Question :

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
First: I do not see how Joe Biden can beat this. The evidence of his dementia has been public in his appearances for 3 years now.

But the question. If he is removed from office by the 25th. Amendment can he still sign Presidential pardons for Hunter before he is escorted out of the White house? If he signed them now before the 25th Amendment invoked would they be legal.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
First: I do not see how Joe Biden can beat this. The evidence of his dementia has been public in his appearances for 3 years now.


angry-man-shouting-and-closing-ears-isolated-on-blue.jpg
1707488808737.jpeg
man-with-fingers-in-ears.jpg
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
But the question. If he is removed from office by the 25th. Amendment can he still sign Presidential pardons for Hunter before he is escorted out of the White house? If he signed them now before the 25th Amendment invoked would they be legal.
If already signed it would be a legal pardon.
 

LJ1999

Active Member
First: I do not see how Joe Biden can beat this. The evidence of his dementia has been public in his appearances for 3 years now.

But the question. If he is removed from office by the 25th. Amendment can he still sign Presidential pardons for Hunter before he is escorted out of the White house? If he signed them now before the 25th Amendment invoked would they be legal.
It is a very interesting question. There was lots of talk yesterday about if the DOJ thinks he is mentally unfit for office, could anything he has signed be questioned as far as being legit.

We are in new territory for sure!!!
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Maybe he should get his pardon pen out now then.
Why, implementing the 25th can be more difficult then a conviction of impeachment. Check out section 4 of the 25th amendment -
Section 4.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
So, old Joe can crank out his crayon and say "Uh, uh. I not be disable" and then the VP and majority of the principles have to respond again that he is "unable" to hold office, then it goes to the Congress where 2/3rds of both chambers must agree upon that characterization to remove him.
 

StmarysCity79

Well-Known Member
Well if SCOTUS decides that Trump has presidential immunity from prosecution Biden can do whatever he wants for the next 9 months without any risk of prosecution.

He can just claim immunity.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Well if SCOTUS decides that Trump has presidential immunity from prosecution Biden can do whatever he wants for the next 9 months without any risk of prosecution.

He can just claim immunity.
Hey Dumbass, he wouldn't have to. DOJ already gave him the old and feeble get out of jail card
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
We are talking about if Biden decides not to leave the WH if he loses in 2024.

Why would he not leave?
If the Supremes rule what Trump did was not Insurrection then Biden is free to do the same.
They dont' have to rule something was NOT something.

First... Trump is not charged or convicted of insurrection.

Second... A RIOT does not constitute "Insurrection" especially when NONE of the said Participants of the RIOT were CHARGED with "Insurrection"

Are you natually retarded or are you working at it?

:jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet:
 

StmarysCity79

Well-Known Member
Why would he not leave?

They dont' have to rule something was NOT something.

First... Trump is not charged or convicted of insurrection.

Second... A RIOT does not constitute "Insurrection" especially when NONE of the said Participants of the RIOT were CHARGED with "Insurrection"

Are you natually retarded or are you working at it?

:jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet: :jet:

Colorado ruled he committed insurrection which is why SCOTUS is discussing the current effort to remove him from the ballot dummy.

Many others were also charged with impeding a congressional proceeding

How is it possible for you to be so ignorant yet angry about things you cant even clearly understand?

  • More than 310 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so.
  • Approximately 55 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either: (a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, (b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, (c) conspiracy to injure an officer, or (d) some combination of the three.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Colorado ruled he committed insurrection which is why SCOTUS is discussing the current effort to remove him from the ballot dummy.

Colorado does not enforce or prosecute FEDERAL LAW moron.

When was the State House in Colorado overthrown? :jet:

By that logic, Texas can declare Biden a Traitor and have a judge nod his head to it and that makes it so? roflmao:

You really are thimble deep.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
More than 310 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so.
  • Approximately 55 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either: (a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, (b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, (c) conspiracy to injure an officer, or (d) some combination of the three.
None of those are insurrection charges. Come to think of it, they do sound like things the Israel protesters should be charged with.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Ok pardon the interruption, but is there an actual law that covers insurrection? Just wondering because it seems to be a kind of vague term like obscenity, “I know it when I see it”.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
But Trump has in Colorado dummy
Really? Truly? Colorado is going to try Trump for treason and presumably give him the death penalty if found guilty? How do they have jurisdiction, did this action take place in Colorado? Is Colorado now somehow the seat of the federal government?
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I think there is and Justice Kavanaugh referenced it. It was enacted before the 14th though.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Ok pardon the interruption, but is there an actual law that covers insurrection? Just wondering because it seems to be a kind of vague term like obscenity, “I know it when I see it”.
I think there is and Justice Kavanaugh referenced it. It was enacted before the 14th though.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Garland's in a bind too. If he comes out against Hur's observations on Joe's mental state, then there is no reason not to charge Joe. That's is unless DOJ throws Hur and his report under the bus.
 
Top