Strictly Miscellaneous

No.

@Lynx Remember Pat McManess?

'The college protestors wanted an end to war, poverty and brussel sprouts and not necessarily in that order.'

Biden decides to pardon his son before the peaceful transfer of power..👏🏾

LOL, that's pretty funny. It'll even be more humorous to see how MAGA reacts to this.

How so?

It's pretty hilarious that MAGA thinks the Donald is the only one who gets to pardon people. Sure Biden lied and said he wouldn't pardon his son; but there's a saying I think goes something like: What goes around comes around. If I were Joe Biden, I'd preemptively pardon Jack Smith or anyone else who might be on Kash Patel's or Donald Trump's hit list. But that's just me.

Why are those of us who only pay cash for everything punished today?
The only way to get some discounts at many places is to have their app on your phone and to get the app you often have to pay a fee and give out a lot of personal info.
I do not have a cell phone and refuse to put my personal info on line for all to see.
Burns me up!

How are you being punished? They give you a discount for using their app in exchange you provide information which they likely resell..

Ok. Thanks for explaining. So you don't expect the pardon will be invalidated? I'm not sure there is really such a thing as a pre-emptive pardon. That sounds more like a licence - James Bond style.

Jackie ain't wrong...

What? You thought companies were giving people discounts in phone apps for free? Out of the goodness of their corporate hearts? They definitely profit from it.

Yes, preemptive pardons have been done in the past. Richard Nixon, for example, was never charged with any crimes but was pardoned by Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter pardoned thousands of draft dodgers who hadn't been officially charged with any crimes. Trump pardoned Joseph Arpaio after he was tried and convicted for contempt of court but had not been sentenced. It's unusual but it has been done.

But do they actually work? I don't know about Nixon, but I'd argue "draft dodgers" weren't guilty of any crime at all. Perhaps Uncle Sam was scared of that being proven in court as a precedent for future wars? With Trump's pardoning of Arpaio after conviction, that actually means something, because to be convicted is to be legally guilty, so I wouldn't put that one in the same bucket.

During Vietnam, nearly every male 18-26 was required to register for the draft. Failure to do so was a felony. At lot of Vietnam draft dodgers simply left the country. Some were charged with crimes; but many weren't, they got away completely undetected. Carter's pardon was a blanket pardon for all those who had been charged and those who hadn't.

Trump's pardon of Arpaio was a bit different, but it was still outside the bounds of the conventional. His pardon included the phrase "any other offenses that might be charged." He gave Arpaio a free pass for any charges with which he had not yet been charged. This is essentially what Biden's pardon said too: "including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted."

If this is something that interests you, you should check it out; it's all public information.

I believe it was and still is a breach of the 13th Amendment banning all slavery except for "a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." I know that this argument was conveniently rejected by the US Supreme Court in 1918, but it might have been easier to grant a pardon for a crime that wasn't, than insist on the prosecution of 19,000 and give attention and oxygen to the fact that the US Supreme Court effectively said that slavery is okay (so long as its enacted on male citizens between ages of 18 and 26, and for the purposes of warfare). If today's Supreme Court is anything to go by, where at least one can't even define a woman, perhaps those back then couldn't properly define a slave?

Thanks. I think we'll all be hearing about Hunter's pardon again soon enough. These things have a habit or circling back with new details that come to light. Maybe 6 months?