Trump Legal Cases

[brooks85]

That's utter rubbish.

Not even American and know more about presidential pardon powers than you.

Even ignoring the silly claim about the extent of reach you made, it is also not as clearly defined as you claim it is to be unquestionable without recourse.

you've never read the constitution. Why embarrass yourself by acting like you have?

[brooks85]

Despite the breadth of the President’s authority under the Pardon Clause, the Constitution’s text provides for at least two limits on the power: first, clemency may only be granted for Offenses against the United States,5 meaning that state criminal offenses and federal or state civil claims are not covered.6 Second, the President’s clemency authority cannot be used in Cases of impeachment.7

• 6 Jump to essay-6Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 111, 115, 122 (1925) (acknowledging that phrase was included presumably to make clear that the pardon of the President was to operate upon offenses against the United States as distinguished from offenses against the states and distinguishing between civil and criminal contempt for purposes of pardon authority).

https://constitution.congress.gov/br...%20wronged.%20).

this is the problem you sheep make.


I do not care about some loser college kid's opinion on the constitution. The constitution is all that matters and it is clear as day which is why you can not use quotes to make your point. I can which is why there is only ONE thing that is explicitly laid out that the president can not pardon. Only 1.


Trump will be pardoning himself and all liabilities. Fact.

[d2bets]

this is the problem you sheep make.


I do not care about some loser college kid's opinion on the constitution. The constitution is all that matters and it is clear as day which is why you can not use quotes to make your point. I can which is why there is only ONE thing that is explicitly laid out that the president can not pardon. Only 1.


Trump will be pardoning himself and all liabilities. Fact.

How about language straight from a Supreme Court decision?

You're also probably the type that swears that the income tax is unconstitutional despite the fact that the Supreme Court has held over and over that it is.

he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.

-----------------

Neither a state crime nor a civil liability is an "offence against the United States". You either can't read or can't comprehend, or both. Offense against the United States literally means that the plaintiff is "The United States of America". If the plaintiff isn't the USA, then he can't pardon. The plaintiff in the Georgia case against Trump is the State of Georgia, not the United States of America. Clear as day.

[brooks85]

How about language straight from a Supreme Court decision?

You're also probably the type that swears that the income tax is unconstitutional despite the fact that the Supreme Court has held over and over that it is.

he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.

-----------------

Neither a state crime nor a civil liability is an "offence against the United States". You either can't read or can't comprehend, or both. Offense against the United States literally means that the plaintiff is "The United States of America". If the plaintiff isn't the USA, then he can't pardon. The plaintiff in the Georgia case against Trump is the State of Georgia, not the United States of America. Clear as day.

"How about language straight from a Supreme Court decision?"

oh so not the constitution. Thanks. Instead you tell me the supreme court, the idiots who got roe v wade wrong the first time?



Again, this is why you can not use quotes from the constitution. You just proved that, again. Go on, deny it now.

You just said "how about the supreme court's decision" Yeah.. how the f about it since it makes NO fukn difference here?

[d2bets]

"How about language straight from a Supreme Court decision?"

oh so not the constitution. Thanks. Instead you tell me the supreme court, the idiots who got roe v wade wrong the first time?



Again, this is why you can not use quotes from the constitution. You just proved that, again. Go on, deny it now.

You just said "how about the supreme court's decision" Yeah.. how the f about it since it makes NO fukn difference here?

Look above, idiot. This IS the Constitution. How is this ambiguous to you?

he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.

[Optional]

oh so not the constitution.

Are you morning drinking?

He has quoted the line from the constitution at you a few times now.

Didn't you recognize that line from all your reading of it, Mr Constitutional Scholar??

[jackpot269]

How about language straight from a Supreme Court decision?

You're also probably the type that swears that the income tax is unconstitutional despite the fact that the Supreme Court has held over and over that it is.

he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.

-----------------

Neither a state crime nor a civil liability is an "offence against the United States". You either can't read or can't comprehend, or both. Offense against the United States literally means that the plaintiff is "The United States of America". If the plaintiff isn't the USA, then he can't pardon. The plaintiff in the Georgia case against Trump is the State of Georgia, not the United States of America. Clear as day.

You nailed it! Also, makes arguments that make no sense and statements that don't back up his bad arguments.

[Hareeba!]

E. Jean Carroll describes Donald Trump as “nothing,” “zero,” and comparing him to a snorting walrus.

Someone's going to have to clean up a whole lot of ketchup from the walls and floor at Mar-A-Lago tonight

[d2bets]

You nailed it! Also, makes arguments that make no sense and statements that don't back up his bad arguments.

brooksy will be back in 5 years.

[BOA12]

Are you morning drinking?

He has quoted the line from the constitution at you a few times now.

Didn't you recognize that line from all your reading of it, Mr Constitutional Scholar??

Dealing with magats is like an alcoholic drinking and saying they don't have a problem.

[brooks85]

Look above, idiot. This IS the Constitution. How is this ambiguous to you?

he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.

lol you are penetrating moron. No it is not. The link you posted is not the constitution haha


Again, constitution is clear as day there is only 1 thing the president can not pardon.

[brooks85]

You nailed it! Also, makes arguments that make no sense and statements that don't back up his bad arguments.

No he didn't which is why he can't use quotes lol so easy to embarrass d2

[brooks85]

Are you morning drinking?

He has quoted the line from the constitution at you a few times now.

Didn't you recognize that line from all your reading of it, Mr Constitutional Scholar??

No he didn't. He quoted nothing that stops trump from pardoning himself because there is only 1 thing that constitution says a president can not pardon. Only 1. Learn to read then read the constitution.


Here is the info in that link so I can make it very easy for you;


Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The Constitution establishes the President’s authority to grant clemency, encompassing not only pardons of individuals but several other forms of relief from criminal punishment as well.¹ The power, which has historical roots in early English law,² has been recognized by the Supreme Court as quite broad. In the 1886 case Ex parte Garland, the Court referred to the President’s authority to pardon as unlimited except in cases of impeachment, extending to every offence known to the law and able to be exercised either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.³ Much later, the Court wrote that the broad power conferred in the Constitution gives the President plenary authority to 'forgive’ [a] convicted person in part or entirely, to reduce a penalty in terms of a specified number of years, or to alter it with certain conditions.⁴
Despite the breadth of the President’s authority under the Pardon Clause, the Constitution’s text provides for at least two limits on the power: first, clemency may only be granted for Offenses against the United States,⁵ meaning that state criminal offenses and federal or state civil claims are not covered.⁶ Second, the President’s clemency authority cannot be used in Cases of impeachment.⁷
Beyond textual limits, certain external constitutional and legal considerations may act as constraints on the power. For instance, the Court has indicated that the power may be exercised at any time after [an offense’s] commission,⁸ reflecting that the President may not preemptively immunize future criminal conduct. In Schick v. Reed, the Court recognized that an exercise of clemency may include any condition which does not otherwise offend the Constitution,⁹ suggesting that the President may not make clemency subject to a condition that is prohibited by another constitutional provision.¹⁰ Other apparent limitations include not affecting vested rights of third parties, such as where forfeited property is sold,¹¹ or proceeds paid into the treasury, which can only be secured to the former owner . . . through an act of [C]ongress.¹² The Court in The Laura also alluded to an exception for fines . . . imposed by a co-ordinate department of the government for contempt of its authority,¹³ though a later case recognized that the President may pardon one who is subject to criminal punishment for contempt of court.¹⁴
Assuming the recognized limitations are not transgressed, a full pardon granted by the President and accepted by its subject¹⁵ prevents or removes any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction . . . .¹⁶ In several nineteenth-century cases, the Supreme Court suggested that a pardon broadly obviates all legal guilt of the offender, effectively erasing the crime from existence.¹⁷ Subsequent cases appear to have backed away from this understanding,¹⁸ suggesting instead that, although a full pardon precludes punishment for the offense in question, a prior and pardoned offense may still be considered in subsequent proceedings.¹⁹
Congress generally cannot substantively constrain the President’s pardon authority through legislation, as the Court has held that the power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions.²⁰ Nevertheless, there is historical precedent for legislation facilitating the exercise of the pardon power through funding of Executive Branch positions to review clemency petitions.²¹ Congress also has other constitutional tools that it may use in relation to the President’s pardon authority, provided the legal conditions associated with those tools are met, such as oversight,²² impeachment,²³ and constitutional amendment.²⁴







All of those words.... yet MOST of it is NOT the constitution lol it's very simple to understand.



constitution =/= someone's interpretation of constitution.




Again, this is why the proven liar d2bets can not use quotes. He can only use some college kid's interpretation.


I made it so easy for you now. I bolded the part of the ACTUAL constitution... and guess what... there it is... the ONE thing a president can not pardon... says it right there IN the CONSTITUTION. Can you figure it out now or still need more help?


Is this a case of impeachment? No, no it is not. Any other opinion of yours or the fake lawyer d2 bets means jack fukn shit then.


Good day mate!!!!

[d2bets]

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Offences against the United States. That is very clear to everyone, except you.

In order to have an offence against the United States, the Plaintiff has to be "The United States of America vs. Defendant".

The President's power in the Constitution to grant reprieves and pardons is specifically limited to "offences against the United States". Your trying to ignore the "against the United States" qualifier would render those words superfluous. Very basic textual Constitutional interpretation says you are 100% wrong.

Show me a single instance where any President has ever pardoned, granted clemency or commuted a sentence for anyone in any case where the Plaintiff was not The United States of America. I will wait patiently, while I laugh at you.

[brooks85]

Offences against the United States. That is very clear to everyone, except you.

In order to have an offence against the United States, the Plaintiff has to be "The United States of America vs. Defendant".

The President's power in the Constitution to grant reprieves and pardons is specifically limited to "offences against the United States". Your trying to ignore the "against the United States" qualifier would render those words superfluous. Very basic textual Constitutional interpretation says you are 100% wrong.

Show me a single instance where any President has ever pardoned, granted clemency or commuted a sentence for anyone in any case where the Plaintiff was not The United States of America. I will wait patiently, while I laugh at you.

oh look! the low IQer's opinion again.


Case closed.


trump will be pardoning himself.

[d2bets]

oh look! the low IQer's opinion again.


Case closed.


trump will be pardoning himself.

If Trump becomes President, he can pardon himself for every Federal crime he has committed, and I'm sure he would. And lord knows there are a lot of them.

But he cannot pardon himself for any state crime and cannot pardon or excuse himself from any civil liability.

Glad I could help you understand.

[brooks85]

If Trump becomes President, he can pardon himself for every Federal crime he has committed, and I'm sure he would. And lord knows there are a lot of them.

But he cannot pardon himself for any state crime and cannot pardon or excuse himself from any civil liability.

Glad I could help you understand.

and where does it say that in the constitution?


I love this part lol

[DwightShrute]

If Trump becomes President, he can pardon himself for every Federal crime he has committed, and I'm sure he would. And lord knows there are a lot of them.

But he cannot pardon himself for any state crime and cannot pardon or excuse himself from any civil liability.

Glad I could help you understand.

such as?

[DwightShrute]

Ex-IRS contractor who leaked Trump's tax returns sentenced to 5 years in prison https://t.co/xXzQlBDiMO
— Fox News (@FoxNews) January 29, 2024

[d2bets]

and where does it say that in the constitution?


I love this part lol

The part that I underlined. Do I need to bold, italicize and enlarge the print for you, too?

I bet even Mr. Shrute can understand that.


Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[brooks85]

The part that I underlined. Do I need to bold, italicize and enlarge the print for you, too?

I bet even Mr. Shrute can understand that.

yep, in fact, I need you to put in quotes, verbatim, the part that says trump can't do it.


"I bet even Mr. Shrute can understand that."

and again, it does not matter. Everyone on Earth can admit it, it makes zero difference. There is only one President and you don't get a say in it nor does a single other person on Earth. Cope harder

[d2bets]

yep, in fact, I need you to put in quotes, verbatim, the part that says trump can't do it.


"I bet even Mr. Shrute can understand that."

and again, it does not matter. Everyone on Earth can admit it, it makes zero difference. There is only one President and you don't get a say in it nor does a single other person on Earth. Cope harder

Tell me you don't understand the Constitution without telling me you don't understand the Constitution.

[Hareeba!]

Tell me you don't understand the Constitution without telling me you don't understand the Constitution.

It goes way beyond not understanding the Constitution.
He clearly doesn't understand the English language.
God only knows why you bother continuing this discussion with him.

[Hareeba!]

The Illinois State Board of Elections voted unanimously to keep former President Donald Trump on the state’s Republican primary ballot despite previous findings that he engaged in insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

After the hearing, the hearing officer, a former Republican judge, found “by a preponderance of the evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

[DwightShrute]

The Illinois State Board of Elections voted unanimously to keep former President Donald Trump on the state’s Republican primary ballot despite previous findings that he engaged in insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

After the hearing, the hearing officer, a former Republican judge, found “by a preponderance of the evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

it's just another case of election interference, election rigging or stealing an election (take your pick). Thankfully it will be over turned like every other State who tried to do this. Nothing like supporting a free election while trying to prevent the leader of the opposition from running. LOL.

Also, there was no insurrection. No one has been charged with an insurrection on J6.

Wisdom has been chasing you for a long time but you are quicker.

[d2bets]

it's just another case of election interference, election rigging or stealing an election (take your pick). Thankfully it will be over turned like every other State who tried to do this. Nothing like supporting a free election while trying to prevent the leader of the opposition from running. LOL.

Also, there was no insurrection. No one has been charged with an insurrection on J6.

Wisdom has been chasing you for a long time but you are quicker.

So do you think that a President Trump would have authority to pardon himself for a criminal conviction under the laws of a State, like Georgia and/or for civil liabilities. Please don't tell me he's done nothing wrong. I'm just saying hypothetically he's convicted of a crime against the State of Georgia, can a President Trump pardon himself for that?

[Hareeba!]

Originally Posted by DwightShrute
it's just another case of election interference, election rigging or stealing an election (take your pick). Thankfully it will be over turned like every other State who tried to do this. Nothing like supporting a free election while trying to prevent the leader of the opposition from running. LOL.

Also, there was no insurrection. No one has been charged with an insurrection on J6.

Wisdom has been chasing you for a long time but you are quicker.

So do you think that a President Trump would have authority to pardon himself for a criminal conviction under the laws of a State, like Georgia and/or for civil liabilities. Please don't tell me he's done nothing wrong. I'm just saying hypothetically he's convicted of a crime against the State of Georgia, can a President Trump pardon himself for that?

There goes DipShit again with his absolute nonsense about "election interference"!

What qualifications does he have as constitutional lawyer ?
Dozens who do have such qualification are convinced that TFG is disqualified under the 14th Amendment.
Even this Illinois board says the same thing.

Sure nobody has been charged with "insurrection" but plenty have been charged with "seditious conspiracy" which in the context of this issue amounts to the same thing.

The final call is of course going to come down to SCOTUS with their illegitimate R dominance and most likely they will vote according to their politics rather than the letter of the Constitution. Sad.

[slewfan]

[DwightShrute]

So do you think that a President Trump would have authority to pardon himself for a criminal conviction under the laws of a State, like Georgia and/or for civil liabilities. Please don't tell me he's done nothing wrong. I'm just saying hypothetically he's convicted of a crime against the State of Georgia, can a President Trump pardon himself for that?

I don't know if he can pardon himself. It's complicated. Last week the scotus in 5-4 decision said the Feds can take down the razor wire but then Texas said that this is an invasion and under that definition, the State has the right to protect their border. So as you can see, it depends on the definition of things. Imagine how it would look it the Biden administration sent in troops to actually cut the razor wire and let in thousands of people breaking the law into the country. The photos would be devastating. Yesterday there were zero illegals crossing into Texas from the most popular entry point. Usually there are thousands per day. There was a reporter at the border who asked dozens of illegals who do they like, Trump or Biden. All of them yelled Biden! You don't think this is election interference? It might not be this election, but it definitely is for future ones. With the got-a-ways, there have been around 18 million illegals who entered the USA illegally since Biden took office. That's a lot of votes. You can see what is going on. You just refuse to admit it. You rather watch your fellow Americans suffer from this mass invasions of rapists, drug traffickers, human traffickers, gangs, cartels who are doing what they are doing, rather than agree with Trump. That's sad. The liberal press has indoctrinated so many of you guys. They lie right to your face, and supposed intelligent people with keep buying their nonsense.

Back to your question. Trump asked the GA guy to find more votes. There is nothing wrong or illegal about that. It's not as if Trump asked him to fabricate thousands of votes. He just asked him find the ones that he believes exist. We have all seen the questionable things that happened in GA during the election day. Ballots switched from Trump to Biden because of a glitch and then they assured us that it was corrected. Putting up cardboard on the windows so people couldn't look inside. Thousands of ballots counted twice. Piles of mail in ballots without creases being counted. A toilet overflowing so they had to stop counting. For anyone to say this election looked perfectly fine to them, they are being intellectually dishonest. The establishment media has been pushing this story about Trump denying the election results as if he's the only one ever who has. Stacey Abrams, also in GA, still hasn't conceded the election from a few years ago I do believe. Is the MSM still calling her an election denier? They don't even mention it. We know why. She's a democrat and the liberal establishment media are an arm of the democratic party. You know it and I know it and you know that I know that you know it, but it seems you don't care. Trump disputes election results - the big Lie! A democrat disputes election results - crickets. Wake up.

Trump will win that case in GA.

[jackpot269]

I don't know if he can pardon himself. It's complicated. Last week the scotus in 5-4 decision said the Feds can take down the razor wire but then Texas said that this is an invasion and under that definition, the State has the right to protect their border. So as you can see, it depends on the definition of things. Imagine how it would look it the Biden administration sent in troops to actually cut the razor wire and let in thousands of people breaking the law into the country. The photos would be devastating. Yesterday there were zero illegals crossing into Texas from the most popular entry point. Usually there are thousands per day. There was a reporter at the border who asked dozens of illegals who do they like, Trump or Biden. All of them yelled Biden! You don't think this is election interference? It might not be this election, but it definitely is for future ones. With the got-a-ways, there have been around 18 million illegals who entered the USA illegally since Biden took office. That's a lot of votes. You can see what is going on. You just refuse to admit it. You rather watch your fellow Americans suffer from this mass invasions of rapists, drug traffickers, human traffickers, gangs, cartels who are doing what they are doing, rather than agree with Trump. That's sad. The liberal press has indoctrinated so many of you guys. They lie right to your face, and supposed intelligent people with keep buying their nonsense.

Back to your question. Trump asked the GA guy to find more votes. There is nothing wrong or illegal about that. It's not as if Trump asked him to fabricate thousands of votes. He just asked him find the ones that he believes exist. We have all seen the questionable things that happened in GA during the election day. Ballots switched from Trump to Biden because of a glitch and then they assured us that it was corrected. Putting up cardboard on the windows so people couldn't look inside. Thousands of ballots counted twice. Piles of mail in ballots without creases being counted. A toilet overflowing so they had to stop counting. For anyone to say this election looked perfectly fine to them, they are being intellectually dishonest. The establishment media has been pushing this story about Trump denying the election results as if he's the only one ever who has. Stacey Abrams, also in GA, still hasn't conceded the election from a few years ago I do believe. Is the MSM still calling her an election denier? They don't even mention it. We know why. She's a democrat and the liberal establishment media are an arm of the democratic party. You know it and I know it and you know that I know that you know it, but it seems you don't care. Trump disputes election results - the big Lie! A democrat disputes election results - crickets. Wake up.

Trump will win that case in GA.

Everything didn't look fine, that's why the Republican party had legal recounts and audits. To say Trump only questioned the election results and nothing else is being intellectually dishonest. Members of his team, Sidney Powell among others went to Coffee co. Georgia in South Georgia to copy statewide voting system software on Jan. 7, 2021, the day after a riot at the U.S. Capitol, according to an invoice.

They tried to change the outcome of the election by pressuring election officials, harassing election workers and taking election data that was supposed to be kept secure.
Rudy accusing election workers of wrongdoing that were innocent, killed credibility about accusing others.

[Hareeba!]

More lies from this MAGAt

NOTHING has been hidden

And it's not only them - numerous courts also found that the election was fair
And even the panel paid for by TFG to investigate it came to the same conclusion

Only ignorant MAGAts like you and DipShit keep up the absurd lie

Meanwhile I'm still waiting for your response to my challenge to your post from last week
But seeing you as the coward you are I'm not expecting it to come

[DwightShrute]

Everything didn't look fine, that's why the Republican party had legal recounts and audits. To say Trump only questioned the election results and nothing else is being intellectually dishonest. Members of his team, Sidney Powell among others went to Coffee co. Georgia in South Georgia to copy statewide voting system software on Jan. 7, 2021, the day after a riot at the U.S. Capitol, according to an invoice.

They tried to change the outcome of the election by pressuring election officials, harassing election workers and taking election data that was supposed to be kept secure.
Rudy accusing election workers of wrongdoing that were innocent, killed credibility about accusing others.

The call was recorded and Trump had people listening to the call. No where did he suggest manufacturing thousands of votes. He just asked him to find them.

[brooks85]

Tell me you don't understand the Constitution without telling me you don't understand the Constitution.

tell me you can't answer.... see d2.. you're out of your league again

[jackpot269]

The call was recorded and Trump had people listening to the call. No where did he suggest manufacturing thousands of votes. He just asked him to find them.

The mob boss never comes right out and tells his muscle to kill someone but they know what he means.

Forget the phone call for a second, he still has to deal with all the other evidence.

[DwightShrute]

The mob boss never comes right out and tells his muscle to kill someone but they know what he means.

Forget the phone call for a second, he still has to deal with all the other evidence.

ya but the phone call is where everyone who hates Trump is starting from. Many of the same people are still telling us today that him telling people to peacefully march to the capitol was inciting violence. Now, those people might actually have a higher IQ than you are well but that doesn't mean power doesn't corrupt. There are a lot of real shitty people with high IQ's out there. Epstein was one. The FBI knew what he was doing and let him do it for years. He made a ton on money and no one did a thing. We can list a ton of other examples of this.