.....your lips and your right hand. Not much more.
You have people in this country for 20 years, they've done a great job. They've done wonderfully. Th
- Thread starter Sapidus
- Start date
.....your lips and your right hand. Not much more.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
So, let me shove some sunshine up your ass..
DACA.. what did it actually do??
It REGISTERED 800,000 illegal immigrants that came to this country illegally.. YEAH OBAMA.. he did to illegals, what we've feared Democrats would do to our GUNS!!
Now we know where EVERY single swinging Richard is..
Now here's the rub..
IF you believe Trump is as racist and hateful as you say he is, the day DACA expires the busses go out to all those addresses and pick every single one of them up and deport them!! YEAH REGISTRATION!!!
OR, Trump isn't as hateful and racist as you say he is, and DACA expires and nothing changes.. no door knocks at 2 AM.. no increase in deportations, and in fact, unless they break the law, not a single one of the "DREAMERS" will leave involuntarily.
I'm betting you're going to be proven a total idiot, and a liar, and nothing is going to change, because Trump isn't the hateful and racist person you say he is..
Care to put your money where your rhetoric is?? Which is it going to be??
Try to comprehend how the constitution and the rule of law work in this country.
"Last month, a federal judge found Mr. Arpaio, a former Arizona sheriff, guilty of criminal contempt for defying a court order to stop detaining immigrants based solely on the suspicion that they were in the country illegally. The order had been issued in a lawsuit that accused the sheriff’s office of violating the Constitution by using racial profiling to jail Latinos. Mr. Arpaio had faced a sentence of up to six months in jail.
Mr. Trump thus used his constitutional power to block a federal judge’s effort to enforce the Constitution. Legal experts said they found this to be the most troubling aspect of the pardon, given that it excused the lawlessness of an official who had sworn to defend the constitutional structure.
Noah Feldman, a law professor at Harvard, argued before the pardon was issued that such a move “would express presidential contempt for the Constitution.”
Not even in the same league........just sayin"
Marc Rich
U.S. indictment and pardon[edit]
2001 The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich
In 1983 Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted on 65 criminal counts, including income tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and trading with Iran during the oil embargo (at a time when Iranian revolutionaries were still holding American citizens hostage).[7][18] The charges would have led to a sentence of more than 300 years in prison had Rich been convicted on all counts.[18] The indictment was filed by then-U.S. Federal Prosecutor (and future mayor of New York City) Rudolph Giuliani. At the time it was the biggest tax evasion case in U.S. history.[19]
Learning of the plans for the indictment, Rich fled[8] to Switzerland and, always insisting that he was not guilty, never returned to the U.S. to answer the charges.[Notes 1] Rich's companies eventually pleaded guilty to 35 counts of tax evasion and paid $90 million in fines,[7] although Rich himself remained on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most-Wanted Fugitives List for many years,[21] narrowly evading capture in Britain, Germany, Finland, and Jamaica.[22] Fearing arrest, he did not even return to the United States to attend his daughter's funeral in 1996.[23]
On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, U.S. President Bill Clinton granted Rich a highly controversial presidential pardon. Several of Clinton's strongest supporters distanced themselves from the decision.[24] Former President Jimmy Carter, a fellow Democrat, said, "I don't think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts. In my opinion, that was disgraceful."[25] Clinton himself later expressed regret for issuing the pardon, saying that "it wasn't worth the damage to my reputation."[8]
Clinton's critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought, as Denise Rich had given more than $1 million[26] to Clinton's political party (the Democratic Party), including more than $100,000 to the Senate campaign of the president's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and $450,000 to the Clinton Library foundation during Clinton's time in office.[22]
Clinton also cited clemency pleas he had received from Israeli government officials, including then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Rich had made substantial donations to Israeli charitable foundations over the years, and many senior Israeli officials, such as Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert, argued on his behalf behind the scenes.[27] Speculation about another rationale for Rich's pardon involved his alleged involvement with the Israeli intelligence community.[28][29] Rich reluctantly acknowledged in interviews with his biographer, Daniel Ammann, that he had assisted the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service,[4][12] a claim that Ammann said was confirmed by a former Israeli intelligence officer.[11] According to Ammann, Rich had helped finance the Mossad's operations and had supplied Israel with strategic amounts of Iranian oil through a secret oil pipeline.[4] The aide to Rich who had persuaded Denise Rich to personally ask President Clinton to review Rich's pardon request was a former chief of the Mossad, Avner Azulay.[23][30] Another former Mossad chief, Shabtai Shavit, had also urged Clinton to pardon Rich,[31] who he said had routinely allowed intelligence agents to use his offices around the world.[18]
Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate Clinton's last-minute pardon of Rich.[32] She stepped down before the investigation was finished and was replaced by James Comey, who was critical of Clinton's pardons and of then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder's pardon recommendation.[33] Rich's lawyer, Jack Quinn, had previously been Clinton's White House Counsel and chief of staff to Clinton's Vice President, Al Gore, and had had a close relationship with Holder.[23] According to Quinn, Holder had advised that standard procedures be bypassed and the pardon petition be submitted directly to the White House.[34][Notes 2] Congressional investigations were also launched. Clinton's top advisors, Chief of Staff John Podesta, White House Counsel Beth Nolan, and advisor Bruce Lindsey, testified that nearly all of the White House staff advising the president on the pardon request had urged Clinton to not grant Rich a pardon.[30] Federal investigators ultimately found no evidence of criminal activity.[31]
As a condition of the pardon, it was made clear that Rich would drop all procedural defenses against any civil actions brought against him by the United States upon his return there. That condition was consistent with the position that his alleged wrongdoing warranted only civil penalties, not criminal punishment. Rich never returned to the United States.[8]
In a February 18, 2001 op-ed essay in The New York Times, Clinton (by then out of office) explained why he had pardoned Rich, noting that U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of the Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center had concluded that no crime had been committed, and that Rich's companies' tax-reporting position had been reasonable.[20] In the same essay, Clinton listed Lewis "Scooter" Libby as one of three "distinguished Republican lawyers" who supported a pardon for Rich. (Libby himself later received a presidential commutation for his involvement in the Plame affair.) During Congressional hearings after Rich's pardon, Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages.[36]
A New York Times editorial called the Marc Rich pardon “a shocking abuse of presidential power.”[37]
I see your ability to spew extreme irony is still intact after your welcomed absence....
Not even in the same league.......just sayin'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_López_Rivera
Should I go on or is your head already exploding?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Have you heard of the concept of nullification? Please read up on it.
Why do you believe two things can't be both be bad ?
Why do you always bring up something or someone else to defend Trumps actions?
Why can't you just discuss the matter at hand?
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Rule of Law and the Constitution allow the President to Pardon the Sheriff..
So what's your point??
itsbob
I bowl overhand
If you're too stupid to get it, just say it.
It's not like anyone here will think any less of you.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Just to clarify, you are saying many of Obama's pardons are at least as inappropriate in your eyes as you see the Trump pardon of the sheriff, yes?
I never said it didn't. Please try to keep up with the conversation. The point is that by pardoning him Trump is saying that his opinion is more important than the constitutional law that was used to find the sheriff guilty.
Like all of the child kings pardons?..or better?..or worse?
glhs837
Power with Control
Dont all Presidential pardons say that? You don't get pardoned if you were not convicted.
If it showed contempt it was to the judge. Knowing what the case was about I have some contempt for her also.
so what exactly was ILLEGAL about the pardon ?
because as it stands, the Presidents Pardon Power Trumps the Judges decision .......
so was Bill Clinton usurping the Constitution when he pardoned Criminal hiding in another country Marc Rich ?
Obama;
Oscar Rivera (who was responsible for setting off 28 bombs in Chicago)
Bradley Manning
or 1900 other pardons issued by Obama
as far as lawlessness ....