Should Biden issue Trump a pre-emptive pardon for federal crimes? Keep in mind the SCOTUS decision provides 4 years of immunity from state crimes?

[DrPepper12]

Reasons for Pardoning Trump:

Promoting National Unity:

A pardon could help heal divisions and allow the country to move forward, similar to Ford's pardon of Nixon after Watergate.

Political Strategy:

It could portray Biden as magnanimous and "Presidential," potentially improving his public image & legacy.

Preventing Precedent:

It would avoid the unseemly & awkward situation of a president prosecuting his political opponent.

Defusing Trump's Platform / Grievences / Vows of Revenge:

A pardon could prevent Trump from using a trial to rally supporters, fundraise and make accusations against the Biden administration.

Reasons Against Pardoning Trump:

Public Backlash:

It would face intense criticism, especially from the Democratic base.

Accountability Concerns:

It could be seen as placing Trump above the law and undermining the justice system.

Political Risks:

Controversial pardons have had negative political consequences, as seen with Ford and Clinton.

Ongoing State Cases:

A federal pardon would not affect state-level charges against Trump.

Ultimately, Biden must weigh these factors carefully, considering both the immediate political implications and the long-term impact on American democracy and the rule of law. Of course there are other reasons for and against a preemptive pardon. What do you think?

Yes. Biden should pardon Trump.

No. Continue to prosecute Trump in 4 years if Dems win.

Biden should pardon Trump AND HUNTER to lessen accusations of injustice / corruption.

[blueonblack22]

Yes this would be smart politically but I highly doubt Biden’s radical flank will let him do it. And he’s been caving to them for almost his entire term in office.

[Dongie]

His office is responsible for all those false indictments.
Upcoming investigations will prove this.

[DrPepper12]

@Dongie yeah, gym Jordon and comer fudd are right on that!

[Dongie]

Don't be unbecoming, Doc.

[Avicenna]

@Dongie: It’s the only way he knows…..

[Anonymous]

If there was political motivation behind his charges, I would agree that he should be pardoned. However, there aren't. Charging someone for inciting an insurrection is not motivated by politics. We saw an insurrection following a lot of fighting rhetoric by Trump falsely claiming the election was stolen. The January 6 committee proved this beyond reasonable doubt. He legitimately lost. A large mob of his supporters attacked The Capitol. It was as much a day of love as 9-11 was Al-Queda showing us the utmost respect. The real question is, did his words influence their actions? Were they planning on doing that regardless? If his words did not influence thir actions, he did not. However there's a high likelihood they took their marching orders from him.

[goaded]

They spent literally millions of dollars on getting people there. They went home as soon as he told them to. He's referred to the rioters as "our side".

[Avicenna]

@goaded: That sort of gaslighting and deception is why no one believes you propagandists anymore and you lost the election.

[goaded]

@Avicenna Nothing I said was incorrect. You're lying.

[Avicenna]

@goaded: No one believes your lies and misrepresentations. We know you hate free speech and love election fraud, political persecution, and other abuses. Fortunately, the US electorate is smarter than foreign totalitarians like you.

It’s interesting that you have no complaints about Olaf Scholz’s attempts to cling to power by avoiding a vote of confidence and early elections.

[goaded]

@Avicenna We know you, people know me and can see for themselves which of us is telling the truth.

Here's Trump explicitly talking about the Jan 6 rioters being on his side:

"“There were no guns down there; we didn’t have guns,” Trump said, before repeating: “The others had guns, but we didn’t have guns.”

The first thing to note is that’s false; Trump supporters did have guns and many other weapons. But also consider what Trump has done rhetorically. He cast the insurrectionists as a “we.”"
www.washingtonpost.com/.../

The details of how much was spent on getting people to Jan 6 are in court documents:

"A trove of new records released in the federal election-interference case against former President Donald Trump described how money was spent on Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally near the White House on Jan. 6, 2021...

Budget documents show as much as $3 million for Jan. 6 rally and related events"
eu.usatoday.com/.../

[Avicenna]

@goaded: As usual, you use the familiar strategy of the Russian and CCP propagandists- take a tiny kernel of truth and misrepresent it to create a false picture.

[goaded]

@Avicenna Like I said: people can see for themselves which of us is telling the truth.

Hint: It's not you.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded no.. you're the liar.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Oh, here we go. You didn't read the thread.

Here's Trump explicitly talking about the Jan 6 rioters being on his side:

"“There were no guns down there; we didn’t have guns,” Trump said, before repeating: “The others had guns, but we didn’t have guns.”

The first thing to note is that’s false; Trump supporters did have guns and many other weapons. But also consider what Trump has done rhetorically. He cast the insurrectionists as a “we.”"
www.washingtonpost.com/.../

The details of how much was spent on getting people to Jan 6 are in court documents:

"A trove of new records released in the federal election-interference case against former President Donald Trump described how money was spent on Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally near the White House on Jan. 6, 2021...

Budget documents show as much as $3 million for Jan. 6 rally and related events"
eu.usatoday.com/.../

[RedInnocent69]

Do the crime, do the time. Whiny snowflakes…

[Dongie]

Why cry, it's coming.

[Avicenna]

It would mean Joe’s admitting that it his administration directed the politically-motivated prosecutions, but it would be justified.

[goaded]

Accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded no it's not lol.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.”

[Likes2drive]

Yeah, maybe he should and then Trump pardon Biden’s son has a trade-off

[Anonymous]

No but the good news is that Biden has too much integrity to pardon Hunter.

[Juxtapose]

Biden won't need to, these cases will fall apart during the appeal process rather easily.

[DrPepper12]

Disagree

[Juxtapose]

Most of these cases are being thrown out as we speak.

[DrPepper12]

Disagree x2

[Juxtapose]

www.forbes.com/.../

[Juxtapose]

You were wrong about the election and you're wrong about this as well.

[Juxtapose]

You don't have your thumb on the pulse of the people or on the pulse of the political climate properly.

[goaded]

That's like saying "the case fell apart because we shot the judge and broke the defendant out of jail". The cases were all legal, valid, and solid, but a corrupt judge and corrupt SCOTUS ensured that they wouldn't get to trial.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded they were absolutely not and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to gaslight people into believing they were. Those were some of the most bullshit cases in history.

[goaded]

Of course they were. If they weren't, why did Trump spend so much time avoiding them going to trial? It's like the people saying "voting doesn't change anything" working like crazy to convince people not to vote.

Besides, haven't you seen the evidence that's come out already? They'd be open and shut trials, if only they could get them to court.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded would you want to go to Joseph Stalin's Court and expect a fair trial?

They are open and shut cases in so far as they would not even survive appeal. This shit should have never been brought up to begin with and it is a bastardization of justice. But now Trump has control of the doj and all three branches of government, people's heads are going to fucking roll. He better make people fucking pay for this.

[goaded]

Ah, yes, the USA is just like Stalin's USSR, which is how Trump won the last election... And attitudes like "now Trump has control of the doj and all three branches of government, people's heads are going to fucking roll." is totally normal and fine.

Don't you get sad, suggesting that your country doesn't abide by the rule of law, while supporting a man who's currently awaiting sentencing for his felonious behaviour?

[Juxtapose]

These cases are paper tigers. They fail apart under scrutiny. Trump needs to prosecute these insane, Banana Republic, lawfare committing lunatics who are pure evil.

[goaded]

You must know that's rubbish. There's a recording of former Trump showing national defence documents to people with no security clearance and telling them he "could have declassified" them "when he was president".

How about the two cases regarding his attemt to steal the presidency? The fraudulent electoral voters, the pressure on Pence to "slightly" break the law, spending millions to bring together the people who went on to attack the Capitol...

[Juxtapose]

@goaded I don't believe anything negative you say about Trump. It's all a bunch of lies as soon as I dig into this stuff. You still believe that very fine people hoax when it was disproved as well.

Trump never tried to steal the presidency.

[goaded]

Funny how you never seem to be able to come up with anything concrete that disproves anything. Whereas I've got multiple indictments, state and federal, that say that Trump did try to steal the presidency and explain exactly how, when, and who else was involved.

The "very fine people" thing is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that people marching alongside white supremacists, especially after what happened the night before, and nobody is trying to get rid of them (hell, they organised it in the first place), is participating in a white supremacists' march. Trump said they were "very fine people".

[Juxtapose]

@goaded you don't have anything, you just have a whole bunch of kangaroo court bullshit that is already falling apart as we speak.

[goaded]

Yeah, so why haven't any appeals courts agreed with you?

[Juxtapose]

It's ongoing, these cases are useless to the Dems anyway since they ONLY existed to sabotage his presidential bid.

[goaded]

No, they were because Trump committed crimes (and they only prosecuted a fraction of them, think the countless Hatch Act violations, the 10 instances of obstruction of justice from the Mueller Report, and more), and they're going to be corruptly dropped by whoever Trump manages to appoint as AG, at least the federal ones. Can you seriously not see the corruption?

Of course you can, but you'll deny it and pretend I'm the one lying.

[Juxtapose]

The only corruption with these cases is Biden's DOJ and all connected to those rat bastards.

[goaded]

Called it.

[Juxtapose]

I can do the same thing lol. You're gaslighting and ignoring the very obvious reality of this lawfare.

Trump has a MANDATE and we're coming for these bastards.

[goaded]

His popular vote majority is 1.7%. That's pathetic. It takes two or three times that for a Democrat to win the presidency and real landslides are close to 10%.

Trump committed crimes (and they only prosecuted a fraction of them, not the countless Hatch Act violations, the 10 instances of obstruction of justice from the Mueller Report, and more), and they're going to be corruptly dropped by whoever Trump manages to appoint as AG, at least the federal ones. I know you can see the corruption, but you'll keep going with DARVO. Do you know what DARVO means? ↗

[Juxtapose]

No, Trump utterly crushed Harris by a landside, especially for a Republican. And the cases are COMPLETELY bullshit.

Your ability to suss out lawfare is woefully weak.

[goaded]

Keep telling yourself that. 1.7% is a pathetic majority. Landslides are nearer 10%, look it up. Trump's campaign is committing a crime right now. It's a legal requirement that they submit certain forms, but that would mean Trump couldn't hide donors any more.

[Juxtapose]

simpson.house.gov/.../documentsingle.aspx

"It was obvious these cases ranged from weak to nonsensical, but supposed legal experts assured Americans they were legitimate. The hypocrisy of charging Trump for classified-document mishandling while Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton received a pass for their own transgressions was obvious, but we were told Trump’s case was different in scale. And somehow Trump’s cases rocketed through the docket just in time for the 2024 election.

Democratic strategists may have seen an opportunity, but voters saw all of these proceedings for what they were: rabid prosecutors making names for themselves; hack TV commentators assuring us these cases were authentic; judges making decisions and allowing convictions full of glaring legal errors that wouldn’t be corrected until after Election Day. Americans did not need to be white-shoe attorneys or legal academics to know that what they were seeing was grossly corrupt."

thespectator.com/.../

[goaded]

Oh, look a Republican is lying. Stop the presses!

By the way, Trump totally tried to get Clinton prosecuted.

[Juxtapose]

Of course you wouldn't see reason.

Good, I hope he does this time. I hope he gets all these election interfering criminals locked up for abusing the doj. I also hope he goes after some of the people that were behind the covid scam.

[Juxtapose]

Prosecute Anthony Fauci.

[goaded]

Yes, prosecuting people for doing their jobs is perfectly normal and not fascist at all.

You're literally acting like fascists against people who are calling you fascist. I wonder why they did that.

[Juxtapose]

You are speaking like someone who comes from a different reality. This was malicious prosecution done in bad faith, pretty open and shut case.

[Juxtapose]

Now that Donald Trump has the mandate of the American people, we are going to be coming for these lawfare fuckwads.

[goaded]

1.7% is not a mandate, Clinton had 2.2% and lost the election in 2016.

Grand juries of citizens decided Trump has crimes to answer for, not you.

[Juxtapose]

No, he had a crushing victory and the fact that the House & the Senate are also under MAGA control should tell you something but you are still delusional.

[Juxtapose]

The American people are rejecting this woke crap and it can't happen soon enough.

[goaded]

1.7% is not a mandate, let alone "a crushing victory", Clinton had 2.2% and lost the election in 2016.

Grand juries of citizens decided Trump has crimes to answer for, not you.

[Dongie]

Eeh, screw biden and the democrats. No amount of sucking up is going to change what's coming to the guilty party.

[Jennz6]

And Trump pardon Hunter