Posted on 01/20/2025 6:35:23 AM PST by Be Careful
Just wondering.....and wondering if the Military would have the appetite to do so, if able......if true treason was committed, the public needs to know
The whole world knows that Slow Joe is legally incompetent. Documents sign by incompetent people are can be invalidated.
American voters - busy with their own lives - trusted the media.
And that is the greatest danger this country faces.
The slander against those who told the truth was very, very, very expensive to this country.
What will it take to end that?
Also - while I’ve got you here - what do you make of Catherine Herridge tweeting a photo of herself at Gitmo?
Since the Constitution provides no other guidance for interpreting that phrase, I would argue that since it states that the President has power to issue reprieves and pardons for “offences”, it does not grant the President power to issue them where no offense has occurred. It’s simple logic, as well as just obvious grammar. An identifiable offense must have occurred for a pardon to be issued for it, otherwise this phrase, and the pardon power itself, makes no sense.
At the very least, issuing a pardon MUST be counted as absolute and final proof that an “offence” (a crime) WAS committed by anyone receiving that pardon.
Exactly so..............
Exactly so..............
I don't think it's ever been charged in "peace time." Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
There would be no jurisdiction for a court-martial if he’s already received a pre-emptive pardon.
Not certain what would be gained by calling the US “occupied territory”.
As to Herridge, I haven’t seen the tweet but if she was there doing her job, I don’t have a big issue.
Pardon my ignorance - was that pardon challenged at the Supreme Court and upheld? If not, the simple act of Ford pardoning Nixon doesn't establish a Constitutional precedent. (The USSC doesn't weigh in on such questions until asked.)
Yes, you can indeed. There does not need to be a charge, an arrest, a trial, a conviction, none of it. You don’t even have to specify a crime. Just a person and a time period.
A pre-emptive pardon means that there can’t be an investigation and prosecution so that the public can find out what was done and who all was slandered or otherwise victimized by this man?
I would suggest Trump challenge the constitutionality of ‘preemptive pardons’.
Does it prevent the investigation of others who were involved in crimes? Or can you continue the investigations and trials, knowing they would be automatically pardoned if convicted. How do you get to the truth?
How can you ever pardon someone who had not been convicted?
Can you pardon TREASON? (the penalty being death)
The precedent is Ford pardoning Nixon, but that was wrong too- and the democrats argued that point at the time.
According to Wikipedia (I know, I know), the Nixon pardon was never challenged so SCOTUS has never ruled on whether pre-emptive pardons are Constitutional, or on whether a pardon can prevent indictments from happening.
I imagine SCOTUS will be called to make some rulings very soon.
I can’t see how pardoning somebody - removing the penalty for their conviction - can prevent them from being convicted. It actually seems to me that for the pardon to be effective there had to BE a conviction.
If a pardon can keep a person from being investigated and charged with crimes, it means that the victims of those crimes have no due process allowed to them - no way for the truth to be known, no way to be vindicated. I don’t see how this could possibly be compliant with the 14th Amendment. Due process is not only for the benefit of the accused, but also for the benefit of the one victimized. To keep a victim from having a chance for the truth to be exposed is basically the government itself officially slandering a victim. This cannot be Constitutional.
The Wikipedia article also noted that a pardon does not remove the fact of a person’s conviction, and the fact of a person’s federal conviction can be used as a basis to influence outcomes in future trials either at the state or federal levels. So it seems to me that part of the reason for the conviction to still stand even though the penalties are removed is so that the victims are able to get justice through other venues. So the ability for victims to see the conviction of the perpetrator - even if no penalty is held against that perpetrator - is a valid reason for a conviction to stand, regardless of a pardon. And the same reason would exist for why a conviction should be allowed to be sought and acquired, regardless of whether the penalty is pardoned.
Everyone that Xiden pardoned frankly needs to be assassinated.
In Miley’s case President Trump an revoke all his security clearances which will remove him from any and all information relative to our military and other security operations. That would in effect prevent him from being employed by any contractor and remove his gravy train for the future.
Also we will have an attorney general who takes no crap and will no doubt figure out a way to hammer this guy.
So if Milley, at any point in his remaining life, assaults a postal worker, steals a sandwich from a pentagon cafeteria or illegally develops a wetland against EPA rules on his family farm - he is immune from Federal prosecution?
What an absurd proposition.
For Federal crimes in the past you can. There is simply no limit of that type on the plenary authority of the President to issue pardons.
Recall Miley to the Military, demote him in rank to Private, send him back to boot camp, them transfer him to Antarctica in summer attire. There, problem solved!
There’s a difference between criminal pardon and civil liability. I don’t know that a pardon will shield these people from civil judgment.
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.