Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

Can you imagine waking up from a 2 year long coma to this?

If someone started filling you in on what's been happening you might just wish you had stayed in a coma before they ever finished telling you half the story......

Covid pandemic, thousands dying daily, American terrorists led by the Apprentice Show President, QAnon, Boogaloo, Middle aged white racists called Patriot Boys, a 2nd impeachment of Trump, 25,000 National Guard troops deployed to provide security for a Presidential inauguration, closure of the National Mall, and Ken Paxton, Ted Cruz, and a bunch of Trump loyalists attempting to spread a bunch of lying propaganda and lawsuits claiming Dems stole the election, and on and on.

 

....I'd ask the doctor to re-induce that coma.

...and wake me up when all this is over...

 

It looks like Trump can pardon these people.

 

It's been ****, but things are about to get slowly better.

January 6th was rock bottom, only way to go is up

 

That was what one of the Lincoln Projects ads were.

 

Hmm from my understanding Trump can't even pardon himself.... He has lost all of his pardon power...

T_Man

 

If Trump does pardon the people who invaded the Capitol or himself and his family I would hope that someone would challenge in court the whether a President under impeachment can issue pardons per Article II.

 

He cannot pardon his co-conspirators in the high crimes and misdemeanors he is being impeached for. I think that precludes everybody that was there.

 

b****tits Billy Barr, the BBB, has hinted pardons can be considered obstruction given the right context

 

Trump proably can't pardon himself, but that is up to debate. Here's a good podcast by the Constitution Center on that subject:
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/podcast/can-the-president-pardon-himself

It seems like the plain language of the Constitution and all the founders debates notes point to the fact that he can pardon anyone who invaded. If he does, will it be challenged? Sure. What will SCOTUS decide? No one knows for sure, but most Con Law scholars think that's just an extaordinary power of the president allowed for by the Constitution. Even the few scholars that would argue against this specific use of the power is arguing from a position of what the law should be, not what it is.

 

Apologies, but that's just a twitter misunderstanding of the pardon power.

 

Pardon me.


Reupping: I agree with those Constitutional lawyers who read the pardon power as vast--even being able to pardon co-conspirators.
But I STILL think that, without the help of Barr or Cipollone, Trump may really **** up the pardonpalooza.
https://t.co/EhAYoisnnG

 

That presidents have pardon powers is clear in the Constitution. It states that commanders-in-chief have power “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”

Lawrence Tribe wrote a piece that said you couldn't pardon where it's an obstruction of justice.

I think I'll take this to the supreme Court and I'll win

 

From the Madison Debates:

Wilson won that debate, as the pardon language removed "except cases of treason." They later argued about whether the pardon power should require senate agreement and decided against it. So here, the framers are specifically talking about the risk of a president being a traitor and having traitors work for him. And they decided, yeah, that would suck, but other solutions would suck more. If the president is a traitor, then we'll impeach him and the senate will convict him. And we can impeach traitors within the government and kick them out too. And hence most scholars see it as yes, the president can pardon pretty much anyone, including traitors that worked for him. The pardon won't save them from impeachment from government, but it will save them from the noose.

 

I respectfully disagree with Tribe. I hope his arguments will win though. Part of me wants to see these pardons happen because the Trump stress test on the Constitution is real and we kind of need to play this out and correct it for the future. "Except in cases of impeachment" means the president can't pardon those to save them from impeachment - that's well established jurisprudence that's only being challenged because of Trump. And maybe it should be challeged, but it's definitely not the current interpretation of the law.

 

Reading the Tribe piece (it was pre riots). Not bad. A little weird though.
https://www.ft.com/content/e73fdd69-1fee-4886-b299-959ce9647151
He argues:

But that's not what the Constitution says. It says (from the section he's quoting):

WTF dude? You're this famous Harvard law professor.
- The article, like others, is aspirational
- I don't mind the conclusion: prosecuters should go after corrupt pardons.
- Unfortunately, the law does not favor this power.
- His argument's foundation is factually incorrect. The Constitution only allows for the possibility of an accordingly punishment to presidents who have been convicted, not just impeached.

So the only legit path is: convict him, bar him from elected office, and prosecute...but he has to be convicted.

 

Wolfchild Astbury.

 

Dances With Klansmen

 

Why would he pardon them after trying so pathetically to distance himself from them?

It's not gonna happen, and it's so funny that those gullible clowns think the big clown cares about them. He never did, he never will.