You know most of the country at the time wanted criminal charges for Nixon right?!? Ford and Nixon were BFFs and it was clearly corrupt. I think you may be mistaken and not know
It's not so much what the public wants, but what is prudent, and I thought that pardoning was the right move. Of course, I have a bias toward less prosecution and forgiveness for those who learn their lesson and are truly sorry.
Poor judgment? Biden was trying warn the world about a possible Russian invasion and he was laughed at and called a war monger. He declassified intel for the first time in American history to convince others only to be proven right months later. The amount of delusions and cope that right wingers have regarding Biden is something else.
Nixon never learned his lesson. He only resigned cuz the senate had enough votes to convict him. You do know this right? He thought he did nothing wrong and made a deal with Ford when he resigned for a quid pro quo. It was pure corruption in broad daylight. Nixon later on said numerous times he did nothing wrong later in life
nixons crimes pale in comparison to trump. also, nixon had the good sense to go away. trump has never shown any remorse, regret or admitted any kind of wrong-doing. he just keeps doubling down. he is a direct threat to our democracy and the rule of law and must be held accountable. nixon got in trouble for watergate...compare that with trump...aside from the most recent indictment we also have trump inciting an insurrection on january 6th, pressuring the GA sec of state to "find" 11k votes, threatening to withold aid from ukraine unless they found dirt on biden and more.
I don't know if he never learned his lesson, but even if he didn't, he was held accountable - he resigned.
The most successful folks are the ones willing to make the most mistakes (often due to poor judgments), as long as they can learn and grow from them.
I keep begging you and @AroundTheWorld to kindly show me one lick of hard evidence that links joe biden to have benefited in any way from the Hunter ukraine stuff or influenced anything of value. It just mind baffling how you don't grasp in your brain that there's not a lick of evidence showing joe biden himself did anything wrong. Hunter biden is a scumbag for other reasons. Lobbying is bad and money out of politics is bad. There's not a lick of evidence showing joe biden did anything illegal. Whatever you're accusing of Hunter Biden doing ivanka and jared did that by 1000
Nixon only got in trouble because the senate was ready to find him guilty and he had no choice. He was going be thrown out of office. The public was done with him. Thats the point I'm trying to make. Prosecution is the only solution to problems like these. If Nixon hadn't had the threat of Prosecution he wouldn't have gone either.
OS switches between poking, trolling, and being serious in matter of microseconds. Don't take it too serious
I don't think you understand. *Every* single republican in America thinks biden did something illegal on regards to Hunter simply based off accusations and conspiracies. It's a major issue in America. There's not one shred of evidence that links joe biden to anything illegal other than heresy from shaddy witness. There's no tapes, messages, videos, photos or anything. @StupidMoniker thinks because someone wrote "10% for big guy" that somehow gives probable cause for a conviction. People are so brainwashed about the facts regarding the ukraine stuff that it's sad.
Althouse "Now, the fact that a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned doesn’t mean that the judge is partial." by noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) June 12, 2023 "The public may simply not trust the impartiality of the judge. Because public trust in the work of the court is a value as important as the work itself, the rule says that the judge should not sit when we can’t fairly ask the public to trust what the judge does. That rule is especially important in this case. One thing the prosecution can do is move to recuse Judge Cannon on the ground that, in light of her experience in the search-warrant case last year, her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. And who would make that judgment if the government does push for this recusal? The judge herself gets to make that decision in our system. If she denies the recusal, the government could go to the Eleventh Circuit and ask it to order her to recuse herself... a process called mandamus.... Mandamus efforts are rarely successful...." Says lawprof Stephen Gillers, interviewed in "Will the Judge in Trump’s Case Recuse Herself—or Be Forced To?/Federal law requires a judge to step away from a case in which her impartiality 'might reasonably be questioned'" (The New Yorker). The judge — Aileen M. Cannon, assigned the case through the routine and random selection process — is a Trump appointee. If the random selection had been a Biden appointee, would that judge also have to recuse herself/himself? If Cannon were to recuse herself, and she is replaced by a Biden appointee — or an appointee of any Democratic President — wouldn't Trump's demand for recusal be at least as strong as the prosecution's demand that Cannon recuse herself? We'd be talking about fairness to the accused. "The public may simply not trust the impartiality of the judge" — the public doesn't trust the impartiality of anything here. That's the problem with the pursuit of political goals through the criminal process... or the appearance that's what you're doing. The argument for recusal in this case is an argument about the appearance of partiality, but the appearance of partiality is baked into this case. Can anyone suggest how to unbake it? Back to Gillers: What’s a trial? A trial is a competition between two sides over which story is true, right?... Well! I would say a criminal trial is a challenge to the prosecution to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not a level playing field analogous to a sporting event! The accused can do nothing and win! The prosecution has a story, the defense has a story, and the jury is going to decide whom to believe. It upsets me to hear a law professor say this about a criminal case. Where is the regard for the rights of the accused? Is Trump so powerful that he blots out what would otherwise be a firm commitment? Gillers notes the distinct powers of the trial judge. {Juries decide} based on information that the judge, applying the rules of evidence, allows the jury to hear... For example, in this case, a lot of the evidence, as we can glean from the indictment, will come from people, including lawyers, who heard Trump say something. So, right there, you have what’s called the hearsay problem. This is going to be critical to the prosecution’s case.... {A}fter the defense rests but before the case goes to the jury, the defense can make a motion for a directed verdict for acquittal... If the judge grants a directed verdict of acquittal before the case goes to the jury, that’s the end of it. That cannot be appealed.... Is it in the prosecution's interest to seek recusal? Gillers essentially says it is not: The problem with going for recusal right off the bat is that you may lose in the circuit, and now you’re trying a case before a judge you’ve accused of being unable to appear impartial—and that’s not pleasant. So the government may decide that it’s just better to make the strongest case they can and hope that she behaves like a judge. But the interview ends with a strong assertion that Cannon must recuse herself. She had another Trump case last year which decided in Trump's favor, and Gillers says she showed partiality, so, he says, he's "concerned that the partiality she expressed in her decisions last year creates a reasonable perception in the mind of a fair-minded person that she is not impartial—which is the test." Who is the "fair-minded person" around here? Maybe nobody, but the judge who is accused of impartiality would be called on to imagine these characters and form an opinion about what they think about her. In my view, we're already too deeply into things that make people think this is politicized, so the better path is not to wade further in but to stop and pretend to believe what works well enough when everything else is falling apart: that judges are judges.
‘If you want to die in jail, keep talking’ – two national security law experts discuss the special treatment for Trump and offer him some advice https://theconversation.com/if-you-...nt-for-trump-and-offer-him-some-advice-207482 excerpt: Trump knows a lot of state secrets. An angry Trump in prison has risks. If he were found guilty, what does incarceration look like for him? Durkin: I can tell you what it would mean to anyone else. They’d be put in a hole in the wall in maximum security at Florence, Colorado, and they would apply what’s called “Special Administrative Measures.” Several of my terrorism clients have had those imposed on them. There’s a microphone outside their solitary confinement to monitor anything that they say, even between prisoners. Their mail is extremely limited. Their telephone contact is extremely limited. And that’s what would happen to anyone else similarly situated. Ferguson: Trump’s insistence on keeping talking about this creates a record that would justify isolation in maximum security on the basis that “We can’t trust this man not to continue to talk. We can’t trust him not to further share these secrets with people who may wish to do harm with them. The only way to avoid that is to put him in isolation in supermax where he doesn’t get to talk with people, except under these extremely closely monitored circumstances, certainly isn’t in a general population situation, gets to take a walk in a courtyard for one hour out of the 24 hours of the day, and the other 23 hours, leaving him mostly without human contact.” more at the link
Jeebus. I had never really thought this through, b/c I can still never see a world line where he ends up in the pokey. But yeah, if he does time, it would have to be very carefully handled, not like a resort treatment that we would expect. Seems to me that makes the outcome even more unlikely.
quote from that article: Can you imagine a situation with all of the facts laid out in this indictment but where they would not indict? Durkin: No. Ferguson: That’s why we both say that in fundamental respects, this isn’t different from other national security cases. These cases work from the premise that this is a fundamental compromising of the interests of the United States. And those are the cases that the government pursues tooth and nail. With so much in the public domain, and with so much of the defendant himself speaking to all of this, it almost puts the government in a position of saying, “Well, OK, if we have to, here we go.” Durkin: There’s only one reason the government could not bring this case, and that’s fear of violence or an attack on the republic. Once you do that, then you might as well close the Department of Justice and forget about any rule of law.
