trumps campaign coordinated with the Russians on the leak of the wikileaks material and Trump himself approved that operation and it would be a heavy one-two punch. Add to that solid evidence that Trump participated in a cover up of the first two things and its three strikes. Add to that solid evidence that Trump as President actively took measures to obstruct justice on all these crimes - well it just could be like watching dam burst flooding the valley.

We shall see.
 
haymarket said:
Why did you not answer my direct question?

If Hannity presented a fact based presentation that was worth watching - I just might if a leading intellectual of the right like yourself advised it.
Click to expand...

Haha, the problem Haymarket, is that Maddow isn't very truthful. I mean seriously, she's just giving red (I guess, blue is more correct) meat to the "base" of the left. And that's fine, but I'm not in that base. I don't find her analysis to be accurate or correct, just slanted in a way that presents information a segment of people want to hear it.

I've gotten away from all the big pundits, Hannity, Beck, Rush... I will say I do like Mark Levine though I rarely catch his show anymore. I know it's slanted information, give me the facts. Maybe I'm just getting old.
 
Renae said:
Haha, the problem Haymarket, is that Maddow isn't very truthful. I mean seriously, she's just giving red (I guess, blue is more correct) meat to the "base" of the left. And that's fine, but I'm not in that base. I don't find her analysis to be accurate or correct, just slanted in a way that presents information a segment of people want to hear it.

I've gotten away from all the big pundits, Hannity, Beck, Rush... I will say I do like Mark Levine though I rarely catch his show anymore. I know it's slanted information, give me the facts. Maybe I'm just getting old.
Click to expand...

You have presented no evidence of any kind that there was one thing incorrect about the episode that is under discussion.

Its obvious that from your several posts, you never even watched it, let alone studied it and researched her claims.
 
haymarket said:
Can he pardon himself?

Can he pardon someone to further a criminal enterprise from which be benefits?

Can he pardon himself to further a cover-up of his own criminal actions for which he is being investigated?

Can he pardon a person who committed crime that he himself participated in and perhaps even authorized?

Again, did you watch it and can you give me her statement?
Click to expand...

The president can...

...grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
The president can...
Click to expand...

Why are you unable to answer the direct questions?

The Illinois constitution says the governor has the power to appoint Senator vacancies that occurs during a term. That happened and he picked somebody and went to prison for exercising the very power the state constitution says he had.

Again, what specific claim did Maddow make during that show that you believe is factually wrong?

I suspect you have not even watched it and are just talking nonsense because you do not like her or her politics. But go ahead and prove me wrong.
 
haymarket said:
Why are you unable to answer the direct questions?

The Illinois constitution says the governor has the power to appoint Senator vacancies that occurs during a term. That happened and he picked somebody and went to prison for exercising the very power the state constitution says he had.
Click to expand...

I did answer your question. The Constitution puts only one limitation on presidential pardons and that's in cases of impeachment. Until a president is no longer president, he can pardon anyone he wants.
 
The most interesting part of that segment was Haldeman's response to Nixon's intention to pardon Him, Mitchell and Ehrlichman. And the fact that he recorded his thoughts at the end of the day was a revelation.
The main point for those who didn't watch or refuse to is that the offer or intimation of a pardon is obstruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom