brenthutch 383 #26 August 29, 2015 Are you saying that the Huma Abiden situation is analogous to that of G. Gordon Liddy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #27 August 29, 2015 kallend******QuoteShe has an alphabet soup of real troubles; FBI, IG, DOJ and none of them have anything to do with the "vast right wing conspiracy". My $100 says not a single criminal charge ever comes out of any of these agencies regarding anything to do with the Clintons. Not ever. So if you are so correct, cough up your hundred dollar handshake and we will see A low bar my friend. Nixon was never charged with a crime. Only because he received a pre-emptive pardon. You don't need a pardon if you've not committed a crime. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696 Do you mean like John Deutch? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #28 August 29, 2015 kallendBogus comparison. Explain why a pardon is NEEDED if you've not done anything that needs pardoning. Ford's explanation makes sense. His contention was that we had too much on our plate to screw around with a long, dragged-out back-and-forth process related to what Tricky Dick may or may not have done. Since we simply could not afford the distraction, the most effective approach was to issue a pardon and move on. Though Ford was accused of issuing a pardon as quid pro quo for ascending to the presidency, there is little to suggest that this is the case. William Safire wrote a piece that described Nixon variously as a staunch ally, a bitter foe, a noble statesman and a profane backroom dealmaker. I worked for the sonofabitch (Nixon), and cheered when he stepped down. I nevertheless accept Safire's judgment that, while Nixon fully earned the dislike he engendered, he brought much to the office and did a lot of good. It was a common practice in days of yore for the new king to pardon anyone who may have opposed him previously, once they had sworn fealty, in order to let bygones be bygones and work toward future goals. As an aside, a double pardon by Henry Tudor was given as evidence that Henry, not Richard, had authored the demise of Richard's nephews and blamed Richard. According to Josephine Tey in "The Daughter of Time," the nephews were a threat to Henry's power, but their well-being was pivotal to Richard's hold on the throne. The last time they were seen was before Richard's death. In any event, a blanket pardon has historically been used to put to rest rancor that is counterproductive to progress. It makes sense that this was Ford's purpose, as he stated, BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #29 August 29, 2015 QuoteFord's explanation makes sense. If you close one eye and squint. Occams Razor says, those with power look after their own. Cops cover up for cops. Politicians cover up for politicians. You can justify it any way you want, but it's croneyism pure and simple.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,121 #30 August 29, 2015 I was just as angry as the next young liberal when Ford pardoned Nixon. But in the long run, we'd already had a long drawn-out look into dirty politics, virtually everyone thought he was guilty, he'd resigned and so had his original VP, making his administration a part of the past. I'm not sure we would have accomplished anything besides keeping people glued to the TV even longer than they had been. And we still got to watch "All the President's Men." Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #31 August 29, 2015 QuoteI was just as angry as the next young liberal when Ford pardoned Nixon. But in the long run, we'd already had a long drawn-out look into dirty politics, virtually everyone thought he was guilty, he'd resigned and so had his original VP, making his administration a part of the past. So? Should Bernie Madoff have been able to avoid jail by resigning and liquidating his company? Should OJ have avoided prosecution because everyone already thought he was guilty? QuoteI'm not sure we would have accomplished anything You'd have prosecuted a criminal. The same way it works for everybody else.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #32 August 29, 2015 brenthutchAre you saying that the Huma Abiden situation is analogous to that of G. Gordon Liddy? How many US presidents have received pre-emptive pardons upon resigning in disgrace? To boast that "even Nixon wasn't charged" is just plain stupid. There is no point in charging someone who has already been pardoned.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #33 August 29, 2015 kallend***Are you saying that the Huma Abiden situation is analogous to that of G. Gordon Liddy? How many US presidents have received pre-emptive pardons upon resigning in disgrace? To boast that "even Nixon wasn't charged" is just plain stupid. There is no point in charging someone who has already been pardoned. So he wasn't charged then, kinda like you live in the seedy parts of Chicago.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #34 August 29, 2015 turtlespeed******Are you saying that the Huma Abiden situation is analogous to that of G. Gordon Liddy? How many US presidents have received pre-emptive pardons upon resigning in disgrace? To boast that "even Nixon wasn't charged" is just plain stupid. There is no point in charging someone who has already been pardoned. So he wasn't charged then <+ stupid irrelevant stuff> Not being charged is hardly something to BOAST about if you have to receive a pardon to avoid the charges. How many other US presidents have received pre-emptive pardons so they wouldn't be charged with crimes?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #35 August 29, 2015 kallend*********Are you saying that the Huma Abiden situation is analogous to that of G. Gordon Liddy? How many US presidents have received pre-emptive pardons upon resigning in disgrace? To boast that "even Nixon wasn't charged" is just plain stupid. There is no point in charging someone who has already been pardoned. So he wasn't charged then <+ stupid irrelevant stuff> Not being charged is hardly something to BOAST about if you have to receive a pardon to avoid the charges. How many other US presidents have received pre-emptive pardons so they wouldn't be charged with crimes? Clinton would have.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #36 August 29, 2015 turtlespeed************Are you saying that the Huma Abiden situation is analogous to that of G. Gordon Liddy? How many US presidents have received pre-emptive pardons upon resigning in disgrace? To boast that "even Nixon wasn't charged" is just plain stupid. There is no point in charging someone who has already been pardoned. So he wasn't charged then <+ stupid irrelevant stuff> Not being charged is hardly something to BOAST about if you have to receive a pardon to avoid the charges. How many other US presidents have received pre-emptive pardons so they wouldn't be charged with crimes? Clinton would have. Did he or didn't he?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #37 August 30, 2015 kallend***************Are you saying that the Huma Abiden situation is analogous to that of G. Gordon Liddy? How many US presidents have received pre-emptive pardons upon resigning in disgrace? To boast that "even Nixon wasn't charged" is just plain stupid. There is no point in charging someone who has already been pardoned. So he wasn't charged then <+ stupid irrelevant stuff> Not being charged is hardly something to BOAST about if you have to receive a pardon to avoid the charges. How many other US presidents have received pre-emptive pardons so they wouldn't be charged with crimes? Clinton would have. Did he or didn't he? If he would have had to leave office because of it, you know he would have. Or, just as much as Nixon was charged.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #38 August 30, 2015 turtlespeed******************Are you saying that the Huma Abiden situation is analogous to that of G. Gordon Liddy? How many US presidents have received pre-emptive pardons upon resigning in disgrace? To boast that "even Nixon wasn't charged" is just plain stupid. There is no point in charging someone who has already been pardoned. So he wasn't charged then <+ stupid irrelevant stuff> Not being charged is hardly something to BOAST about if you have to receive a pardon to avoid the charges. How many other US presidents have received pre-emptive pardons so they wouldn't be charged with crimes? Clinton would have. Did he or didn't he? If he would have had to leave office because of it, you know he would have. So you don't actually have anything and you're weaseling.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #39 August 30, 2015 Quote If he would have... ... He didn'tDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #40 August 30, 2015 jakee Quote If he would have... ... He didn't Did Nixon get charged?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #41 August 31, 2015 turtlespeed *** Quote If he would have... ... He didn't Did Nixon get charged? Nixon was pre-emptively pardoned so he wouldn't be charged. Unlike ANY other president. Some other people who weren't charged with anything: Adam Lanza Seung-Hui Cho Vester Flanagan aka William Bryce Steven Kazmierczak... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #42 August 31, 2015 kallend ****** Quote If he would have... ... He didn't Did Nixon get charged? Nixon was pre-emptively pardoned so he wouldn't be charged. Unlike ANY other president. Some other people who weren't charged with anything: Adam Lanza Seung-Hui Cho Vester Flanagan aka William Bryce Steven Kazmierczak So, he wasn't charged then.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #43 August 31, 2015 You don't charge someone with a crime they did not commit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #44 August 31, 2015 normiss You don't charge someone with a crime they did not commit. That does not stop some persecutors or judges in some of the states with a private prison system.... fill those beds... for fun and profit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #45 August 31, 2015 normiss You don't charge someone with a crime they did not commit. Wait are you saying Nixon was innocent? Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #46 August 31, 2015 Anvilbrother ***You don't charge someone with a crime they did not commit. Wait are you saying Nixon was innocent? After serving with him as my commander in chief AND having voted for him.....I think he ended up right where he belonged Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #47 August 31, 2015 Amazon ******You don't charge someone with a crime they did not commit. Wait are you saying Nixon was innocent? After serving with him as my commander in chief AND having voted for him.....I think he ended up right where he belonged In the grave? Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #48 August 31, 2015 normiss You don't charge someone with a crime they did not commit. It happened to TM!!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #49 August 31, 2015 rushmc ***You don't charge someone with a crime they did not commit. It happened to TM!!! Tandem master?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #50 August 31, 2015 turtlespeed ******You don't charge someone with a crime they did not commit. It happened to TM!!! Ya I meant to say in his case Too much going on this morning Zimmerman was charged with a crime he did not commit Also the cop in MO Point being, it is all about the politics, not the law"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
