Yes, it is. As we can see “the pardon power is unrestricted” is incorrect.
Once again, the video was presented as a factual accounting. It isn’t.
At least you are batting a thousand.
While there is no evidence the 2020 election was stolen, we have no proof that it wasn’t. Therefore, we must assume that it was.
Jimmy Dore speculates about some massive government conspiracy ensnaring Gaetz. Since we can’t prove the speculation isn’t factual, we must therefore assume that it is.
Well ok then! 
no its not. the president has no authority over state llaws and never did. it is not a power he holds. power you do not have is not “restricted” its nonexistant
Which is a restriction. Unrestricted means just that.
Find that quote from the congressional record about “sojourners” yet?
Show me.
other than impeachments, do you see any restrictions there?
I can imagine how much they wish they could pardon state cases.
when did I say you had to assume it was factual? Oh yeah, I didn’t. Once again, posting like the lib you are
1 Like
they may wish it, but they have no power there to exercise. It is not that their power to pardon is restricted, its that in state cases it does not not exist
Ok. If you say so. Karen.
no problem kiesha
What’s ironic is that if you were to actually watch the video, we likely wouldn’t be having this conversation at all. 
Once again, you opted not to read the attached article. There is great debate amongst legal scholars. Your simple pronouncement is meaningless. 
Legal scholars have weighed in. Your offhand dismissal of those experts and your uninformed pronouncement would actually be funny, if it weren’t so sad.
are these the same legal experts that affirmed all the lawfare ■■■■■■■■■ what you should have said is some partisan lawyers spun out a tale to support their unproven and untried positions
1 Like
Hey, here’s an idea. Read the damn article. 
you may need tto read other peoples opinion to develope yours, it is a liberal trait. I do not. My opinions are my own and unaffected by other peoples opinions.
1 Like
What is in play here is an interpretation of the constitution. Some legal scholars spend a lifetime trying to better understand the intention of the founders where those intentions aren’t explicitly enumerated.
The whole question of self-pardon is one of those areas that isn’t explicitly enumerated, thus legal scholars disagree about the founders’ intentions. Having no background or expertise in this area, I provided a link. Within that link, both sides of the legal arguments are represented.
I wish you could see how silly you look for arrogantly professing that you can read the constitution and instantly interpret the founder’s intentions with a simple pronouncement. And further professing that failure to be able to do so is a liberal trait.
As I stated earlier. If this wasn’t so darn funny, it would be sad.
Or facts.
It has nothing to do with Gaetz.
