What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Grand Unified Election Thread 2: What is the difference between Biden and Dump?

Status
Not open for further replies.
EnzuHqlVkAAIGM5


His people have to be trolling him...
 
busterman62 said:
I was listening to NPR on the way to work and they were discussing pardons. Unfortunately they only touched on the possibility that Trump may choose to pardon himself. My limited understanding of this is that Presidential pardons may only be prohibited in cases of impeachment (please correct me if I'm wrong) and since Trump has already been impeached, he could possibly attempt a self-pardon. If he chooses to do this, my questions to you and your fellow legal scholars are as follows:

1. Who, if anyone, would have standing to bring the case against Trump's act of self-pardoning to the courts?
2. If the case goes to court and found to be unconstitutional/illegal/abuse of power/etc., can Trump's acceptance of an invalid pardon be used as a confession of guilt for prosecution?
Click to expand...

The biggest problem that I see with a self-pardon is that Trump would essentially be serving as his own judge (nemo judex in re sua (roughly, no one is the judge in his own case)), which goes against principles of natural justice.

As for standing, I don't practice in the criminal arena, but I would think the Department of Justice would have standing to bring the case against Trump. The case, of course, would not be for the use of the pardon itself, but rather the offense for which Trump pardoned himself (Trump would then argue the pardon, and the counter would be that the pardon was unconstitutional/illegal/abuse of power/etc.). As to your second question, I believe Burdick would stand for the proposition that Trump has confessed the pardoned offense. As Handyman alluded to, Trump may be able to retroactively reject the pardon, and then make a coercion type argument (which would be hilarious, as it would essentially mean that Trump would be arguing that he coerced himself into accepting the pardon). Without having done the research, I'm not sure if courts have addressed that issue, but I can't imagine in this factual scenario it would be a winner.
 
If he pardons himself that means he's guilty as sin. And that helps them nail him to the wall in New York. He can't pardon State crimes. We need to show the world that even Presidents go to jail when they commit crimes. If we don't we're not better than anyone else.
 
Self pardon is just stupid. If that concept exists, then there is no limit whatsoever on Presidential power. I would love to hear those strict originalists to explain that the founders’ intent was actually to establish a King.
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Dump just tweeted that Biden can’t enter White House unless he proves his 80m votes weren’t fraudulent .

meanwhile he’s trying to start a war for someone else to clean up

sounds like Israel may be behind the Assassination

https://mobile.twitter.com/atrupar/status/1332349644005908481
Click to expand...

Didn’t someone (Handy?) on here said something to the effect of Pompeo’s trip overseas was to give Israel the green light to strike Iran. This makes more sense.

It’s going to be great when the secret service drags his fat ass out of the WH. I feel like that would be as close to bliss as the world could collectively reach.
 
alfablue said:
Another thought about Jan 20- has there ever been an inauguration where the previous President wasn't there? Wouldn't that be grand.
Click to expand...

3 times prior - John Adams, John Q. Adams, and Andrew Johnson all skipped their successor's inaugurations. Their successors then went on to have very successful tenures, as dubious as Jackson's was when discussed by today's standards.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Didn’t someone (Handy?) on here said something to the effect of Pompeo’s trip overseas was to give Israel the green light to strike Iran. This makes more sense.

It’s going to be great when the secret service drags his fat *** out of the WH. I feel like that would be as close to bliss as the world could collectively reach.
Click to expand...

Not me...but I agree with it. Israel being afraid of an attack backs it up totally.
 
A Donald Trump appointed Judge in the 3rd Circuit basically just told them to get bent. (it was an all GOP backed panel)

Trump Judge said:
Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status...76432559984641

Of course the "D's Get Degrees" Squad is saying it was judicial activism and they are on to SCOTUS. That should go well...

edit: man read all the tweets these judges basically bent the entire Trump argument over a barrel, pants them and spanked them til they cried for all the world to see. There is not a lot of vagueness.
 
Last edited:
So that is supposed to be appealed and sent to SC where zealot Amy throws out millions of votes?? Lol
 
I wouldn't even bet on the SC even hearing the case. I dont think even the Trump loyalists on the bench want anything to do with this. The opinions against by the lower courts don't leave much ambiguity. You can't just overturn an election based on feeling and hearsay. You at least need some evidence...they don't even really make any real accusations under oath and they have zero evidence.

I guarantee you Roberts is hoping none of his Justices vote to hear this. He doesn't want any of them on the record voting for this motion and he has to know at least 2 are going to.
 
Handyman said:
I wouldn't even bet on the SC even hearing the case. I dont think even the Trump loyalists on the bench want anything to do with this. The opinions against by the lower courts don't leave much ambiguity. You can't just overturn an election based on feeling and hearsay. You at least need some evidence...they don't even really make any real accusations under oath and they have zero evidence.

I guarantee you Roberts is hoping none of his Justices vote to hear this. He doesn't want any of them on the record voting for this motion and he has to know at least 2 are going to.
Click to expand...
Live footage of the meeting...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top