Posted on 08/28/2017 4:24:55 PM PDT by cotton1706
"Let Me Tell You Who Obama Pardoned" Trump Destroys Reporter Over Joe Arpaio Pardon
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
McCain’s hatred for Trump is rooted in the statement he made during a presidential candidates forum: “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” This opened up a scrutiny of McCain’s actual POW behavior where word about his behavior was given by retired Army Colonel Earl Hopper. Hopper portrayed him as a song bird and recorded a Tokyo Rose-style propaganda message that was broadcast on North Vietnamese radio in 1969. Hopper:
“McCain divulged classified information North Vietnam used to hone their air defense system, including “the package routes, which were routes used to bomb North Vietnam. He gave in detail the altitude they were flying, the direction, if they made a turn … he gave them what primary targets the United States was interested in.” As result, Hopper claims, the U.S. lost 60 per cent more aircraft, and in 1968 “called off the bombing of North Vietnam, because of the information McCain had given to them.”
Abuse of the process? Try again?
The reporter is a fairly right wing FNC reporter. I assume the question was posed as a preemptive strike......taking the thunder away from left wing reporters.
Good job Mr President
To paraphrase Hillary: What does it matter?
Those pardons happened , it’s done.
Trump taking some sort of mythical “high ground” does him or us no good.
I’m overjoyed at the pardon and the fact we finally have a President with a set of stones.
That was good, Donald.
Actually the charge was brought by Judge Snow (a Bush appointee).
Under federal law if the DOJ declined to prosecute, the judge would have been required to appoint a prosecutor. So the case was going to trial no matter what.
And I am sure a misdemeanor charge would have been way up there on the local DA’s list.
FOUND IT: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=62589;
Yes, sir, back in the back.
Energy Policy
Q. First, sir, a message from the crew that just recently returned from the U.S.S. Enterprise. My son-in-law was aboard that. From the last man and woman on that crew, they are honored to call you their Commander in Chief.
The President. Okay.
Q. And my question, sir, after you make Tommy Daschle go to his room for being bad, tell us something about your plans to end our dependency on foreign oil.
I think John Roberts is a Fox News reporter. If that’s the case, that’s probably why he didn’t interrupt. He wanted the President to say what he said. I didn’t watch it but I have seen Fox’s John Roberts ask questions before.
I don’t watch many videos. I have satellite Internet and it’s not very video friendly.
Doesn’t have to be a local DA. Can be a private prosecutor. The 2nd Circuit ruled that even a civil attorney involved in the underlying case could be a prosecutor.
In this case that would have been an ACLU attorney.
It would have been ok if he had not taken money for the pardons of Rich and Pincus
bump for later.
Couldn’t have said it better (and I was busy trying to formulate a response to Poison Pill as I came across yours).
If folks are going to read two responses on this thread, they should read yours and that of JohnnyP (post 101). As regards the latter, Trump brought up previous pardons *not* to rationalize a current abuse by referencing previous abuses, but to call out the press on their hypocrisy - he should do that every chance he gets.
Numerous people on this thread are confusing what is permitted with what is appropriate - if it’s not appropriate and if it fits the dictionary definition of abuse (”use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse”), than the power has been used in abusive fashion, even if it’s use is permitted constitutionally. If people have trouble with that concept, imagine we elect as president some clown even more extreme that Obama who decides to pardon “everyone” incarcerated in the federal system. That action is allowed; that action would also be abusive.
One can agree or disagree with the wisdom of pardoning Arapaio, but I can’t really see any basis for labelling that pardon as abusive.
*
Trump hits the ten ring...again.
Friendly to whom? Obama? Did ya hear that AH's response?That screw worm is as friendly as a rattler.
Thus the Constitution defines its own purpose. Thus it is clear that Sheriff Arpaio, in putting the Founders' Posterity ahead of those illegally in the country, was honoring the rule of law, and was unfairly prosecuted. Thus it is clear that President Trump was duty bound to pardon the grievously wronged Sheriff.
The pity is that so few in the media even begin to comprehend the Constitutional purpose. Pathetic, as it is not at all difficult to grasp!
And see What Drives The Trump Haters.
The question was obvious because it was the first opportunity to question the President since he granted the pardon. Someone was going to ask it.
He still made a snide comment at the end.
They’re not reporters. They’re political operatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.