Should trump Pardon obama?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by oeb11

i do not believe former President's should be - in general- prosecuted after leaving office - particularly for trumped up Politically motivated chages.

Of course they shouldn't be. When that happens America has ceased to be the home of the free and the brave and instead become just another banana republic. Democratic prosecutors who want to jail the Trump family and Republican prosecutors who want to jail the Clintons should think first about the effect it would have on the country.

[sexykarma]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Of course they shouldn't be. When that happens America has ceased to be the home of the free and the brave and instead become just another banana republic. Democratic prosecutors who want to jail the Trump family and Republican prosecutors who want to jail the Clintons should think first about the effect it would have on the country.

"....the effect it would have on the country."

You mean if prosecution was warranted and justified that everybody might think that justice applies to everyone and nobody's above the law?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by sexykarma

"....the effect it would have on the country."

You mean if prosecution was warranted and justified that everybody might think that justice applies to everyone and nobody's above the law?

Oeb said, "particularly for trumped up politically motivated charges."

There's no doubt that every president in recent times has broken the law a number of times. Prosecutors have laws on the book to put just about anyone in jail they want to. Read "Three Felonies a Day." Or "One Nation Under Arrest" if you don't believe me.

So who's to say whether the "prosecution was warranted and justified" as you say? I'm guessing you're a Democrat. What did you think when stadiums full of Republicans were chanting "Lock Her Up" about Hillary Clinton?

Prosecuting former presidents is what Latin American countries do. Some guy loses an election and he either flees the country or he gets put in prison. We don't do that in America.

Yeah, if America produces somebody like Adolph Hitler someday, then yes he should be prosecuted. Trump isn't that somebody. If they decide to get him, and undoubtedly they can if they so choose given the tens of thousands of pages of laws and regulations he was subject to as a businessman, it will probably be something like tax evasion.

I'm not a fan of Trump. I've read three books about him, and have a reasonably good handle on what he was up to before he became president. There's nothing I've read or that I'm aware of since he became president that would justify prosecuting him.

[sexykarma]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Oeb said, "particularly for trumped up politically motivated charges."

There's no doubt that every president in recent times has broken the law a number of times. Prosecutors have laws on the book to put just about anyone in jail they want to. Read "Three Felonies a Day." Or "One Nation Under Arrest" if you don't believe me.

So who's to say whether the "prosecution was warranted and justified" as you say? I'm guessing you're a Democrat. What did you think when stadiums full of Republicans were chanting "Lock Her Up" about Hillary Clinton?

Prosecuting former presidents is what Latin American countries do. Some guy loses an election and he either flees the country or he gets put in prison. We don't do that in America.

Yeah, if America produces somebody like Adolph Hitler someday, then yes he should be prosecuted. Trump isn't that somebody. If they decide to get him, and undoubtedly they can if they so choose given the tens of thousands of pages of laws and regulations he was subject to as a businessman, it will probably be something like tax evasion.

I'm not a fan of Trump. I've read three books about him, and have a reasonably good handle on what he was up to before he became president. There's nothing I've read or that I'm aware of since he became president that would justify prosecuting him.

You touched on pretty much whatever i was going to say.

Trumped up frivolous charges are one thing, which oeb stated as a qualifier, the whole Hitler thing is clearly the other end of the spectrum which should be prosecuted.

I can't help but think with all these pardons he's handing out that it sends a message that corruption and fraud are perfectly acceptable behaviors and that the store is open for business with a wide open menu.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by sexykarma

I can't help but think with all these pardons he's handing out that it sends a message that corruption and fraud are perfectly acceptable behaviors and that the store is open for business with a wide open menu.

I disagree. Trump's only granted 25 pardons. Every president since at least William McKinnley has granted many more:

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-statistics

There are a ton of people convicted of crimes that the Feds know about that weren't guilty that should have been pardoned.

As to the two people whose cases I know something about, Michael Flynn and Mike Milliken, I think they deserved the pardons. Flynn, like Martha Stewart, was convicted of lying to the Feds about a crime he didn't commit. And Milliken actually was the subject of a chapter in one of the books I mentioned, Three Felonies a Day. Harvey Silvergate, who wrote the book and defended Milliken in appeals court, said, "Milken's biggest problem was that some of his most ingenious but entirely lawful maneuvers were viewed, by those who initially did not understand them, as felonious, precisely because they were novel – and often extremely profitable."

[sportfisherman]

I agree with oeb and tiny. In general,past presidents should not be pursued or punished,especially not for essentially just being of a different political persuasion or for some to feel they just weren't that good of a president. If something extremely egregious then the door could be open to such.

But to even ask the question regarding Trump pardoning Obama assumes Trump will win re-election which he may not.
And then charges would need to be brought against Obama,and he must be convicted of them to even need a pardon.

That's alot of if's.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by sportfisherman

I agree with oeb and tiny. In general,past presidents should not be pursued or punished,especially not for essentially just being of a different political persuasion or for some to feel they just weren't that good of a president. If something extremely egregious then the door could be open to such.

But to even ask the question regarding Trump pardoning Obama assumes Trump will win re-election which he may not.
And then charges would need to be brought against Obama,and he must be convicted of them to even need a pardon.

That's alot of if's.

I'd add that Obama was a "by the books" lawyer with a background in community service. His background and his knowledge of the law would make him a more difficult target for prosecutors than, say, Trump, who gives much less thought to the legal aspects of what he says and does and who has had extensive business interests.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Tsmokies

I forgot again about how many indictments under Obama and how many of trump buddies? Divert n deny for the deplorable idiots

The deplorable idiots are the Democrats who kept trying to get Trump out of office but kept coming up short. Now those same deplorable idiots are ushering in a plagiarizing gaff machine to beat him in an election. What a strategy, lol.

[Lucas McCain]

Charge Obama with what? For being a capable president and leader who was given a shitty economy and turned it around?

Let's be honest here; politicians pretty much all have skeletons in the closet. It's a waste of federal money to go after them for what we already know.

[Jacuzzme]

If you’ve really gotta ask that question you’re either incredibly stupid, willfully ignorant, had a recent TBI or some combination there of.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Charge Obama with what? For being a capable president and leader who was given a shitty economy and turned it around?

Why do you believe that it was Obama who turned the economy around? What did he do that John McCain or Mitt Romney wouldn't have done?

Obama and Geithner just continued with what Bush and Paulson started. Raising taxes and his administration's regulatory regime were a drag on the economy. His "shovel ready" infrastructure stimulus was a laugh -- government infrastructure spending fell through the floor when it was supposed to provide a boost to the economy.

I am exaggerating a little. Presidents are given too much credit when the economy does well and too much blame when it doesn't. Still, if Trump had been elected president in 2008 and hadn't gotten us into trade wars, the recovery probably wouldn't have been so anemic.

But frankly most of the fuckers in the White House and Congressional leadership positions have done a piss poor job with the economy for a long while. We haven't had inspired leadership in that area during my lifetime except for Reagan and Clinton's second term.

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Let's be honest here; politicians pretty much all have skeletons in the closet. It's a waste of federal money to go after them for what we already know.

Agreed.

[HoeHummer]

WTF kind of post is this? Are yous looking for Boogies Men again?

The Trumphole is getting deeper and deeper and his enablers are going to have a major climb to get back to neutral again.

Better wear your climbing booties boys!

[Lucas McCain]

Tiny, Clinton was a competent POTUS. But he definitely looked better than he was because of the tech boom while he was in office IMO. That had nothing to do with him. It had everything to do with how the world was changing in technology. Again, that's just my opinion.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Charge Obama with what? For being a capable president and leader who was given a shitty economy and turned it around?

Let's be honest here; politicians pretty much all have skeletons in the closet. It's a waste of federal money to go after them for what we already know.

that dog won't hunt, rifleman. Obama in fact delayed recovery with his overregulation among other things. the recovery would have happened faster organically .. i.e. he did nothing at all. same with FDR.

tell you what. I won't bother to post any articles claiming Obama handled the economy poorly. i'll let you post one claiming Obama "saved" the economy then i'll post one disputing it. then let's see who runs out of articles first.

you should know that I have at least 10 or more that I've already posted here and elsewhere on this site. so I'm ahead 10 to nothing. lol

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Tiny, Clinton was a competent POTUS. But he definitely looked better than he was because of the tech boom while he was in office IMO. That had nothing to do with him. It had everything to do with how the world was changing in technology.

Clinton also became a follower of the political winds. if his admin determined the majority leaned a certain way on an issue, he'd go that direction. and that's not really a bad thing overall, unless it absolutely goes completely against his views and he's only doing it for votes. and he partly was. but then again, standing pat on a view that is clearly unpopular is a form of political suicide and at some point in politics compromise is needed to be successful.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

that dog won't hunt, rifleman. Obama in fact delayed recovery with his overregulation among other things. the recovery would have happened faster organically .. i.e. he did nothing at all. same with FDR.

tell you what. I won't bother to post any articles claiming Obama handled the economy poorly. i'll let you post one claiming Obama "saved" the economy then i'll post one disputing it. then let's see who runs out of articles first.

you should know that I have at least 10 or more that I've already posted here and elsewhere on this site. so I'm ahead 10 to nothing. lol



Clinton also became a follower of the political winds. if his admin determined the majority leaned a certain way on an issue, he'd go that direction. and that's not really a bad thing overall, unless it absolutely goes completely against his views and he's only doing it for votes. and he partly was. but then again, standing pat on a view that is clearly unpopular is a form of political suicide and at some point in politics compromise is needed to be successful.

The more the “rifle man” posts in this forum further exposes how stupid he is.