Hoodwinked - Page 3 - Talk About Marriage
Politics and Religion This is the place to discuss politics, morality, religion, and anything controversial.

User Tag List

 48Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #31 of 44 (permalink) Old 11-23-2016, 06:41 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,330
Re: Hoodwinked

Quote:
Originally Posted by EleGirl View Post
Can a person be pardoned of crimes that they have not been charged with?

Like a blanket pardon... "I absolve you of all your sins (crimes)"?
Yes, this was done by various members of the State, over possible war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guatemala Bay.

spotthedeaddog is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 44 (permalink) Old 11-23-2016, 06:43 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,330
Re: Hoodwinked

Quote:
Originally Posted by BetrayedDad View Post
Yes, Nixon was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VermisciousKnid View Post
I have to laugh about the uproar over a potential pardon for HRC. Read about the Iran-Contra affair and all of the immunity granted and pardons issued by the first Bush after that and tell me that what HRC did re: the email server was worse than that.

The fact is that every administration has its high level screw ups, and conviction or not, the outgoing president lets them off the hook because they were part of the team.

If HRC did any of that people would be asking for her execution.
Yes, it's actually more telling about who _doesn't_ get a get out of jail free.
spotthedeaddog is offline  
post #33 of 44 (permalink) Old 11-23-2016, 06:51 PM
Member
 
VladDracul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 832
Re: Hoodwinked

Quote:
Originally Posted by arbitrator View Post
Only if they have been summarily indicted, convicted, or are under serious threat of being indicted of a federal, state, or a local crime or misdemeanor!
Posted via Mobile Device
From Ex Parte Garland, U.S. Supreme Court (71 U.S.333 (1867))

The Constitution provides that the President " shall have power
to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United
States, except in cases of impeachment." Art. II. sec. 2.

The power thus conferred is unlimited with the exception
stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may
be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal
proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after convic-
tion and judgment. This power of the President is not subject
to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of
his pardon, or exclude from its exercise any class of offenders.
The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him, cannot be fet-
tered by any legislative restrictions.

Such being the case, the inquiry arises as to the effect and
operation of a pardon, and on this point all the authorities concur.
A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence,
and the guilt of the offender ; and when the pardon is full, it
releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so
that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had
never committed the offence. If granted before conviction it
prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon
conviction from attaching ; if granted after conviction it removes
the penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil

Vol. XV. 19



290 EX PARTE GARLAND.

rights ; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new
credit and capacity.

If you don't embody controversy, what you say will become just another part of the media driven culture of stifling thought and debate about issues.
VladDracul is online now  
 
post #34 of 44 (permalink) Old 11-23-2016, 07:24 PM
Forum Supporter
 
arbitrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Central Texas/Brazos Valley
Posts: 11,049
Cool Re: Hoodwinked

Quote:
Originally Posted by VladDracul View Post
From Ex Parte Garland, U.S. Supreme Court (71 U.S.333 (1867))

The Constitution provides that the President " shall have power
to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United
States, except in cases of impeachment." — Art. II. sec. 2.

The power thus conferred is unlimited with the exception
stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may
be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal
proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after convic-
tion and judgment. This power of the President is not subject
to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of
his pardon, or exclude from its exercise any class of offenders.
The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him, cannot be fet-
tered by any legislative restrictions.

Such being the case, the inquiry arises as to the effect and
operation of a pardon, and on this point all the authorities concur.
A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence,
and the guilt of the offender ; and when the pardon is full, it
releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so
that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had
never committed the offence. If granted before conviction it
prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon
conviction from attaching ; if granted after conviction it removes
the penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil

Vol. XV.— 19



290 EX PARTE GARLAND.

rights ; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new
credit and capacity.
So if Nixon had been summarily impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate, then President Gerald Ford would have been totally SOL in granting "Tricky D!ck" his Presidential pardon?
Posted via Mobile Device

"To love another person is to see the face of God!" - Jean Valjean from Les Miserables

My Story! http://talkaboutmarriage.com/going-t...andonment.html
arbitrator is online now  
post #35 of 44 (permalink) Old 11-23-2016, 09:40 PM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,681
Re: Hoodwinked

Quote:
Originally Posted by VermisciousKnid View Post
The FBI believes she did it for convenience not for personal gain. If there is proof that it was for personal gain then Comey is covering it up. Since we know there are leakers in the FBI that seems unlikely to be the case.

The parts I have bolded are flights of fancy. That is there are no facts to support them, only animus.

Earlier, MattMatt issued a statement that libelous statements would be deleted. Let's see how he handles this one when the target is HRC not Trump or Bannon.

As far as Iran-Contra, Congress had officially cut funding for the Contras, so what North, Secord, et al were doing was not in furtherance of US goals. Trading arms for hostages was also against US policy.
Hillary herself is on record saying she had the server to avoid public scrutiny. Here's one link found with a quick search. Clinton expressed worries about exposure of personal emails at State Dept. - POLITICO I also recall a video of her responding something to the effect of "Why would I do that?" in a discussion with someone about using government email, with the context being keeping her correspondence away from scrutiny.

We know she lied time after time after time about why she had the server and how she used it. She was intentionally lying to everybody about it. The only reason to lie so much would be to obscure the truth. If she wanted to be completely open she could have immediately and without limitation given the federal government access to her server and all the emails. Instead they engaged in destruction of evidence and delay tactics.

As far as Benghazi having a potential illegal arms trade deal going on, there are many reports. Look up Marc Turi, Operation Footprint.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ons-shipments/


The TRUTH About Benghazi - Hillary Clinton Illegal Arms Deals with Libya and Syria
Bombshell: White House Knowingly Allowed Al Qaeda Arms Deal That Facilitated Benghazi Attack
CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked' - Telegraph
Hillary Clinton -- Benghazi Scandal & Arming Syrian ?Rebels? | National Review

And like a good lefty your goal is to shut me up.

Iran Contra was, afaik, illegal. However, the players believed they were furthering the legitimate foreign policy goals of the USA even though their actions were not legitimate. This is in stark contrast to Hillary's actions which were purely for her own self serving reasons.

It certainly appears there was corruption and graft involved with the Clinton Foundation, and keeping her emails off of government servers would be a key part of keeping their actions out of view. Being involved in illegal arms trafficking in Libya would be something she'd want to keep hidden, too.
Thor is online now  
post #36 of 44 (permalink) Old 11-23-2016, 11:08 PM
Member
 
VladDracul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 832
Re: Hoodwinked

Quote:
Originally Posted by arbitrator View Post
So if Nixon had been summarily impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate, then President Gerald Ford would have been totally SOL in granting "Tricky D!ck" his Presidential pardon?
Posted via Mobile Device
My understanding of the law is that impeachment could not have gone further than removing Nixon from office, and disqualifying him from holding any other office. Ford's pardon would have protected Nixon from charges, indictment and trial for any other crimes. (but not from impeachment)

If you don't embody controversy, what you say will become just another part of the media driven culture of stifling thought and debate about issues.
VladDracul is online now  
post #37 of 44 (permalink) Old 11-23-2016, 11:17 PM
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5,485
Re: Hoodwinked

Quote:
Originally Posted by VladDracul View Post
My understanding of the law is that impeachment could not have gone further than removing Nixon from office, and disqualifying him from holding any other office. Ford's pardon would have protected Nixon from charges, indictment and trial for any other crimes. (but not from impeachment)
Right. AFAIK, the sole penalty for conviction after impeachment is removal from office (maybe disqualifying for other office but that's a new one on me); it is not a criminal offense even though the term "conviction" is used. And pardons can't pardon impeachment anyway. So the pardon was for any criminal activity that Nixon might have been guilty of, not for impeachment.

Always remember the LD motto: "Sex isn't important!!!"
tech-novelist is offline  
post #38 of 44 (permalink) Old 11-24-2016, 06:38 AM
Member
 
VermisciousKnid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New England
Posts: 1,984
Hoodwinked

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
Hillary herself is on record saying she had the server to avoid public scrutiny. Here's one link found with a quick search. Clinton expressed worries about exposure of personal emails at State Dept. - POLITICO I also recall a video of her responding something to the effect of "Why would I do that?" in a discussion with someone about using government email, with the context being keeping her correspondence away from scrutiny.

We know she lied time after time after time about why she had the server and how she used it. She was intentionally lying to everybody about it. The only reason to lie so much would be to obscure the truth. If she wanted to be completely open she could have immediately and without limitation given the federal government access to her server and all the emails. Instead they engaged in destruction of evidence and delay tactics.

As far as Benghazi having a potential illegal arms trade deal going on, there are many reports. Look up Marc Turi, Operation Footprint.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ons-shipments/


The TRUTH About Benghazi - Hillary Clinton Illegal Arms Deals with Libya and Syria
Bombshell: White House Knowingly Allowed Al Qaeda Arms Deal That Facilitated Benghazi Attack
CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked' - Telegraph
Hillary Clinton -- Benghazi Scandal & Arming Syrian ?Rebels? | National Review

And like a good lefty your goal is to shut me up.

Iran Contra was, afaik, illegal. However, the players believed they were furthering the legitimate foreign policy goals of the USA even though their actions were not legitimate. This is in stark contrast to Hillary's actions which were purely for her own self serving reasons.

It certainly appears there was corruption and graft involved with the Clinton Foundation, and keeping her emails off of government servers would be a key part of keeping their actions out of view. Being involved in illegal arms trafficking in Libya would be something she'd want to keep hidden, too.
My goal isn't to shut you up but to see if MattMatt shows bias while wearing his moderators hat. He wants clear evidence to support anti-Trump statements but has no standard for anti-HRC statements.

As far as the private email server. Most people want their private email private because it contains things no one needs or has a right to know. Like discount Viagra adds, lists of bad jokes from your uncle, your bank statement, messages from your broker, amazon telling you that your quad-copter shipped and will arrive on Thursday, and how the dress Mrs Obama wore at the last state function wasn't flattering.

You take the amazing position that everyone who wants their email private must be concealing crimes. People who want to conceal crimes use the phone or meet in person. They don't email the details.

So the difference between Iran-Contra arms and Benghazi arms is that Iran-contra arms dealing was forbidden by Congress and Arab Spring (Benghazi) arms dealing was approved by Congress. What more do you need to know? One was illegal. One wasn't. One set of characters were convicted, the other set did nothing wrong and weren't accused of any crimes. ETA. this Mark Turi guy. I don't know what his deal was. Did he try to make some cash on the side by dealing unregistered weapons?

All you've presented is flights of fancy. Actual evidence is required to prove someone guilty of a crime. If the FBI had it they would have used it.

Last edited by VermisciousKnid; 11-24-2016 at 06:43 AM.
VermisciousKnid is online now  
post #39 of 44 (permalink) Old 11-24-2016, 08:40 AM
Member
 
wild jade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,340
Re: Hoodwinked

Quote:
Originally Posted by VermisciousKnid View Post
Actual evidence is required to prove someone guilty of a crime. If the FBI had it they would have used it.
Exactly. It wasn't for lack of trying. The FBI worked hard to prove Clinton guilty.
wild jade is offline  
post #40 of 44 (permalink) Old 11-24-2016, 08:51 AM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 56
Re: Hoodwinked

Quote:
Originally Posted by wild jade View Post
Exactly. It wasn't for lack of trying. The FBI worked hard to prove Clinton guilty.
It doesn't matter. They are all convinced.

troubledinma is offline  
post #41 of 44 (permalink) Old 11-24-2016, 09:30 AM
Member
 
VladDracul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 832
Re: Hoodwinked

Quote:
Originally Posted by tech-novelist View Post
Right. AFAIK, the sole penalty for conviction after impeachment is removal from office (maybe disqualifying for other office but that's a new one on me); it is not a criminal offense even though the term "conviction" is used. And pardons can't pardon impeachment anyway. So the pardon was for any criminal activity that Nixon might have been guilty of, not for impeachment.
Looking at Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, My interpretation is that if an federal office holder is impeached/convicted, they are precluded from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit in the federal government. ( but Constitutional law is far from my specialty) At any rate, a good question, considering both the Clintons (if she'd won) GWB and maybe Trump before its over, is can a setting President be charged with crimes and indicted before being impeached.

If you don't embody controversy, what you say will become just another part of the media driven culture of stifling thought and debate about issues.
VladDracul is online now  
post #42 of 44 (permalink) Old 11-24-2016, 11:38 AM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,681
Re: Hoodwinked

Quote:
Originally Posted by VermisciousKnid View Post
My goal isn't to shut you up but to see if MattMatt shows bias while wearing his moderators hat. He wants clear evidence to support anti-Trump statements but has no standard for anti-HRC statements.
Then why do you care what MattMatt thinks or does with my post? I've given clear evidence for my factual statements, and given supporting data for my opinions and conclusions. Is this supposed to be a non-anti-HRC safe zone?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VermisciousKnid View Post
As far as the private email server. Most people want their private email private because it contains things no one needs or has a right to know. Like discount Viagra adds, lists of bad jokes from your uncle, your bank statement, messages from your broker, amazon telling you that your quad-copter shipped and will arrive on Thursday, and how the dress Mrs Obama wore at the last state function wasn't flattering.
Right. Private server for private email. So why would you suppose she also used a private server for her public service job? Why did she lie, lie, lie, lie, and then lie some more about the circumstances, facts, equipment, and content of the official uses of her private server?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VermisciousKnid View Post
You take the amazing position that everyone who wants their email private must be concealing crimes.
Where did I say that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VermisciousKnid View Post
People who want to conceal crimes use the phone or meet in person. They don't email the details.
First part maybe, depending on circumstances. Last part is incorrect. Now you're the one taking the amazing position that everyone who wants to conceal crimes (which would be every single criminal who does not want to get caught) never uses email.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VermisciousKnid View Post
So the difference between Iran-Contra arms and Benghazi arms is that Iran-contra arms dealing was forbidden by Congress and Arab Spring (Benghazi) arms dealing was approved by Congress. What more do you need to know? One was illegal. One wasn't. One set of characters were convicted, the other set did nothing wrong and weren't accused of any crimes. ETA. this Mark Turi guy. I don't know what his deal was. Did he try to make some cash on the side by dealing unregistered weapons?
Looks to me like there was an illegal transfer of weapons in the Benghazi deal. Clinton and Obama 'accidentally gave guns to ISIS and Al Qaeda' claims arms dealer | Daily Mail Online

Quote:
Turi, 48, told Fox that the Obama administration had wanted to arm Libyan rebels to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi during the Arab Spring uprising, but were stopped by a UN sanction on arms sales to the country.

He said he came up with a plan to sell weapons to US allies in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates who would then pass them on to Libya, but was cut out of the deal by Clinton's State Department and the CIA, who transported the weapons themselves.
Start at 4:40 for the pertinent part about weapon running. https://youtu.be/xHtogsZmWIk

There was a UN ban in place which made this an illegal operation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VermisciousKnid View Post
All you've presented is flights of fancy. Actual evidence is required to prove someone guilty of a crime. If the FBI had it they would have used it.
We're not a court proving someone guilty. We can judge for ourselves if we believe crimes were committed. The FBI is merely an investigatory agency, thus the I in their name. The DoJ is tasked with taking the information developed by the FBI and then deciding whether to prosecute. So the entire Comey debacle stinks of corruption. Comey's position from July 5 laid out clearly she violated numerous federal laws. He did not have authority to decide not to prosecute, as that authority falls within DoJ.

Last edited by Thor; 11-24-2016 at 11:52 AM.
Thor is online now  
post #43 of 44 (permalink) Old 11-24-2016, 11:42 AM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,681
Re: Hoodwinked

Quote:
Originally Posted by wild jade View Post
Exactly. It wasn't for lack of trying. The FBI worked hard to prove Clinton guilty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by troubledinma View Post
It doesn't matter. They are all convinced.
Have you read the transcripts from Comey's July 5 statement or watched the video? And then have you read the relevant federal statutes? Have you reviewed some of the circumstances resulting in conviction of others under those statutes?

If so, I don't know how anyone could come to a conclusion other than Hillary is being treated completely differently.

Last edited by Thor; 11-24-2016 at 11:52 AM.
Thor is online now  
post #44 of 44 (permalink) Old 11-24-2016, 01:55 PM
Member
 
VladDracul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 832
Re: Hoodwinked

Well despite what's been written, I'll tell you who was hoodwinked. I was. I was really looking forward to the celebrities who promised to move out of the country if Trump won, to make good on their promise (especial Spike Lee, Cher, and Rosie) Last I heard, and as disappointed as I am about it, they are still here.

If you don't embody controversy, what you say will become just another part of the media driven culture of stifling thought and debate about issues.
VladDracul is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome