ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Cheney…J6th committee did nothing. Biden was sparing them the hassle of dealing with Trump's potential illegal BS.

It’s inarguable they suborned perjury, committed perjury, tampered with witnesses and destroyed evidence. You can’t even argue that stuff didn’t happen. What other crimes they committed are TBD, but we know for an absolute fact they committed crimes.
 
I am only concerned with the ones pardoned for macing, assaulting, and beating cops over the head with poles and fire extinguishers.
You know ... The criminal ones you are a fan boy of.
it's a simple yes or no, simple sam. Yes ... or no.

we'll put you down on record as to being okay with the federal government behaving tyrannically and pushing its citizens to committing suicide.
 
It’s inarguable they suborned perjury, committed perjury, tampered with witnesses and destroyed evidence. You can’t even argue that stuff didn’t happen. What other crimes they committed are TBD, but we know for an absolute fact they committed crimes.
And simple sam is on record for saying ALL those things and more are either not crimes or he is perfectly okay with perjury, witness tampering, etc.

Well done, Bill.
 
Gh0o5oyWAAAr8rR








@augustaky1

This is how august sees it:


Gh01e5zXwAEJd9-
 
Im not excited about some of the j6 pardons and clemencies but.....they don't bother me much because those people never got a fair shake.

Any objective judge would've forced the government to hand over all discovery (as required by the law) which includes the number of cooperating or confidential witnesses and/or undercovers. You cant always get their names, but zero reason they should be withheld. Same with audio and video evidence.

Add in the fact they were all wrongly denied bail. People should understand most everyone in the federal system is entitled to be released post trial except in some limited circumstances. One of those being a flight risk and another being a danger to the general public. Id say rare few of these defendants met either of those exceptions and at worst should've been given pretrial monitoring.

Finally the speedy trial act. Every defendant is entitled to a speedy trial. That is a very strict standard in federal courts and requires trial in 70 days from the latter of indictment or first appearance. The only exception to it is an ends of justice exception which is applied only in complex cases, which are also defined. These cases met none of these, but people were held pretrial forever which forced many just to go ahead and plea.

Short of all these blatant injustices, most all these defendants probably beat their cases anyway. So while im not excited about the move, i think its ultimately the just result.

Next step is to find out everything about the setup and pursue every prosecutor that intentionally withheld this information and prosecute for perjury or obstruction of justice everyone that withholds evidence or lies about what went on.
well said. Simple sam and the leftards support unfair, show trials. especially ones produced for prime time.
 
This was copied from the case of Burdick vs United States. There is a mile of stuff to read if you want. I figure it takes up to much space to post.

After President Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, close friends said that the President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision, which stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt.[6] Ford made reference to the Burdick decision in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 17, 1974.[7] However, the reference related only to the portion of Burdick that supported the proposition that the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders.[7][8]

Justice Joseph McKenna delivered the opinion of the Court in favor of Burdick. The Court ruled Burdick was entitled to reject the pardon for a number of reasons, including the implicit admission of guilt and possibly objectionable terms contained in a conditional pardon. As Burdick was entitled to reject the pardon, he was also entitled to assert his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.

Although theIn Loranc Supreme Court's opinion stated that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,"[2] this was part of the Court's dictum for the case.[4] Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed. e v. Commandant, USDB (2021) the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "there is no confession and Lorance does not otherwise lose his right to petition for habeas corpus relief for his court-martial conviction and sentence. The case was remanded for further action not inconsistent with the court’s opinion."[5]

Aaaaaaaand the Democrat hypocrisy is on full display right here.



Pelosi needs to resign. What a POS.
 
This was copied from the case of Burdick vs United States. There is a mile of stuff to read if you want. I figure it takes up to much space to post.

After President Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, close friends said that the President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision, which stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt.[6] Ford made reference to the Burdick decision in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 17, 1974.[7] However, the reference related only to the portion of Burdick that supported the proposition that the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders.[7][8]

Justice Joseph McKenna delivered the opinion of the Court in favor of Burdick. The Court ruled Burdick was entitled to reject the pardon for a number of reasons, including the implicit admission of guilt and possibly objectionable terms contained in a conditional pardon. As Burdick was entitled to reject the pardon, he was also entitled to assert his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.

Although theIn Loranc Supreme Court's opinion stated that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,"[2] this was part of the Court's dictum for the case.[4] Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed. e v. Commandant, USDB (2021) the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "there is no confession and Lorance does not otherwise lose his right to petition for habeas corpus relief for his court-martial conviction and sentence. The case was remanded for further action not inconsistent with the court’s opinion."[5]
Great work, 55. I will personally drive you to TB one time for that!

Back to the question, what CRIME is Milley confessing guilt? What crime is Fauci confessing guilt? What crime is the Biden crime family confessing guilt? J6 committee ... what crime?

The more you look at these pardons, you have to think one of the 20yo staffers conjured them up. They are not backed by legal precedent.
 
Last edited:
LMAO you say that now after Biden shit the bed for 4 years.
Dude, you and your TDS need to just take the L and post less.
You really do.
Biden had 4 straight years of job growth, low unemployment, record stock growth, good GDP growth, and no new wars involving deployment of US soldiers.
But you paid a dollar more for eggs.
We are all getting ready to take an L.
 
I know standing is a bullshit issue, but who would have standing to sue on the birthright citizenship issue at this point?

Assuming it wasn't retroactive, noone should have standing unless they are an illegal and gave birth to a child since the order was entered.

Cant imagine such a person was located that quickly but i suppose its possible. Even so, i doubt thats who even sued.
 
Im not too excited about our new war on drugs. We're never winning this war. Even if we somehow eradicated Mexican cartels, the same need would be filled by others. As long as there is demand, drugs will be an issue.

If we secure the border it would cut down on a ton of this. Then you just have to live with whatever comes through and handle it via law enforcement.
 
Liberals.every.frkn.time...
"No dems in congress did X..."

Everyone- "Here's proof they did."

Liberals
"What's a few dems in congress doing X....?"

The biggest hypocrisy hugging MORONS and disingenuous trolls on the planet are LIBERALS. Every frkn time. Never changes. Never any less predictable
 
"It will no longer allow schools, healthcare facilities, places of worship, etc. be "protected areas" where ICE can't detain people."












*No alien will be released from custody on an NTA/OR or otherwise without approval from Deputy Chief (B2). (Exceptions are generally given for medical reasons).

*We will no longer refer to aliens as migrants, noncitizens, etc. The legal term is alien and as law enforcement we will use the legal term.

* #CBPOne app has been disabled, scheduled appointments have been cancelled and no further appointments will be granted.*We will take a border security first approach. Threats should be prioritized based on risk and addressed in order of priority.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT