they start because you draw too many lines in the sand....Hatfields McCoys, Orange and the Green....isn't it time to see all that divisionism as foolish...my complaints about current state of affairs are an American complaint...you don't get to define me or judge my intuitions or conclusions...or even pick my team...I'm a free agent when it comes to politics but hey....you'll have no lack for dems who'll play ping pong with you
Pardon isn't immunity. And he doesn't need immunity because he can't be guilty of anything related to the pardon. He doesn't have to comply, and he wouldn't.
Even if he has a pardon he would have to answer any subpoena. If during that testimony he were to lie or refuse to answer there would be charges.
I don't believe that is true. You and I could both kill @barfo but because you're such a big Trump supporter Trump could issue you a pardon. Even with a pardon you would still be forced to testify against me. If you lied or refused to testify you would face criminal chargers.
He's pardoned for any contempt of court related to not testifying. So why would he? He's not pardoned of any state offenses, nor is he pardoned for future offenses. Murder is almost exclusively a state criminal law violation. The president can't pardon anyone for those crimes.
Okay, we kill @barfo in a national park... The pardon is for past crimes. You're trying to claim it also covers future crimes. It doesn't. Just because a future crime is related to a past crime doesn't mean that it's covered.
The pardon is in essence an admission of guilt or likely guilt. Compelling testimony that proves this guilt after the pardon makes no sense at all. They do have immunity that can be bartered for compelled testimony, but there's no point to it if the pardon is already granted. I would think that after a pardon if the person further commits some crimes loosely related to the one pardoned for - like destruction of evidence not in his possession, or bribing/threatening a witness, he's fair game for prosecution.
Yes. I think things are totally out of control with people running their mouth overtime with out regard to Constitutional procedure. And I believe the same people would behave the same regardless of which of the 17 republicans running got elected. If we can not agree to follow the Constitution then there will be no alternative.at some point. The absence of and answer pretty much indicates the roar will continue. I asked the board here what they will do when Mueller come up with nothing and states it, nothing there. I gather more of the same. I find that extremely dangerous. Well hell I think we are already there.
Man, that is a plain silly post. If you don't think men will judge you by what you say, I have no idea where your head thinks you are.
Man! I hope not. It would be much better if we just follow the Constitution, respect the process and avoid the alternative.
Your probably not going to find me in a foxhole. But in any case, I implied I don't want it to get to that point. I never said I would not do what the situation required if and when it gets that far.
No...it's called a no insult rule...talk about a subject all you want ...disagree with a post all you want...just don't insult my character Marz....put it in perspective...you have a truly partisan civil war slant to your posts...I'm not that guy...you are honestly talking about civil war over an unpopular presidency? Buckle up!
I'm a patriot and you question that all the time....for what I'd consider contentious reasons..you see, it's not necessary ...I'm complaining about Trump in a thread about him....you're complaining about me....see the difference?
Just taking my input from the illogical activity I see every day. The election was held and now we speak impeachment with no fucking evidence for Treason! That pisses me off. Can't run a nation that way. (No matter how nice a guy you fellas are most of the time.)
