Go ahead. Defend him.
This thread would not be posted by anyone on MF. It would have passed unmentioned. Wait. Let me guess. "It's the media!"
This case is not as clear cut as you seemingly need to feel it is.
There is a lot of disputed evidence, some of which Obama's justice department withheld in the 1st trial, which resulted in an overturning of the 1st convictions.
The defense was that the men were returning fire after an ambush. It was a crowded area and unfortunately, some civilians were caught up. Could it have been handled better? Maybe. But until you're under fire in an area where you are routinely attacked, you are probably not the best judge.
Trump tends to give servicemen the benefit of the doubt where many on your side of the aisle prefer to do the exact opposite.
Weird for a guy who allegedly stated that service men are losers, Huh?
good Lord Joj, nearly every day you you cannot wait to prove you do not live any real world. this was war. Have any idea just how many civilians get killed during a war? These people were put in a terrible situation. Ever heard of "black Hawk Down"? Ever heard of Benghazi? For that matter ever heard of the USA droning places filled with combatants hiding among civilians? And who was the king of droning? Obama. You going after him for murder? Why not I wonder?
according your story these guys woke up one morning and decided for the heck of it lets go out and kill some civilians. And Trump being the hater he is noticed their story and had an immediate connection with killers so he pardoned them so they could kill more.
The US military gives much latitude in dangerous situations. They are appalled at this pardon.
I knew I could count on you guys to defend this murder of children.
I was/am against Obama’s use of drone strikes in civilian areas.
ok now be true to your convictions or admit you have none. Using your logic Obama must be prosecuted now, today for murder of children. No way around it bud.
They are appalled at this pardon.
Who are they? For every "Military person" you find condemning it, there are dozens who do not.
No one is defending the murder of children, you simply insist of viewing what is quite likely an accident as murder. It's your choice and does not surprise me one bit.
This was adjudicated in court. Defense lost.
Looks like you don't believe in due process.
"I knew I could count on you guys to defend this murder of children."
joj,
Please refrain from personal insults.
Looks like you don't believe in due process.
Lets review a few dozen convictions of minorities and a few dozen aquittals of cops shooting minorities and find out just how firmly you hold to your staunch support of due process. I suspect there are at least a few chinks in that armor. Unless I misremember, there have been several occasions over the years wher you have not "believed in due process". I am nearly certain that was the case with George Zimmerman, that "white hispanic", for example.
I suspect, you know as well as I that court finding are not always just. I strongly suspect this may be such a case. I don't think, under any circumstances these men were guilty of intentionally murdering children, in spite of your comittment.
I don’t at all see why a pardon of these people is justified. So, I agree with joj.
And Manafort pardon was because of what??
Trump is acting like a mob boss with some of these pardons. Not a good way to help his legacy. :(
I think the fact that presidents are allowed to pardon people is the most insane part of the US Constitution.
Can somebody explain to me why this is a good law?
Not the "intended purposes that Trump is abusing" reason but why, with no president being infalible and apolitical that we would have such a law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States
A federal pardon in the United States is the action of the President of the United States that completely sets aside the punishment for a federal crime. The authority to take such action is granted to the president by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. A pardon is one form of the clemency power of the president, the others being commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, and reprieve.[1]
Under the Constitution, the president's clemency power extends to all federal criminal offenses.[2] All requests for executive clemency for federal offenses are normally directed to the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation and review,[3] but the president is free to bypass that office.[4] A pardon does not take effect if the beneficiary of the pardon does not accept it.[5]
The president's pardon power is limited to federal offenses; the Constitution only grants the president the power to pardon "[o]ffenses against the United States."[6] An offense that violates state law, but not federal law, is an offense against that state rather than an offense against the United States.[6][7]
The full extent of a president's power to pardon has not been fully resolved. Pardons have been used for presumptive cases, such as when President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, who had not been charged with anything, over any possible crimes connected with the Watergate scandal,[7] but the Supreme Court has never considered the legal effectiveness of such pardons.[8] There is disagreement about how the pardon power applies to cases involving obstructions of an impeachment.[9] Also, the ability of a president to pardon themselves (self-pardon) has never been tested in the courts, because, to date, no president has ever taken that action.[10]
I don’t at all see why a pardon of these people is justified.
You believe that the conviction of these men of intentional murder is justified? We'll have to agree to disagree.
metmike: This is not defending Trumps choices, it's illustrating the abuse of this silly power.
As of November 25, 2020, Republican president Donald Trump pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 94 people. Among them were:
Democratic president Barack Obama pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the conviction of 1,927 people.[
Republican president George W. Bush pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 200 people.[20] Among them were:
Democratic president Bill Clinton pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 459 people
Republican president George H. W. Bush pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 77 people
Republican president Ronald Reagan pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 406 people
Democratic president Jimmy Carter pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 566 people,[
Republican president Gerald Ford pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 409 people.
Republican president Richard Nixon pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 926 people.
Democratic president Lyndon B. Johnson pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 1,187 people
Democratic president John F. Kennedy pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 575 people
Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 1,157 people.[
Democratic president Harry S. Truman pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 2,044 people.
Democratic president Franklin D. Roosevelt granted 3,687 pardons in his four terms in office.[
Republican president Herbert Hoover pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 1,385 people.[
Republican president Calvin Coolidge pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 1,545 people
Republican president Warren G. Harding pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 800 people
Democratic president Woodrow Wilson pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 2,480 people
Republican president William Howard Taft pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 758 people.
Republican president Theodore Roosevelt pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 981people.
Republican president William McKinley pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 918 (est.) people.
Republican president Benjamin Harrison pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 613 people
Democratic president Grover Cleveland pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 1,107 (est.) people during his two, non-consecutive terms
Republican president Chester A. Arthur pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 337 people.
Republican president James A. Garfield was one of only two presidents who issued no pardons, the other being William Henry Harrison. This was due to Garfield's assassination shortly after he took office.
Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 893 people.
Republican president Ulysses S. Grant pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 1,332 people
Democratic president Andrew Johnson pardoned about 7,000 people in the "over $20,000" class (taxable property over $20,000) by May 4, 1866. More than 600 prominent North Carolinians were pardoned just before the election of 1864.[15] President Andrew Johnson pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 654 people.
Republican president Abraham Lincoln pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 343 people, including 2 pedophiles, 1 terrorist and 1 ax murderer. Just kidding....checking to see if you're still awake (-:
Democratic president James Buchanan pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 150 people
Democratic president Franklin Pierce pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 142 people
Whig president Millard Fillmore pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 170 people.[
Whig president Zachary Taylor pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 38 people
Democratic president James K. Polk pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 268 peopl
Whig president John Tyler pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 209 people.[
Whig president William Henry Harrison was one of only two presidents who issued no pardons, the other being James Garfield. This was due to Harrison's death shortly after taking office.
Democratic president Martin Van Buren pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 168 people.[
Democratic president Andrew Jackson pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 386 people
Democratic-Republican president John Quincy Adams pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 183 people
Democratic-Republican president James Monroe pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 419 people.
Democratic-Republican president James Madison pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 196 people.
Democratic-Republican president Thomas Jefferson pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 119 people.[3] One of his first acts upon taking office was to issue a general pardon for any person convicted under the Sedition Act.
Federalist president John Adams pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 20 people
President George Washington pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 16 people
metmike: If nothing else, let the list above to serve as a history lesson to remind us of the list and order of our presidents!
Listing raw pardon numbers is as meaningless as raw Executive Order numbers. Do any of these pardons include the pardoning of the Tday Turkey? Probably not, but you get my point.
There are valid reasons for presidential pardons just as there are valid reasons for govenors to have the power to stay an execution.
But give ambitious men powers, and they are likely to abuse them. That's why we used to have so many checks and balances in the constitutional definition of the government. We've goten rid of some important ones.
There are no checks on many of the executive powers other than "We the People" and the voting booth. Most of us don't pay enough attention to matter and presidents often save pardons for their swan songs.
joj, if you are going to continue posting crap here and we are kind enough to answer could you be man enough to answer our responses....and now larry has joined your team. So to the both of you either stick with your convictions and demand the prosecution of Obama for the murder of children or retract your criticism of our troops ,independent black water or regular, it does not matter. If you are serving you duty is to follow orders that {and you all must of missed this part} start at the top.
"Listing raw pardon numbers is as meaningless as raw Executive Order numbers."
I agree totally with that and was not trying to state otherwise, just provide some interesting numbers and give you a review of the presidents/history.
One president could pardon 1,000 good fairies and be better than the one that pardoned Charles Manson (-:
https://spectator.org/trump-pardons-clinton-clemency/ bet there were not too many pardons handed out for cash....you can see many coarse behaviors that started with the Clintons and yet still rock stars to the dems
Any criticism I give on some of Trump's pardons, which I know are well deserved, are by no means a commentary on the pardons given by any previous POTUS.
of course they are commentary on previous pardons, just as your commentary on our troops was present and past
Mcfarm,
Please reread my posts. Nowhere did I say anything about prior Presidents. This thread is supposed to be about Trump. I’m commenting on some of Trump’s totally uncalled for pardons. Trump is ruining his legacy with his combo of baseless claims of widespread election fraud against him, his reluctance in helping Biden with transition, and now some of these totally uncalled for pardons. I had recently given him major kudos for the speed of the vaccines, but that’s getting drowned out because of his terrible actions. He can’t leave office soon enough for me.
polls are polls but ramussan is one of the better ones. We all know that over 70% of repubs think there was fraud and plenty enough to investigate, bet very few know that now over 17% of dems believe the same.
If you and biden are so damn sure about the election you both should be calling for verification with Trump. So just how sure are you all? Don't see either one of you out there like Trump trying to verify anything. What guts you all have. What care you have for this country. What a bunch you all are .
"We all know that over 70% of repubs think there was fraud and plenty enough to investigate, bet very few know that now over 17% of dems believe the same."
mcfarm,
Why do you keep on with the false idea that there was no investigation for fraud?
There were investigations for fraud out the wazoo for numerous weeks. The biggest fraud turned out to be mostly with the numerous allegations based on fraudulent evidence.
Trumps side was given weeks to present evidence and it all fell far short of anything that could have affected the results and what bothers me the most, the side presenting it obliterated their credibility by presenting fake evidence so many times that it was clear that they were not really interested in the truth, they were mostly interested in making people suspicious.....sowing/planting doubt in people minds.
They succeeded to, using bs.
You and others can keep repeating that there was plenty enough fraud to investigate in the 2020 election for the rest of your life and believe that it would have been uncovered................if only the right investigation had been done.
While ignoring the hundreds of REAL investigations they did, which somehow, were just not the right ones or did not look in the right places.............as if the fraudsters were so dang sneaky, that they used some magical algorithm in machines in all these counties, that remains elusive to investigators and there is no evidence of.
If only they were given 4 more weeks to investigate because the first 6 weeks were not enough.
This position is never ending because the election flipping fraud will NEVER show up, which means one side, convinced it did happen, will keep insisting that we just didn't investigate enough.............FOREVER.
70% of Republicans believe there was fraud but not because there actually was enough fraud to cause Trump to lose. That is not the reason for their belief. They believe it because the objective and narrative is not to expose major fraud ............which can never be achieved..........ever because there was not enough of it to cause Biden to win.
No, the objective is to convince people that there was major fraud.............that's why 70% of Republicans believe there was major fraud.
Telling us that 70% of people in a certain party are wrong about their opinion about fraud....... is not evidence that there was fraud.
The evidence that there was fraud..............is the evidence itself.
So where is the evidence?
Still hiding from all the investigators/investigations?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55413932
US TV networks Fox News and Newsmax have aired segments highlighting the lack of evidence linking electronic voting machines to fraud in the US election.
The networks had received legal threats from Smartmatic, a voting technology company targeted by fraud allegations.
President Donald Trump's team have used unfounded claims about voting machines in a bid to overturn his defeat.
Members of his team appeared repeatedly on the channels to push the theory.
Fox News ran a two-minute fact-check in the form of questions and answers on three different programmes on Saturday which denied allegations of manipulation or fraud by the two companies.
Newsmax published an online piece and aired a segment on "facts about Dominion, Smartmatic you should know".
Smartmatic, which builds electronic voting systems, announced last week that it had sent "legal notices and retraction demand letters" to Fox News, Newsmax and One America News Network, accusing the three outlets of "publishing false and defamatory statements".
"The demand letters identify dozens of factually inaccurate statements made by each of the organisations as part of a 'disinformation campaign' to injure Smartmatic and discredit the 2020 US election," read a statement on the company's website.
President Trump, his legal team and a number of his allies have made various allegations in recent weeks about widespread electronic voting fraud in several swing states involving Dominion - which sells electronic voting software and hardware - and Smartmatic.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.View original tweet on Twitter
The unfounded allegations - some of which have been widely covered by the three networks - include claims that Dominion systems enable "computerised ballot-stuffing", millions of votes for Mr Trump were either deleted or flipped in favour of Joe Biden, voting machines are part of a plot originating under former Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez or were accessed by foreign agents to manipulate results, and that Dominion used Smartmatic software in a number of states.
No evidence has been provided for any of the allegations and dozens of federal courts have dismissed lawsuits which referred to those claims.
The Fox segment - which ran on programmes hosted by Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro - features Eddie Perez, an expert at the Open Source Election Technology Institute.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.View original tweet on Twitter
In it, Mr Perez confirms there is no evidence Smartmatic software has been used to "delete, change [or] alter anything related to vote tabulation", adding Smartmatic and Dominion are independent companies and "not related to each other".
And on Monday, Newsmax host John Tabacco read out in full the statement published on the network's website two days earlier.
"Newsmax would like to clarify its news coverage and note it has not reported as true certain claims made about these companies," he said.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.View original tweet on Twitter
"No evidence has been offered that Dominion or Smartmatic used software or reprogrammed software that manipulated votes in the 2020 election," Mr Tabacco added.
According to the New York Times, Dominion has also hired a lawyer who has threatened legal action against the Trump campaign and Sidney Powell, a former member of the Trump legal team who has made dramatic claims of fraud in several public events and filed unsuccessful lawsuits in a number of swing states.
One America News did not immediately respond to a BBC request for comment.
never said such a thing...I asked why if biden and larry are so damn confident why are they not leading the charge hand in hand with the Trump side? wouldn't you if you were running. I would, for the good of the country..,,,,well unless somebody us not confident at all. Ever notice Kennedy in 60 was so quiet? Left it all up to Nixon didn't he/them. And if do not investigate thoroughly, I certainly think we have not, we are asking for trouble down the road.
What have we heard from the Biden camp? Crickets that's all.
Thanks and a Very Merry Christmas mcfarm!