On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 05:25:14 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>On Aug 28, 2022 at 9:21:34 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 11:23:17 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Orange will be the new black--stain on Trump's legacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> If he's indicted or worse, Biden will pardon him ...and probably should.
>>>>>
>>>> Hardly. He might be pardoned if a repub wins in 2024, though depends who
>>>> it is.
>>>
>>> 1) A Prez gets a break.
>>>
>>> 2) Accepting a pardon most clearly tarnishes him as an idol.
>>
>> Of course it does. In his memoirs Gerald Ford was quite definite that
>> he would not have pardoned Nixon except with an admission of guilt for
>> what he was being pardoned for.
>>
>> If you're getting a pardon you DON'T get to say "But I had my fingers
>> crossed!!"
>
>Sure you do. We still have a 1st Amendment. You can say anything you want.
>
Sure you can - but not in a court of law or other judicial proceding.

And no president should EVER issue a pardon if the pardonee is still
proclaiming his/her innocence.

On 8/29/2022 9:50 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:09:31 -0400, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> I saw a YouTube video the other day about a parliamentary inquiry into
>> Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act to quash the Freedom Convoy
>> this winter and the reporter actually thought that the inquiry could
>> arrest Trudeau and put him in jail over his actions. Apparently, the
>> reporter didn't know the difference between a governmental inquiry and a
>> court proceeding. SMH, SMH....
>
> SMH? I know that usually means "Saint Michael's Hospital" (one of
> Toronto's biggest hospitals) in the Greater Toronto area but what does
> it mean in the context you mean?
>

I'd wondered about it too, and it was an answer in my crossword today.
Means 'shaking my head'. In disbelief I guess.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:59:10 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>> As it was even WITH the Nixon pardon Carter only beat him 51-49. No
>> question that pardon cost him the White House.
>
>As for it damning Ford, I might distinguish between the pardon itself
>and the popular suspicion that it was a backroom deal.

Most Canadians who are old enough will remember the 1984 election
debate when Brian Mulroney basically destroyed John Turner in one line
when Turner said he had a deal with Pierre Trudeau to make certain
appointments "You had an option, sir"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j64lzExjWSc

What I'm saying is that some political deals have roots as firm as
Birnham Wood's (Macbeth reference)

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 11:21:11 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>> > Of course it does. In his memoirs Gerald Ford was quite definite that
>> > he would not have pardoned Nixon except with an admission of guilt for
>> > what he was being pardoned for.
>> >
>> > If you're getting a pardon you DON'T get to say "But I had my fingers
>> > crossed!!"
>> >
>> > As it was even WITH the Nixon pardon Carter only beat him 51-49. No
>> > question that pardon cost him the White House.
>>
>> As for it damning Ford, I might distinguish between the pardon itself
>> and the popular suspicion that it was a backroom deal.
>
>
>Ford was trending upward as the election approached. In 1976, the
>election was on November 2, as early as is possible. A few more days
>might have made all the difference.

I think you're right. And with your argument moving the presidential
debate one week earlier may have been all that was needed to change
history.

Though I STILL think Carter's MEOW (Moral Equivalent of War) speech
was one of the better presidential speeches ever if only it had a
sensible title that didn't invite scorn - the theme was on US energy
self-sufficiency.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/carter-crisis/
(there's a sign-up window but you can just close it and go to the text
directly)

lcraver@home.ca wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>I saw a YouTube video the other day about a parliamentary inquiry into
>>Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act to quash the Freedom Convoy
>>this winter and the reporter actually thought that the inquiry could
>>arrest Trudeau and put him in jail over his actions. Apparently, the
>>reporter didn't know the difference between a governmental inquiry and a
>>court proceeding. SMH, SMH....
>
>SMH? I know that usually means "Saint Michael's Hospital" (one of
>Toronto's biggest hospitals) in the Greater Toronto area but what does
>it mean in the context you mean?

"Shaking My Head", but I have heard it also means "So Much Hate".

--
Let's go Brandon!

gmsingh@email.com wrote:
> On 8/28/2022 10:38 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> "trotsky" wrote:

>>> https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-over-trump-will-be-indicted
>>>
>>> It's Over: Trump Will Be Indicted
>>>
>>> There is little left for the Justice Department to do but decide
>>> whether to wait until after the midterms to formally seek the
>>> indictment from the grand jury.
>>
>> Umm, you do understand the difference between news and opinion articles,
>> right?
>
>Where was it stated or implied that I didn't Pubie Weber?

Nonresponse noted. Get back to us when you have a real arggument to make.

--
Let's go Brandon!

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 05:25:14 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 28, 2022 at 9:21:34 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 11:23:17 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Orange will be the new black--stain on Trump's legacy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If he's indicted or worse, Biden will pardon him ...and probably should.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hardly. He might be pardoned if a repub wins in 2024, though depends who
>>>>> it is.
>>>>
>>>> 1) A Prez gets a break.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Accepting a pardon most clearly tarnishes him as an idol.
>>>
>>> Of course it does. In his memoirs Gerald Ford was quite definite that
>>> he would not have pardoned Nixon except with an admission of guilt for
>>> what he was being pardoned for.
>>>
>>> If you're getting a pardon you DON'T get to say "But I had my fingers
>>> crossed!!"
>>
>>Sure you do. We still have a 1st Amendment. You can say anything you want.
>>
>Sure you can - but not in a court of law or other judicial proceding.
>
>And no president should EVER issue a pardon if the pardonee is still
>proclaiming his/her innocence.

The pardon power is part of checks and balances. The president or
governor has made a finding that the justice system got it wrong, but
it's not a finding of actual innocence. Why wouldn't you want the
pardonee to proclaim innocence?

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 18:24:23 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The pardon power is part of checks and balances. The president or
>governor has made a finding that the justice system got it wrong, but
>it's not a finding of actual innocence. Why wouldn't you want the
>pardonee to proclaim innocence?

If a pardon is given it's an act of mercy to the miscreant.

If the person is actually deemed innocent then their criminal record
should be annulled.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Mon, 29 Aug 2022 18:24:23 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>The pardon power is part of checks and balances. The president or
>>governor has made a finding that the justice system got it wrong, but
>>it's not a finding of actual innocence. Why wouldn't you want the
>>pardonee to proclaim innocence?

>If a pardon is given it's an act of mercy to the miscreant.

>If the person is actually deemed innocent then their criminal record
>should be annulled.

C'mon. The evidence of actual innocence, which is a much higher standard
than not guilty based on a reasonable doubt, cannot be raised in court
at this point, not without cooperation of the prosecution, not without
appeals, all of which can take years. A pardon ends the prison sentence
immediately.

There's no justice process for deeming someone actually innocentt.
That's why the pardon exists.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 18:56:15 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Mon, 29 Aug 2022 18:24:23 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:
>
>>>The pardon power is part of checks and balances. The president or
>>>governor has made a finding that the justice system got it wrong, but
>>>it's not a finding of actual innocence. Why wouldn't you want the
>>>pardonee to proclaim innocence?
>
>>If a pardon is given it's an act of mercy to the miscreant.
>
>>If the person is actually deemed innocent then their criminal record
>>should be annulled.
>
>C'mon. The evidence of actual innocence, which is a much higher standard
>than not guilty based on a reasonable doubt, cannot be raised in court
>at this point, not without cooperation of the prosecution, not without
>appeals, all of which can take years. A pardon ends the prison sentence
>immediately.
>
>There's no justice process for deeming someone actually innocentt.
>That's why the pardon exists.

Fair enough but no way in hell is Richard Nixon Stephen Truscott.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/steven-truscott-case?gclid=CjwKCAjw6raYBhB7EiwABge5Kus2M3OR4qjUSSOc0Rv4JUF1krN0VzFPbB1b4GijRAHZDcuhheiX7BoC7eEQAvD_BwE

(A sensational Canadian murder case from 1959 where a 14 year old was
convicted of rape / murder, imprisoned and released in 2002 after his
verdict was overturned. Not sure if there's a US case analogous but
given the size of the population, probably)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 05:25:14 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>> On Aug 28, 2022 at 9:21:34 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:

>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 11:23:17 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>>>> If he's indicted or worse, Biden will pardon him ...and probably
>>>>>> should.

Biden wouldn't get reelected if he pardoned Trump. He probably wouldn't
even get renominated.

>>>>> Hardly. He might be pardoned if a repub wins in 2024, though
>>>>> depends who it is.
>>>>
>>>> 1) A Prez gets a break.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Accepting a pardon most clearly tarnishes him as an idol.

Nah. The Trumpists would just take it as a triumph.

>>> Of course it does. In his memoirs Gerald Ford was quite definite
>>> that he would not have pardoned Nixon except with an admission of
>>> guilt for what he was being pardoned for.
>>>
>>> If you're getting a pardon you DON'T get to say "But I had my
>>> fingers crossed!!"
>>
>> Sure you do. We still have a 1st Amendment. You can say anything you
>> want.
>
> Sure you can - but not in a court of law or other judicial proceding.

A pardon is an executive action, not a judicial proceeding. No
admission of guilt is required.

> And no president should EVER issue a pardon if the pardonee is still
> proclaiming his/her innocence.

In the immortal words of Richard Nixon, "When the president does it,
that means it is not illegal."

Ever since Ford pardoned Nixon, we've needed a constitutional amendment
prohibiting the executive pardon for crimes committed by or for the
executive branch.

-Micky