leh-nerd skin-erd

You’re killing it today B. You said you went to school with Henry Ford, correct? He was a year behind you?

Thankish, Frankish. Assuming you're correct, this is why I simply follow the mindset that voters tend to be very strident when they feel the other party is guilty of wrongdoing, yet quite comfortable when it's their guy pimping the agenda they prefer. So, that brings me to the notion that after the last 4 years of unprecedented legal action by JB against one man, he (JB) would be quite foolish not to unconditionally pardon family members/business associates etc in the future. Trump should follow suit, of course as/if the political landscape changes. This raises another question imo, for a Pres/DOJ(assume Trump here)--assuming wrong-doers (Biden family members or close associates) cannot "be got" due to pardons, does an aggressive prosecutor look for second tier targets for political gain? For example, they look into/around Jill Biden for example, make a case and push forward. Or, they revisit wrongdoing by someone like Hillary Clinton...Ashley Biden (Assuming she wasn't preemptively pardoned of course). It's been ugly the past 4 years but could get much uglier still.

Nice write up, thanks. I'm not so sure I understand "...long-understood limits to presidential authority". I've had a couple conversations with you and Chi about the soft, squishy middle of ethical/legal behavior. Chi famously has suggested that in certain circumstances, "...special rules electeds", carry the day. That sounds an awful lot to me like those in power just make crap up as they go based on the standards they choose to follow in the moment. Put another way, when HClinton was screwing around with classified docs and Comey suggested her behavior was illegal but no 'reasonable prosecutor' would prosecute, the thought that occurs to me that which Merrick Garland (and I realize he was not AG at the time) sees as reasonable is likely quite different than what Pam Bondi might. That gives the impression that justice is malleable (it is) and different rules are applied to different people(they are). It sounds to me like you're suggesting what Obama started was unconstitutional and beyond the scope of his powers as president.

Thank you for the reply, Lass, and from your lips to God's ear.

I It’s not all enjoyment—Well, I found the preemptive pardon process troubling for the nation—in essence Biden suggested anything from treason to tax evasion to civil rights violations is perfectly acceptable when you’re in the circle of protection of the President. Sounds dangerous to me but as you say, it’s what politicians do.

I'm wondering what @The Frankish Reich and @ChiGoose think of preemptive pardons and people designated as being above the law?

I didn't an opinion on how much time you spend here, I don't really pay attention to that. I do believe an investment in negativity is unhealthy and a huge waste of time. Not to nitpick, but it's not up to you whether or not people have their day or take time to enjoy the inauguration. In fact, for some, your commentary probably adds to the enjoyment.

It seems pretty likely you interacted with those article writers and art sellers that the government deems acceptable to interact with easily manipulated American liberals in search of better beaches. Hence, the quotation marks. As for Putin--I think all they need is pristine beaches and someone to appeal to your ego and you're buying your ticket to St. Petersburg and sharing all the great things you were told.

First seek to understand, then to be understood. In this context, politically-speaking, what do you mean by corruption? As for pardons, you have it wrong--there is no reason to issue pardons unless there is concern of criminality. I think I'll be known for a few things when my time is done, most of which I feel pretty good about. The amount of time I worry about what some dipsh*t with a rage fetish is 0. Imo, your challenge isn't who you support or don't, it's where and how you choose to invest your energy.

Ooops, now it’s “politics”, not the current decision makers and pre-emptive-pardon-people. On the bright side, laughter is joy, and joy laughter!

Amazing—during your time as a moderator he likely was one of the most difficult posters to keep in check. Now, we just wonder if he’s ok. Prayers up. And for Kemp, too, now that once closing doors appear to be quite open.

Experience tells us you would be gearing up in your Putin Speedo and matching tank top if Moscow offered beaches sanitized of the locals and a nice opportunity to talk to “journalists” and “artists” made available to the average American liberal.

Glad to see it—the likelihood of any of these (potential) wrongdoers seeing any meaningful punishment (if appropriate) is next to zero. It is a continuation of the bastardization of the rule of law and an acknowledgement of how the right people are above the law pretty consistently (see Joe B, classified document retention over a decade plus and the kindly elderly gentlemen exclusion among others). At the same time, perhaps it makes sense to explore constitutionality of preemptive pardons and the continued deep dive into wrongdoing. We’re only 2 years out from a potential change in political cycle and 4 years from a potential change in those in charge of executive branch. Trump will surely want to issue preemptive pardons to those in his circle should that come to pass.

I just assumed that BillSy was busy with the move. You gotta box up the stuff, maybe run a garage sale over a couple weekends, rent the U-Haul, deal with traffic and let’s assume he tried to drive to Europe—he coulda lost a week or two just trying to find a bridge. I’m sure when he gets settled, he’ll write?

She’s a very weak interviewer, Rubio called her on it and she wanted nothing to do with it. Did her research truly show that the numbers was $11,000,000 people? If so, why not call him out on that? Instead, as you say, “let’s move on”.