Yes we are. But charging someone to make them flip for a political reason IS not the same.
Take the flip out of equation and I’ll be all for prosecuting Manafort. But the only reason it’s being done now is to put pressure on him for the impeachment investigation.
None. What wrong did Obama correct with drug dealers with gun charges? (The next obvious question).
Don’t claim racial sentencing disparity.
No, we are not. We are a nation of sets of laws.
Too soon. He hadn’t put the shovel down.
Why can’t you leave me alone?
Irrelevant. If Manafort broke laws, and there’s evidence and either a guilty please/verdict, he should do the time. Right? No caveats-just a yes or no.
That you appear to be OK with selectively enforcing, or selectively being able to ignore based on political ideology.
I don’t agree with many of Obama’s commutations/pardons. Don’t have to twist my arm.
The president has had the power to pardon since the late 1700’s and the sky has not fallen so relax. Impeachment is the check and balance to this power.
The Founders…one purpose is to temper justice with mercy in appropriate cases, and to do justice if new or mitigating evidence comes to bear on a person who may have been wrongfully convicted. Alexander Hamilton reflects this in The Federalist No. 74, in which he argues that “humanity and good policy” require that “the benign prerogative of pardoning” was necessary to mitigate the harsh justice of the criminal code.
Golly, I haven’t seen you whine like this in some time.
It was a reasonable question. You decided not to answer it. Seems awfully weak of you.
I should note that in many States, the clemency power is not vested in the Governor alone, but usually shared between the Governor and cabinet officials or in some States it is vested in a clemency board.
The clemency power is a necessary power, but it is obviously subject to abuse.
Some restrictions on it would be nice and I would like to see its use blocked for contempt of court convictions. Guilt should be adjudicated and sentences finalized before a pardon can be issued in my opinion.
For example, I don’t think Arpaio’s contempt of court citation should have been eligible to be pardoned and even if if was, Trump should have waited until his sentence had been issued.
I do believe that clemency should be used to eliminate existing sentence disparities, such as how Obama used it. I also believe that Trump’s use of it to pardon the long deceased boxer recently was also a proper use.
I believe that use of the pardon to derail an active investigation involving the President can and should be considered grounds for impeachment as abuse of power, regardless of the party of the President.
I don’t understand your post. No, I’m not ok with it. Are you?
I don’t recall you criticizing them.
Who is more dangerous to me and mine, Obama’s or Trump’s?
Oh bull feathers safiel. You don’t correct sentencing disparities for drug dealers with gun charges with commutations while whining about gun violence.
Those sons of bitches are the dregs of society, their recidivism rate for all practical purposes is 100% and they chose their path.
It isn’t a yes or no question.
Why didn’t the first investigation end up in charges?
I don’t recall the thread about them. If the old forum were still there, I’d go see what I said, if anything-maybe I missed it. Here I am criticizing them now. I didn’t agree with a lot of what Obama did.
I guess you whether you should worry depends on whether you’re Latino.
It’s a yes or no question. Try again. No deflections, side shows, etc. Yes or no:
If Manafort broke laws, and there’s evidence and either a guilty please/verdict, he should do the time. Yes or no.
No it isn’t. Why wasn’t he charged after the first investigation?
WHY did it take a second investigation to say “hey we need to charge this guy”.
What changed?
Without know if they found more evidence or if it was all the same.
If they found more evidence yes he should be charged. If they only had the same evidence as back then, no.
Remember, there is evidence that Hillary broke several laws. But she didn’t mean to and no one would convict her so she wasn’t charged even though the investigator (comey) said she did break the law.
Why does that matter?
Yet you bring up Hillary as an example, and when I say “yes, go ahead and look into her and prosecute” to try to backpedal to “BUT WHY NOW!??!?!?!?!”
If he got away with something back in the day, then it looks like that is being corrected now. Good for law and order, yes?
