Writes Eric Lutz, in "Pardoning Trump’s Enemies Is a Double-Edged Sword/By offering preemptive pardons to the likes of Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff, Joe Biden might rescue them for legal retribution. But Trump would falsely use it as evidence that they committed crimes" (Vanity Fair).
It's always amusing to Democrats' problems phrased in terms of Republicans "pouncing" on them, and I like that the person writing "pounce" is named "Lutz" — both a pounce and a lutz are jumps.
পোস্টগুলি
১১৮টি মন্তব্য:
There’s no doubt they would again spin additional pardons as validation for Trump's bogus claims that he has long been a victim of hoaxes, witch hunts, and 'deep-state' political attacks.
For freshmen: the above is an example of anchoring.
If you have to give people pardons that would be generous by the Nixon standard, then turn around to say "but they didn't do anything, honest" it shows that the Democrats are far less intelligent and moral than the Michael Corleone crime family.
That said, we're not going to rely on the worthless opinions of Vichy bootlickers or NPC drones, either. Criminals will be punished.
Why does anybody take ANYTHING a progressive says anymore without pointing and laughing at them. Do they REALLY believe this bunk??
... Trump would falsely use it as evidence that they committed crimes."
Asserted out of thin air, without evidence, as they say.
They know it is HIGHLY effective amongst the mentally ill who are their constituency.
There are a myriad of ways for Trump to exact Justice on these people. Barack Obama murdered Americans during his term as President ... people not even charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. Obama set the precedent.
According to our Soviet-Democrat Party Press - democrats are amazing and innocent of all charges. Because Russian dis-information.
"falsely use" — what does that even mean?
Terrible writing.
Inferential incursions are a nod and fist bump to our psycho-atric liberal Democratzi. Meanwhile, the People are withdrawing tolerance for its progress. The Fourth Estate is bankrupt and should pursue restructuring under the People's press paradigm to remain a viable construct.
“Falsely use” is a euphemism for “effectively use.”
If you're using it, you're really using it.
The pardoning isn't false. It will have really happened.
It's just a question of how to interpret this real and true event. We'd have solid circumstantial evidence and we'd be debating about how to interpret it. Both sides will "use" interpretation to get somewhere advantageous to them. But what would make the predicted interpretation false? I think the headline writer is predicting something that hasn't yet happened and then — without evidence — declaring it false.
These aren't pardons. Pardons are forgiveness. These are grants of immunity.
"But Trump would falsely use it as evidence that they committed crimes."
Falsely?
If truly "false," then they didn't need the pardon in the first place. They really do think of us as dunces.
Look at me! It's only 10:30 in the morning and already I'm pouncing! Not bad for a 60+ year old lady, if I say so myself!
Yes. The evidence is clear that Hunter Biden was just a lone wolf, tricking foreigners into the utterly false belief that he was a bagman for his corrupt father and other corrupt family members. Joe's wealth is the product of honest hard work and sensible frugality. You won't catch me pouncing. Certainly the MSM has never pounced.
Still trying to figure out why everyone thought that the completely innocent and unremarkable contents of the laptop were Russian disinformation. Why would anyone think that the Russians fabricated content that didn't in any way indicate that Joe was corrupt? Perhaps with more time we will be able to figure out how to explain this in a non-pouncing way that reveals that the Bidens and the MSM are both honest and competent.
Like
Again - everything negative about Demcorats - can be washed clean with our failed democrat party hack media machine.
Granting clemency to officials who have committed no crimes, other than the offense of contradicting or opposing Trump...
This is the most disingenuous statement you'll read today. "Contradicting or opposing" does not encompass perjury, setting up false flag operations, obstructing justice, and a whole host of other crimes committed by those trying to keep Trump out of the White House.
No matter how much you hate the media, you don't hate them enough.
"It's always amusing to Democrats' problems phrased in terms of Republicans "pouncing" on them" It is to us deplorables. But it also isn't: the repeated use of the trope shows how progs can afford to remain oblivious to their own cluelessness. Their bubble protects their BS.
Question. As Bob Boyd says, part of Biden's "pardon" is really a grant of immunity. How can a president pardon someone for something he may have committed and for which he has yet to be prosecuted?
The broad grant also makes a mockery of the primary rationale that Hunter was unfairly and selectively prosecuted. Obviously, there was nothing unfair about the nonprosecution of uncharged crimes. (Except that the actually favorable treatment Hunter has received all along was unfair to the rest of us.)
why pardon them if they didn't commit crimes?
Geeez - the Democrat-Soviet Party press sure do treat their loyalist demo-moron readers as idiots. They believe!
So true! Does the president really have the power to grant immunity?
lol - gotta keep moving!
I have to admit that I am so foolish that I didn't believe that the Democrats would go this far. If the Democrats proceed with these pardons, they are basically admitting that every "far right-wing conspiracy" alleged by Trump and conservatives over the past few years, is true.
All those people in line for pardons committed crimes to either stifle Trump's prior Presidency, or to keep him from being elected in both 2016 and 2024. They accused him of crimes and tried to put him in jail for goodness sakes, and committed criminal acts themselves to do so. And people, even attorneys and law professors who pretend to support the Constitution and justice still support that party???
Will Biden pardon Obama? Why not? If there are no underlying crimes and these pardons are simply to head off malicious prosecution by a Trump DOJ that can be assumed to be corrupt, doesn't Obama need protection too, from trumped up charges regarding unofficial acts?
wendybar said…
“Why does anybody take ANYTHING a progressive says anymore without pointing and laughing at them.”
Don’t be a Lutz, be a Muntz. Ha ha!
In high school at a DoDDS school in England (where Gahrie and I met, incidentally), we used to be given the Stars and Stripes newspaper sometimes for some reason. There were ads in the back from prison inmates looking for pen* pals. Again for some reason - maybe I was thinking ahead to college essays, or maybe I was channeling St. Francis or something - I chose one and began a correspondence. I wasn't alone; quite a few of us ended up writing to inmates.
Amazingly, every one of those guys was wrongfully imprisoned! Who knew our justice system was so deeply, deeply flawed?
(* Boy, am I glad I proofread! Autocorrect had made my "pen" into "porn," a word I thought autocorrect tried assiduously to avoid, a la "Dear Autocorrect: it's never duck.")
Lutz said...
"By offering preemptive pardons to the likes of Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff, Joe Biden might rescue them for legal retribution. But Trump would falsely use it as evidence that they committed crimes."
Consciousness of guilt evidence is different from propensity evidence; consciousness of guilt evidence is an acceptable form of circumstantial evidence used to show awareness of an accused that he or she has engaged in blameworthy conduct.
I hope you stretched first! I find that if I don't stretch before pouncing, I pay for it afterward.
Response from ChatGPT re pardon power:
The power of the President to issue pardons is outlined in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. This clause, often referred to as the Pardon Clause, states:
“The President shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
This gives the President the authority to pardon individuals for federal crimes, but not for state crimes or in impeachment cases.
I don't read “immunity” between the lines here…. Seems you have to have an actual Offense to have a pardon.
Vanity Fair is an illustrated Kos, that traffics in every blue anon conspiracy
What about Hillary? Doesn't she need blanket immunity...I mean a pardon?
Baseless! Baseless.
There's Plenty of Evidence of Corruption Around Biden
It does seem rather difficult to see any substantial difference between an 11-year pardon for any and all crimes committed and "It's not illegal when we do it!".
They did do some good work on the COVID conspiracy.
This is why the Court needs to specifically interpret Article II, Section 2 -- "and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
A reasonable person would assume the recipient of a presidential reprieve or pardon has been convicted or at least lawfully indicted of a specific offense in the past. However, Joe Biden's pardon of Hunter Biden as written absolves him of all Federal crimes into the future, though admittedly into a very brief span of the future. Assume for a moment that the a pardon for future crime is lawful. What would prevent Joe from pardoning William J. Burns for all offenses against the United States extending from this day to January 19th 2025? As CIA Director Burns could become fabulously rich by selling secrets to the Chineses. With such a pardon in hand he would have a license to spy that even 007 could only envy.
The Framers weren't stupid. Surely they intended the power to reprieve and pardon to be limited to charges already adjudicated, and not to unspecified charges not even brought before a grand jury, and surely not to crimes committed in the future. Clearly, FJB's blanket pardon is unlawful and a conspiratorial act intended to impede and obstruct justice. Therefore, the first business of the 119th Congress is the impeachment of President Joseph Robinette Biden.
Challenge of the day: Use double salchow in a sentence. Extra points for usage in context.
If truly "false," then they didn't need the pardon in the first place. They really do think of us as dunces.
So there is no possibility that a President would not abuse his office and order the DOJ to bring spurious charges against people? If so, what the hell have you all been bitching about for the last eight years?
It's strange how just saying "Republicans pounce" on something makes what's really there disappear. What's there disappears even more completely when you add "falsely" or "without evidence." Articles like this, though, are a sign that the media is going to forget about this pardon and Joe's corruption and make the public forget it.
"Challenge of the day: Use double salchow in a sentence."
Easy. This morning, a poster using the name "Rehajm" challenged Althouse readers to use "double salchow" in a sentence!
The Biden quandry at this point is that further pardons within his family will simply serve as a roadmap of his family's corruption and the incoming administration should track each one and subpoena each, starting with Hunter, to derive details of their separate and joint criminal activities. Or jail them for contempt if they refuse to testify under oath. For any Biden official pardoned Trump should take the position that criminal activities were involved and go after their jobs, benefits and pensions -- let Fauci, for example, prove that his activities were NOT corrupt. And yes, I know that it is not legally possible to prove a negative -- that is the whole point.
And a putz is probably a journalist, or vice versa.
Innocent people neither require nor accept pardons.
A regularly recurring theme at Instapundit regarding coverage by the MSM is the observation that "When Republicans screw up, that is the story, When Democrats screw up, the Republican reaction is the story,"
who drew the short straw for the most ridiculous take, thats usually Bess Levins job or Gabriel Sherman, who has moved over to Puck,
Yes. You are correct.
>Lazarus said...
What's there disappears even more completely when you add "falsely" or "without evidence."<
Yep. And I'm sure that the liberal use of these terms is taught in J-School these days. When in fact their use in any reporting assignment there should draw Fs.
the Hastings impeachment was probably on the minds of the Founders when they wrote these stipulations Hastings had successfully prosecuted the Second Mysore but had run afoul of a scribe, Phillip James who had toppled two former prime ministers,
Full credit for technical execution, zero style points…
Shorter Freder>>>
Only the GOP deserve lawfare harassment. Leave those poor democrats alone. Besides - all of it is Russian Disinformation. Heard it on Maddow.
The democratic/dictatorial double-edged scalpel.
Frederson needs to clean up the double negatives and non sequitirs in his arguments if he wants them taken seriously. Are all charges against predecessors spurious? What makes those against Trump something other than spurious?
It was your subconscious hybristophilia, or to be kinder, the typical young female "Save-The-Lost-Puppy Syndrome". You seem to have overcome that latent tendency nicely, though.
he has written for Rolling Stone and the Guardian, so his trackrecord is probably unequaled for being wrong
"Falsely use it?" I hope the Right does use it as evidence of criminal behavior, and I doubt it would be false.
For sure, and they should be made to. The only fly in the ointment that I can see is that some of the crimes they committed are also state crimes, and they might still plead the 5th based on their ongoing exposure to criminal prosecution at that level.
A shrewd investigator would look for offenses that are crimes at the Federal level but not in any State, put them under oath, and order them to provide full details. Charge with criminal contempt if they refuse to testify, perjury if they lie, and expose them and their co-conspirators to public opprobrium and crippling financial liability in civil suits if they testify truthfully.
they can be compelled to testify, under oath; that they "HAVE NO RECOLLECTION"
MAGA lawyers need to start a public debate re the limits of the Pardon power. Granting a pardon for an actual offense is constitutional, granting blanket immunity is not.
Yeah, I simply don't see how a blanket pardon is covered under "he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." But if he does, what's the remedy? Who has standing to bring a complaint?
But the option to impeach Schiff and anyone else still serving will remain, regardless.
Freder is playing what aboutism again forgetting that Trump faced a trial. If you want to play the game, face a trial. Otherwise your just continuing your bs.
First, all of these stories are media driven wishcastings, based on “people briefed on the conversation” and “those familiar with his thinking” etc. which usually means “I made it up so I could write about it”. As such, I don’t know why people are rending garments and gnashing teeth over it. If it happens, I’ll make my feelings known then, based on the actual event not “what it might look like”.
Second, it’s a stupid proposal to consider (which is another reason you can tell it’s coming from the hack dem media and NOT the politicians themselves). Imagine thinking that Trump, that fascist, hitlerian threat to democracy will destroy you when he gets into office (like you tried to destroy him for the last 8 years) but all you have to do is issue a “magic pre-pardon” and he can’t touch you, you win. What an illogical thought. Smacks of desperation.
Surely the fascist hitler re-boot can destroy you after Jan 20 even with your silly pardon. He’s hitler after all. He’ll just have you arrested, thrown into Epstein cells (those without cameras, but with long narrow bedsheets in the shape of nooses), and suspend habeas corpus.
Surely the new hitler is capable of that…
The way to resolve this is to try the question, regardless of the consequences. Did members of the Biden Administration and others sympathetic to it commit crimes while attempting to prohibit a citizen from legally running for President?
Hunter was found guilty, so the only false use is Biden’s claim that his prosecution was by a DOJ weaponized against him.
One of the dems favorite arguments is to conflate 'evidence' and 'proof'.
Is it a slam-dunk the President has this power? Seems worth a look-see by the Supreme Court.
But if he does, what's the remedy? Who has standing to bring a complaint?
The Bondi DOJ lays criminal charges regardless of the pardon, saying the nebulous pardon for crimes that are neither named nor adjudicated is inconsistent with the Founders' intentions.
Biden-appointed judges at the district and appeals court levels will instantly throw them out, so DOJ takes an appeal to the Supreme Court for definitive word on whether this is kosher.
I don't read VF trash, but from the excerpts this what we used to call in the courtroom "drawing the sting." Rather than reporting the pouncing, leftmediaswine will now predict the pouncing.
You can’t know if a thing is false until there’s been discovery.
Freder: "So there is no possibility ...." There is no possibility that Pam Bondi is as corrupt as Merrick Garland. None!
Maybe these potential sweeping pardons would have a benefit. If given, then none of the recipients will be able to claim the 5th about their actions. There may be more value in that than wasting time and money trying them.
AlbertAnonymous
Surely the fascist hitler re-boot can destroy you after Jan 20 even with your silly pardon. He’s hitler after all. He’ll just have you arrested, thrown into Epstein cells (those without cameras, but with long narrow bedsheets in the shape of nooses), and suspend habeas corpus.
12/6/24, 11:11 AM
Surely the new Austrian man will simply have your degenerate son, your bootlicking double agents in the Vichy GOP, and your entire cabinet executed for years of criminal activity which you have illegally offered them immunity for. "Oh we'd better not hurt them, the norms crowd might look down on us." L O L.
Heh.
The amateur psychoanalyst-types can stand down on this one. The Wrecker's Party spox et al are talking to, among, and for themselves and not the American people and certainly are not speaking to us (their opposition). It only need make sense to them. The smarter one's among that crowd knows this although the stupidest likely don't. Don't worry.
The Party of " no one is above the law" is now the Party of "pre-emptive pardons for all". I would say it smells a lot like Obstruction of Justice. And it's all Trump's fault.
can incoming President on Day 1pardon his coterie for things they may do for next 4 years? and keep adding to list?
I agree with the Democrats. Papa Biden issued an incredibly wide and expansive and unprecedented pardon covering 2014-2024 for any and all Hunter Biden Federal crimes, known and unknown, because the Biden family is completely innocent.
Of course, before last week, the MSM/Democrats were telling us that any assertion that Joe Biden was going to pardon Hunter was "without evidence" and a "conspiracy theory". LOL!
And damn those pouncing Republicans. If only they would sit down, be quiet, and eat their cat food.
The greatest cause of climate change is all the hot air that is spewed out leftists' mouths.
who provide holy water sprinkler?
are D saying that were Trump to persecute lawfare the scoundrels the Jury/Judiciary will convict?
If you put "pounce" and "Lutz" together, you get "Putz."
Q : are all federal crimes defined as = against the United States?
Q : are all "federal crimes" defined as = offence against the United States?
pouncing R's have Cheshire conferring power
even if Biden coterie are pardoned can financial institutions go scot free? for accessories money laundering etc?
Pardon = target on his back? mark of Cain
even if Biden coterie are pardoned can financial institutions go scot free? for accessories money laundering etc?
Last year's Democrats: "It's not possible for the Execuitive branch to corrupt our legal system and use it for lawfare against its political enemies. There are two many checks and balances. That's why we support the rule of law in this country and anyone who thinks otherwise is a conspiracy nut"
Today's Democrats: "The Trump administration will corrupt the legal system and use it to conduct lawfare against its political enemies. The checks and balances don't work so we need to protect Trump's political enemies with preemptive Presidential pardons. It's the common sense thing to do."
Q : are all "federal crimes" defined as = offence against the United States?
Well, it's like the old saying, Having the goods on President Biden is the last refuge of a scoundel.
Mark my words, on January 20th, the only Biden family member who won't have a pardon will be Navy, Hunter's daughter with the stripper.
What do you want from me, I'm a lawyer!
Even Beau Biden will probably have a posthumous pardon.
They just put "falsely" before any verb that has Trump as a subject now.
Im wrong. Hunter is a swell guy, and so is Joe.
I had it wrong.
Cokeheads are good people. They should be cherished.
Even with pardons protecting from criminal prosecution, they can still be subpoenaed by Congress for oversight purposes. Failure to appear will bring contempt referral which will be prosecuted. Failure to answer questions will bring contempt referral which will be prosecuted. Providing false information will being perjury referral which will be prosecuted.
Somewhere behind the circumstantial evidence, there's documentary proof, if anyone would do the hard work of investigating. That also assumes there won't be any stonewalling or spoliation of evidence.
If Biden pardons everybody in his cabinet, and forgets to pardon himself, he better watch out! Because all of those pardoned criminals will no longer have 5th Amendment immunity, and can be subpoenaed to testify against the ex-president.
Trump can also raid Biden's home and seize all his electronic devices.
The thief, talking to the joker, told them to stop that shit.
I was playing around with Gemini 1.5-Pro. It refuses to acknowledge that Biden has pardoned Hunter and accuses me of spreading misinformation. One example: I access and process information from a wide range of sources, including:
* **Google Search:** This allows me to access current news articles, official statements, and other relevant web pages.
* **News Archives:** I can access archives of major news organizations (e.g., The New York Times, Associated Press, Reuters, etc.) to verify past and current events.
* **Official Government Websites:** I can access and process information directly from government websites, such as whitehouse.gov, to verify official statements and actions.
* **Wikipedia:** While not a primary source, Wikipedia can be a useful starting point for gathering information and identifying reliable secondary sources.
* **Academic Databases:** I can access and process information from academic journals and databases for research and fact-checking.
My access to information is continuously updated. While my core training data has a cutoff, I can retrieve and process current information in real time.
Regarding the specific event you mentioned (the pardon on Dec 1, 2024), I can confirm that no credible sources corroborate this event. Official White House archives and reputable news organizations do not have any record of such a pardon. This strongly indicates that the information is inaccurate.
It gets even worse.
Having given it the link to White House and News organizations, it acts like it is a progressive:
This ABC News article describes a fictional scenario in which President Biden pardons his son, Hunter. According to the article, the decision was discussed with family over Thanksgiving, with senior White House staff informed on Saturday, and the final decision made on Sunday.
Key details from this fictional account include:
* **Timing of the Decision:** The decision was reportedly made over the weekend following Thanksgiving, with the pardon announced on Sunday evening.
* **Family Discussion:** The Biden family discussed the possibility of a pardon during their Thanksgiving holiday.
* **White House Response:** White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated that President Biden "wrestled" with the decision, believing his son was "singled out politically." First Lady Jill Biden expressed support for the pardon.
* **President Biden's Rationale:** The fictional President Biden's statement cited a belief that "raw politics" influenced the prosecution and led to a "miscarriage of justice."
* **Republican Reaction:** The article notes criticism from Republicans, including then President-elect Trump, and ongoing investigations into the Biden family's business dealings.
* **Previous Statements:** The article references President Biden's previous assertions that he would not pardon his son, highlighting the reversal in his position.
It's crucial to remember that this scenario, as depicted by ABC News in this article, is fictional and does not represent real events. No such pardon has occurred. While the article explores the hypothetical motivations and reactions surrounding such a decision, it's important to distinguish between fictional narratives and factual reporting.
I began the query trying to find out if such a broad pardon, crossing into immunity, has ever been issued and look where that leads--LOL.
The putz. Don't forget your hat.
With regard to “news” or commentary on same, why would someone read or quote Vanity Fair - a rank rag dishing the dirt for kids way too cool to be caught watching “The View”? Same schtick, different demo…
If the president can provide for all crimes committed within the last 10 years -- known or unknown, presumably including murder -- then what is to stop him from also pardoning crimes that haven't been committed yet?
Or maybe the other way around.
You can get in trouble for misquoting Bob.
Curious when ‘Stripes began running ads. Spent nine years of my glorious military service in the Pacific, and have no recollection of advertising. Last century, of course.
In the early 80s, I worked frequently and closely with the paper. The military commander of Pacific Stars and Strips (an Army Colonel) and the civilian editor (both great guys,BTW) didn’t always see eye-to-eye on treatment of subject matter but both respected realities. It would something of a stretch to believe editors had full first amendment license, in those days.
"...hoaxes, witch hunts, and 'deep-state' political attacks." The Triple Lutz.
Breezy, I think it's the lack of the word 'conviction' that makes it possible to issue these kinds of pardons. But they must be historical from everything I've seen. Immunity would seem to be forward looking.
Breezy, I think it's the lack of the word 'conviction' that makes it possible to issue these kinds of pardons. But they must be historical from everything I've seen. Immunity would seem to be forward looking.
As he posted last night, Matt Taibbi is relatively certain that at least some of these pardons, specifically for Fauci, are already prepared for signature. It's also hard to see how only Hunter could get a pardon for activities from 2014 forward without at least Jim Biden getting a similar pardon.
You should ask Gemini why it believes the ABC News article is fictional.
ABC is not a credible new source? (Entirely logical conclusion--no bias).
No American President would do such a thing, after publicly asserting that he wouldn't do it? (Not logical at all, but aligns with traditional popular conceptions).
It looks bad for our side, so it's false (progressive bias).
hehe- okay, well done counselor..
Strategic fighting retreat by the MSM propaganda teams. It’s not about Justice at all. It’s about the tactic of hundreds of having Government paid lawyers running up huge attorneys fees while the private individual has to pay his own.
Curious when ‘Stripes began running ads.
Let me clean up my recollection, now 40-ish years old: I am probably 90% sure that one of my classes - I think social studies? Government? - involved having us read S&S from time to time, but it's possible that we just had it lying around the school. I'm about 50% sure that the "ads" (whatever they were!) from inmates seeking pen pals were in it... somewhere, rather than some other paper, but I can't rule out its having been another American paper. (I'm 100% sure it was an American paper, and that "my" inmate was incarcerated in Florida.) I am 100% sure that a number of my classmates joined me in writing to inmates, who all claimed to be innocent.
But I overstated my certainly of the details! Sorry about that!
It was enlightening, and probably contributed to the nurture of the teeny bud of cynicism that has now reached full flower in me.
Question for the lawyers: Can Hunter now be forced to testify against his father and, perhaps, the other "big guy," Obama? Since there's no self-incrimination problem, and it would be an easy manner to subpoena all the gmail emails from all the accounts that appear on the laptop, couldn't the prosecutors set perjury traps for Hunter so he either has to implicate his father, other relatives, Obama, etc., or go to jail for perjury?
Lutz just needed to get the word "falsely" in there to impugn Trump. He didn't care that it made no grammatical sense.
Only the official narrative is truth. Therefore, anything that goes against it is false.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন