Jobs & Education1 min ago
Trump Criminality
On CNN they are taking about Joe Biden’s administration giving Trump and his cronies immunity from prosecution for their criminality over the last 4 years - let's hope not.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm not sure the pardon of Nixon invalidates the point -- and, in any case, the awarding of a pardon in that case carried with it the clear admission of guilt. It's still a principle of US law, as far as I can see, that you can only be pardoned for a crime you have actually committed. I don't think Trump would be willing even to concede the possibility that he had committed a crime.
I don't know if this is anything other than a hypothetical. There's plenty of reasons I don't like Trump, and possible criminality is clearly among them, but all I want to say at this point is that nobody should be above, or beyond, the reach of the law. Whether Trump *should* be prosecuted or not is less important right now than whether or not he *could* be.
I don't know if this is anything other than a hypothetical. There's plenty of reasons I don't like Trump, and possible criminality is clearly among them, but all I want to say at this point is that nobody should be above, or beyond, the reach of the law. Whether Trump *should* be prosecuted or not is less important right now than whether or not he *could* be.
Nixon was pardoned even though he had not been tried.
Ford's proclamation included the following,
"Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974."
Ford's proclamation included the following,
"Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974."
It's still a principle of US law, as far as I can see, that you can only be pardoned for a crime you have actually committed.
I don't think so. Nobody has to demonstrate that you've committed anything at all. In Nixon's case; the wording was "a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or ***may have committed*** or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."
You not only don't have to be convicted, you don't have to be charged or even investigated; the pardon covered any offence at all, even if nobody knew about it.
You're right about the implied finding of guilt, though I suspect Trump would go with that rather than risk being actually found guilty in court. Even I thought Ford had, on balance, done the right thing, the nation had been through too much turmoil already; but as I said, I think that should remain a one-off.
I don't think so. Nobody has to demonstrate that you've committed anything at all. In Nixon's case; the wording was "a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or ***may have committed*** or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."
You not only don't have to be convicted, you don't have to be charged or even investigated; the pardon covered any offence at all, even if nobody knew about it.
You're right about the implied finding of guilt, though I suspect Trump would go with that rather than risk being actually found guilty in court. Even I thought Ford had, on balance, done the right thing, the nation had been through too much turmoil already; but as I said, I think that should remain a one-off.
That nothing has been proven against Trump during his time in office is, more or less, the point we're debating here: while President, the very office shields him from legal scrutiny. He has been able to drag through the courts, as least twice, even the attempt to look at his tax returns, which may (or may not) demonstrate certain financial irregularities -- although his choice to hide behind the legal power of the Federal Government, and the phony excuse of being "under audit" are, at least, suggestive. Ditto several claims of rape or sexual assault: Trump has attempted to block DNA evidence being used against him, which is also odd considering that this would quickly exonerate him if no match were found.
I could also point to the Impeachment. No doubt it was politically motivated to start proceedings, but it was also politically motivated to stop them, and the whole process was a waste of time and effort in terms of uncovering the truth.
I could also point to the Mueller report, whose language was careful in not exonerating Trump, instead making it clear that there was a case to answer for obstruction of justice, assuming Congress were to bring it.
I could, perhaps, also point to the many out-of-court settlements that Trump has used over the years to avoid further scrutiny, including, but not limited to, the Trump University scandal (fraud claims settled for $25 million); The Donald J Trump Foundation (fraud claims settled for $2 million, with the foundation also forced to close); and several dozen others over the decades, all of which are too complicated for me to properly understand but most of which seem to involve fraud and general dodginess. Trump has a long and colourful history, in short, and has been lucky that he's had the money to throw at it to stop all the fraud allegations going any further than settlements.
I could also point to the Impeachment. No doubt it was politically motivated to start proceedings, but it was also politically motivated to stop them, and the whole process was a waste of time and effort in terms of uncovering the truth.
I could also point to the Mueller report, whose language was careful in not exonerating Trump, instead making it clear that there was a case to answer for obstruction of justice, assuming Congress were to bring it.
I could, perhaps, also point to the many out-of-court settlements that Trump has used over the years to avoid further scrutiny, including, but not limited to, the Trump University scandal (fraud claims settled for $25 million); The Donald J Trump Foundation (fraud claims settled for $2 million, with the foundation also forced to close); and several dozen others over the decades, all of which are too complicated for me to properly understand but most of which seem to involve fraud and general dodginess. Trump has a long and colourful history, in short, and has been lucky that he's had the money to throw at it to stop all the fraud allegations going any further than settlements.
For those of you blissfully unaware of Trump’s criminality, some time back I posted a link to an MSNBC programme (on youtube) that showed pretty irrefutable documentary evidence of bank fraud – perpetrated by the Trump organisation against Deutsche-Bank.
There are many more examples out there if you just look.
There are many more examples out there if you just look.
While we're delving into Trump's financial irregularities (which Biden doesn't want) why stop there? it will be very interesting to see how the allegations that Biden has commercial connections to the CCP turn out, as far as I'm aware, he hasn't denied that his son (and, by extension, he) was making millions. It could be HE'S the one who ends up impeached. Kamala might not need to wait for his dementia to take hold after all, then you might be pondering on what you wished for.
// even Nixon was pardoned for his appalling behavior, //
the divine AH
ah BUT ( PP holds up glowing finger like Yoda)
this was so unpopular that Ford didnt get voted in
erm for AB readers - Ford was the successor and might have done a quid pro quo ( like speaker martin in the commons was promised a lordship if he woiuld just go quietly) with Nixon
erm 2 for AB readers - Ford was the only appointed president - Nixon and Agnew had gone and Ford was an appt
erm 3 for AB readers
Ford according to HHH (*) cdnt walk darn the carridar and chew gum at the same time
(*) HHH Hubert H humphrey that is!
thank you for getting down to here
the divine AH
ah BUT ( PP holds up glowing finger like Yoda)
this was so unpopular that Ford didnt get voted in
erm for AB readers - Ford was the successor and might have done a quid pro quo ( like speaker martin in the commons was promised a lordship if he woiuld just go quietly) with Nixon
erm 2 for AB readers - Ford was the only appointed president - Nixon and Agnew had gone and Ford was an appt
erm 3 for AB readers
Ford according to HHH (*) cdnt walk darn the carridar and chew gum at the same time
(*) HHH Hubert H humphrey that is!
thank you for getting down to here
