Trump v Biden 2020,The insurrection (pt 6) Read OP

ohnonotgmail

https://twitter.com/joeheenan/status/1350044768357785600

Professor Moriarty

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is shocking is your ridiculous lie.

Great to see Gmail and Hotmail getting it on.

everlast75

hotmail.com wrote: »

Jimmy Carter pardoned over 500 people in his final days in office.

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

He did not.

He pardoned 534 people over his entire term of office (566 including clemencies and rescinded convictions).

Only 74 of the pardons, and 7 of the clemencies were in 1981, his final weeks of office. His most active year was 1978, his second year in office.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-statistics#carter

Dammit Fox! You and your shallow talking points

ohnonotgmail

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Great to see Gmail and Hotmail getting it on.

well that is an image that will haunt me for some time.

one armed dwarf

Would it not be sort of a good thing if he tried to pardon himself? If it would mean he still gets left open to civil cases against him and the burden of responsibility is off the Biden admin and Senate to pursue this guy.

Amirani

extra gravy wrote: »

How would you even go about doing this as a regular person? Phone up the Russian embassy and ask for the shady section?

It's basically the plot to Burn After Reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_After_Reading

Gregor Samsa

hotmail.com wrote: »

Shocking numbers.

The average across all Presidents from McKinley to now is 691 pardons. So Carter's 534 is actually below average.

The trend in recent administrations has been for lower numbers, with Bush Senior the lowest ever with only 74 pardons (out of 1,433 total requests).

Obama had only 212 pardons out of a whopping 36,544 requests (the most requests so far by far).

(Note: this is just pardons, not commutations and other forms of clemency.)

Overheal

Megyn Kelly thinks the courts should consider 'big tech' a 4th branch of the federal government.

https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes/status/1351176127834976260?s=20

I just - wow

Scratching my head at her 'case law' examples - I think at best she's referring to utilities, like water. Big tech is not a utility. We aren't talking about the last-mile ISP providers either like Comcast we're talking about face-****ing-book. This argument from her is mental.

Muahahaha

Does anyone know how a pardon is actually worded? Is it just a general thing for all and any crimes committed or does it have to name a specific crime? If its the latter his list will make for some interesting reading when it comes to family members.

Overheal

Muahahaha wrote: »

Does anyone know how a pardon is actually worded? Is it just a general thing for all and any crimes committed or does it have to name a specific crime? If its the latter his list will make for some interesting reading when it comes to family members.

eg. "a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from Jaunary 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-88/pdf/STATUTE-88-Pg2502.pdf

joe40

On the issue of Pardons, I think it also plays into Trumps idea of being the supreme commander. At one stage did he not argue that he could do what he wants as the president, I think he imagined himself as a medieval King with absolute power.

Obviously that is all evaporating now so the only vestige of that sort of power left is his pardons and his executions.

Gregor Samsa

Muahahaha wrote: »

Does anyone know how a pardon is actually worded? Is it just a general thing for all and any crimes committed or does it have to name a specific crime? If its the latter his list will make for some interesting reading when it comes to family members.

I guess the President can word it any way he wants. As above, it could be for all crimes committed within a particular timeframe (I assume this can't include crimes committed in the future.)

Here's Trump's pardon letter to Sheriff Arpaio, which is for a specific conviction, and then for any other charges he might face under a specific law and case:

Gregor Samsa

joe40 wrote: »

I think he imagined himself as a medieval King with absolute power.

Or the fictional representation of a Roman emperor

ohnonotgmail

Overheal wrote: »

eg. "a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from Jaunary 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-88/pdf/STATUTE-88-Pg2502.pdf

The nixon pardon would not be typical. You can see the full list of trump pardons and their full text here https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-granted-president-donald-trump

Tippex

Overheal wrote: »

eg. "a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from Jaunary 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-88/pdf/STATUTE-88-Pg2502.pdf

I may be wrong but is this not the only case of a blanket pardon that has not been for a specific crime and only covered anything while he held office?

I don't believe such a blanket pardon would work on anyone other than Trump or members of the administration as you can define the timescale.

This may be one of the biggest things that will impact who Trump can issue a pardon to as generally, it relates to a specific crime that they have been convicted of and it comes with the acceptance of guilt.

There seems to be a case that it can be worded in such a way that you can be pardoned due to the president believing your innocence but that can be open to interpretation and it may need to be specific which opens up another can of worms for the receipient.

briany

I think there's an argument to say that because digital platforms are now such a big way of getting one's message out there that simultaneously being deplatformed from all of the main ones can certainly *feel* like a curtailing of a person's freedom of speech.

But Twitter, Facebook, Youtube et al were set up as private ventures and come with terms & conditions attached to their use, and those Ts & Cs can presumably be anything within the law. Where it could be unfair is if you raise some massive controversy on one platform and all major platforms ban you simultaneously. It's there you'd begin asking questions if they all have the right to do that, but then again there probably is some obscure cause in the Ts&Cs about being able to suspend your account without any real reason.

But anyway, those platforms did not start out with the intent of being the be-all, end-all of communication with the world and guardians of free speech. It's a little late to expect them to be so, now.

Even if you were to set up some kind of similar platform as a publicly-funded utility, there still remains the problem that unfettered free speech is potentially very divisive and destabilising, as we've seen as truth and lies become so hopelessly woven together. So having that platform wouldn't even solve a problem. There would have to be real consequences for people pushing misinformation and generally being bad-faith actors, plus just generally better critical thinking among society at large.

salmocab

I have to admit that one impressive thing trump has is his signature. It’s a cracking signature. Unfortunately everything else about the man is objectionable.

timsey tiger

salmocab wrote: »

I have to admit that one impressive thing trump has is his signature. It’s a cracking signature. Unfortunately everything else about the man is objectionable.

he zigs and zags from left to right

I'm not seeing it

everlast75

salmocab wrote: »

I have to admit that one impressive thing trump has is his signature. It’s a cracking signature. Unfortunately everything else about the man is objectionable.

plenty of practice writing cheques his butt can't cash...

listermint

Overheal wrote: »

Megyn Kelly thinks the courts should consider 'big tech' a 4th branch of the federal government.

https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes/status/1351176127834976260?s=20

I just - wow

Scratching my head at her 'case law' examples - I think at best she's referring to utilities, like water. Big tech is not a utility. We aren't talking about the last-mile ISP providers either like Comcast we're talking about face-****ing-book. This argument from her is mental.

Is Parler not..... Erm big tech based on her arguement though?

Big tech being a catch all term.

Mr Velo

timsey tiger wrote: »

he zigs and zags from left to right

I'm not seeing it

Is anyone else not seeing the word "DUMMY" in his signature (towards the end)?

Mr Velo

Mr Velo wrote: »

Is anyone else not seeing the word "DUMMY" in his signature (towards the end)?

https://imgur.com/V2RdFL1

Tell me how

Overheal wrote: »

Megyn Kelly thinks the courts should consider 'big tech' a 4th branch of the federal government.

https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes/status/1351176127834976260?s=20

I just - wow

Scratching my head at her 'case law' examples - I think at best she's referring to utilities, like water. Big tech is not a utility. We aren't talking about the last-mile ISP providers either like Comcast we're talking about face-****ing-book. This argument from her is mental.

A fcuking Republican arguing for the effective take over of some of the biggest corporations in the world. :eek::eek:

WTF happened to their 'Less government interference' ideals they bleat on about so much? It's actually maddening to watch them lose their minds so much over this. It confirms how subjective they are in their ideals and unfortunately this impacts on the legislation which Government passes.

It's been a trainwreck for them PR wise the last 12 months. Trump's legacy could be his inadvertent impact of forcing their members to confront themselves as to who is it they are and what exactly they want from their government.

Libertarian candidates would make more sense than some of what they are coming out with at this point.

Muahahaha

Overheal wrote: »

eg. "a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from Jaunary 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."

It will be interesting to see if he does pardon Ivanka, Jared and the two sons and especially the way the pardon is worded. I mean if he gives them a pardon to cover any crimes that they 'have committed or may have committed' that will then be used as ammunition by their primary opponents if they ever stand for office. Ivanka is in the middle of buying a $20m house in Florida and the rumour is she intends to take on Mark Rubio in the next Senate election. She is persona non grata among the New York elite now so a fresh start now beckons for her in Florida.

It will also be interesting to see what Rudys pardon might say. I mean he was running a back channel foreign policy in Ukraine trying to get the Prime Minister there to open an investigation into Biden. Im not sure what Federal law says about going behind the backs of the Department of State but I would imagine Rudy was in breach of it. iirc Nixon did something similar with the Vietnamese, before he was elected he told them not to make peace with LBJ because he would give them a better deal. Then when he got elected he reneged on that secret deal done behind the Department of States backs and the Vietnam war continued on for more years than it had to.

Also we've got rapper Lil Wayne who has a sentencing hearing on the 28th of this month. He is looking at up to 10 years in prison after he was caught with herion, cocaine and a gold plated Glock on his private jet. He endorsed Trump just before the election much to the chagrin of his fans. Needs must I suppose.

Gregor Samsa

salmocab wrote: »

I have to admit that one impressive thing trump has is his signature. It’s a cracking signature. Unfortunately everything else about the man is objectionable.

It would make a great extremist flag

briany

Muahahaha wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if he does pardon Ivanka, Jared and the two sons

He could give Jr. a pardon, alright, but I doubt Barron would need one.

jimmycrackcorm

Tell me how wrote: »

A fcuking Republican arguing for the effective take over of some of the biggest corporations in the world. :eek::eek:

Republicans are two-faced anyway. Suggesting the Democrats would stuff the SCOTUS while trying to stuff it with conservative judges.

"Hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would consider any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president—to be elected later that year"

Jaded Walker

briany wrote: »

I think there's an argument to say that because digital platforms are now such a big way of getting one's message out there that simultaneously being deplatformed from all of the main ones can certainly *feel* like a curtailing of a person's freedom of speech.

But Twitter, Facebook, Youtube et al were set up as private ventures and come with terms & conditions attached to their use, and those Ts & Cs can presumably be anything within the law. Where it could be unfair is if you raise some massive controversy on one platform and all major platforms ban you simultaneously. It's there you'd begin asking questions if they all have the right to do that, but then again there probably is some obscure cause in the Ts&Cs about being able to suspend your account without any real reason.

But anyway, those platforms did not start out with the intent of being the be-all, end-all of communication with the world and guardians of free speech. It's a little late to expect them to be so, now.

Even if you were to set up some kind of similar platform as a publicly-funded utility, there still remains the problem that unfettered free speech is potentially very divisive and destabilising, as we've seen as truth and lies become so hopelessly woven together. So having that platform wouldn't even solve a problem. There would have to be real consequences for people pushing misinformation and generally being bad-faith actors, plus just generally better critical thinking among society at large.

I'm not sure of the legal end of things but to me if you are from the United States of America you have the fight to free speech. As such if you post something up on any of those social media sites in America then you are posting it with the freedoms of the First Amendment.

Thing is these sites are worldwide so you may be a breaking a law in another country.
So I'd imagine that you can be banned from international postings but not from your own country if there are rights to freedom of speech in the country. I don't think anybody can have terms and conditions which are legally acceptable in the USA as regards preventing a person's right to free speech.
I'd imagine we will see court cases over this in the next while.

Gregor Samsa

Jaded Walker wrote: »

I'm not sure of the legal end of things but to me if you are from the United States of America you have the fight to free speech. As such if you post something up on any of those social media sites in America then you are posting it with the freedoms of the First Amendment.

Thing is these sites are worldwide so you may be a breaking a law in another country.
So I'd imagine that you can be banned from international postings but not from your own country if there are rights to freedom of speech in the country. I don't think anybody can have terms and conditions which are legally acceptable in the USA as regards preventing a person's right to free speech.
I'd imagine we will see court cases over this in the next while.

The US Constitutional right to free speech (the First Amendment) is only prevents the Government from restricting speech:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Private companies can implement whatever rules they want.

Overheal

Jaded Walker wrote: »

I'm not sure of the legal end of things but to me if you are from the United States of America you have the fight to free speech. As such if you post something up on any of those social media sites in America then you are posting it with the freedoms of the First Amendment.

Thing is these sites are worldwide so you may be a breaking a law in another country.
So I'd imagine that you can be banned from international postings but not from your own country if there are rights to freedom of speech in the country. I don't think anybody can have terms and conditions which are legally acceptable in the USA as regards preventing a person's right to free speech.
I'd imagine we will see court cases over this in the next while.

Bad legal take. The first amendment protects you from the government abridging your speech, not private entities.