Posts Made By: James Lacey

Originally Posted by James Brown

I get your point, but technically, there is no such thing as a corrupt pardon.

But can't they be used in a corrupt way? The Presidential pardon was intended to forgive someone who had taken accountability for their actions. The norm is that they are only given after a period of good behavior and even the completion of a sentence. Trump completely blew that up and pardoned dozens of friends and allies who never took responsibility for any of their wrongdoings. If that's not corrupt, I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Do you feel the same about Hunter’s pardon?   He has never taken responsibility.  Rather, he and his attorneys and staff have whined about alleged selective prosecution which is a complete joke.

In an ideal world, where Presidential pardons were only given out to those genuinely worthy, Hunter does not deserve his. On the other hand, if we could somehow measure the worthiness of a presidential pardon, Hunter's far outweighs many of those given by Trump, in my humble opinion, which I know is not worth much.

Originally Posted by James Brown

On the contrary James, your opinion is worth its weight in gold!  I suppose we could rank the worthiness of pardons, but our rankings would track our political opinions in the "political" pardon discussion.   In other words, I think Hunter is more of a criminal than you do, so I think his pardon is less worthy than you do. 

This is more or less what I was getting at earlier in the thread.  The Constitution places no limits on the pardon power, except where it overlaps with impeachment.   So no pardon is corrupt "technically."  I do think the depth of the point you bring to the discussion about the relative "worthiness" of a pardon is valid, so long as we all recognize that we are talking about public perception, or our own opinions, exclusively.

All the talking heads screaming about how Joe has undermined our Democracy and shaken the public's trust in the rule of law is pretty funny, though, since no one has done more to blow up our Democracy and shatter faith in our justice system and elections than Trump. Trump was going to pardon the J6 insurrectionists and rioters regardless of what Joe did.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

....when a NYC jury finds Daniel Penny, the Subway hero who took down a crazy lunatic who was threatening to kill people on the subway.

The jury found him NOT GUILTY.

This is a big win for the rule of law, common sense, and sanity in a place that has gone insane.

Good deal.  

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/miacathell/2024/12/09/daniel-penny-verdict-n2648499

You know, it's funny how you applaud this jury verdict because it's an outcome you like, but you refuse to accept other jury verdicts that have convicted Trump of fraud, rape, and defamation. I wonder why?

In any case, congratulations, Mr. Penny. The jury system has once again proven its merit.

Originally Posted by Chris Pagan

That's how bad it was

I read through some of it. Honestly, it's mostly speculation and gossip. However, I do agree that Hunter and his Uncle are both scum who were profiteering off of Joe's name and participating in tremendous conflicts of interest. The question I have, though, is why do you and Rich disregard Trump's real crimes that he has been convicted for? Why ignore the same conflicts of interest that Trump's sons, daughter, and son-in-law had when Trump was in office for the first time? They led Jared to get $1Bn from the Saudis, for example. The article talks about a few million dollars the Biden's have amassed recently, which pales compared to what Trump's family profited. I mean, if you are basing your loyalty on whether or not a politician and his family are corrupt or not, there is no way you could ever support Trump. He is the worst of the worst.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"... it is clear that this trial was a show trial, its purpose to simply interfere in the election of 2024."

And that was on the minds, and hence the goal, of the grand jury and the jury of peers deciding the case, right? And the judge's decision to potentially vacate has nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision on immunity either? Lol!

Any trial that doesn't have an outcome Rich prefers is a show trial. It's ridiculous MAGA gas-lighting rhetoric. A jury of Trump's peers convicted him; end of story.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I didn't think I was coddling him.  I pointed out and documented a clear cut case of revisionist history.   Sure, I did not call names.  I think sidelining the name calling is more persuasive anyway.  At least in my view, nothing is less persuasive than Richard's name calling and profanity laced rants.

For that matter, you, me, and others have shown Rich countless times that he's just flat wrong about something. And we've done it without calling him names or a liar and with definitive evidence. As you pointed out, this type of response is much more persuasive than Rich's typical name-calling and vulgar remarks. Any reasonable person can see that you are 100% correct and Rich is entirely wrong. However, no matter how often we do this, Rich never changes his behavior. It's always us that are the idiots, the morons, the illiterates, the RINOs, the communists, and so forth and so on. I suppose it's a good thing that Rich never changes since every political forum needs an antagonist, but holy cow, the lack of self-awareness on his part always astounds me.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

The supporter of the Trump "JD" Putin-commie assured us, along with Trump, that Mexico would pay for the wall. We're all sure he'll update us on the payment status any day now...

I briefly looked into the story about Biden selling off pieces of the border wall, and the only place I could find any reporting on it was at Fox, the NYPost, Al Jazeera, The Times of India, etc. No truly reputable sources seemed to be reporting on it, which was my first clue that it was a BS story that Rich would fall for. It appears from some local reporting I found on an Arizona news channel that 40% of the surplus material was sold to a surplus company, GovPlanet, which is now auctioning it off. The other 60% was donated to Texas, California, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection for state and local border security projects. And why did the government sell it and donate it? Because they were required to, according to the National Defense Authorization Act, which passed the House with a 281 to 140 vote,  it had a lot of Republican support. And then, of course, it also had to get past the Senate. But guess what? It's all Biden's fault, and he's personally hamstringing Trump before he even gets into office! Haha. It's so funny how gullible Rich is, yet he's constantly screaming that we are the illiterate and uninformed boobs.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

George Stephanopoulis LIED on the Air over and over again during his interview with Nancy Mace, claiming that Trump was found liable for Rape, when Trump was not.  

I guess the leftists here can try and explain why ABC paid out $15 Million to Trump for their lies, + his atty's fees, if Trump was found liable for rape.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/abc-settles-trump-s-defamation-suit-for-15m/ar-AA1vRRNv?ocid=msedgdhp&c=LCTS&cvid=0ae4a5fd05f941d2b6254138b88ba44e&ei=10

Now, over and over again here, the smear merchants on the left who consist of pretty much all the Democrats and the resident Nim-Rod communist burp up the regurgitated lies that are spoon fed to them by their puppet masters, but it appears that ABC learned their lesson the hard way. 

They also issued a public apology to Donald Trump for lying about him.  

Sometimes the slime balls on the left get their come-uppance.  

As if being found liable for sexual abuse is not just as bad, which is what he was found liable for. The difference between rape and sexual abuse is so minimal that it's a distinction that hardly matters when it comes to the character of Trump. It also sounds like this is a case where it's simply cheaper and more practical to settle. After all, Trump has settled countless cases filed against him.

It's pretty funny, though, that you constantly want to chide us for being puppets when you continually post on stories that are BS, like Biden is selling the border wall.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I already cited Newsweek in post #4. Of course, Rich chooses to overlook this:

"If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) response to Newsweek in 2023 aligns with Friday's reports, it might not be as nefarious as Crane believes. A spokesperson said at the time that the materials were being disposed of in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations."

"USACE has already transferred approximately $154 million worth of the roughly $260 million of bollard panels and other materials in accordance with standard excess property disposition procedures," a spokesperson said at the time."


https://www.newsweek.com/govplanet-biden-selling-border-wall-sale-auction-2000729"

He overlooks a lot. For example, in the other thread, where he gleefully crows about the ABC settlement in the defamation lawsuit, he conveniently overlooks the following, which clearly says Trump lost a similar suit against his victim. There is little to no difference between rape and sexual abuse under New York's legal distinction.

Keep in mind the following is from the article he linked:

Trump previously attempted to bring a defamation claim against Carroll herself for continuing to describe her story of encountering Trump at a New York City department store in the mid-1990s as rape, despite the jury's verdict.

But a judge rejected Trump's claim, noting that New York's legal distinction between "rape" and "sexual abuse" was minimal and that Carroll's description was still substantially true.