Mr. Clemency
-
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 13:20 last edited by
Seen on X:
"The pardons are actually great news. No one who was just pardoned will be able to refuse to testify in a civil, criminal, or congressional proceeding based upon the 5th Amendment. "
-
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 13:23 last edited by
ODGCM releases cop-killers.
https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/news-releases/2025/january/name-1039284-en.html
"I am beyond outraged and in utter disbelief that President Biden would announce clemency for Ferrone Claiborne and Terence Richardson—two men who admitted for being responsible to brutally killing Officer Allen Gibson, a hero and dedicated servant to our community,” said Governor Glenn Youngkin. “What makes this even more unconscionable is the Biden U.S Attorney advised the White House not to commute these sentences as they are violent offenders. The pain and sorrow this clemency causes the Gibson family is unimaginable. To know that the men who took Officer Gibson’s life will walk free is not just a grave injustice—it is a heartbreaking blow to those who continue to mourn his sacrifice. This is despicable; a grim day for justice and for the families who trust that our system will hold the guilty accountable.”
Both prisoners admitted to being responsible for the brutal killing of Officer Allen Gibson in Sussex County Circuit Court. The evidence presented and the details surrounding Officer Gibson's death are deeply disturbing and tragic.
-
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 13:39 last edited by
Biden.
The MOST pardons, evuh. -
Seen on X:
"The pardons are actually great news. No one who was just pardoned will be able to refuse to testify in a civil, criminal, or congressional proceeding based upon the 5th Amendment. "
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 13:39 last edited by George K@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
Seen on X:
"The pardons are actually great news. No one who was just pardoned will be able to refuse to testify in a civil, criminal, or congressional proceeding based upon the 5th Amendment. "
Nice to see that Milley, Fauci et al admit their guilt.
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), is a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the nature of presidential pardons and their acceptance. The case centered on whether a pardon must be accepted by the recipient to take effect and the implications of accepting a pardon on one's legal status.
Key Facts:
- Background: George Burdick, the editor of the New York Tribune, was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury investigating customs fraud. He refused to answer questions, invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- Presidential Pardon: President Woodrow Wilson issued Burdick a full pardon for any offenses he may have committed in connection with the investigation, effectively removing the risk of self-incrimination.
- Refusal to Accept: Burdick declined the pardon, arguing that accepting it would imply an admission of guilt. He continued to refuse to testify.
Supreme Court Decision:
The Court ruled in favor of Burdick, holding that:
- Pardon Must Be Accepted: A pardon is a voluntary act that must be accepted by the recipient to be effective. The Court stated that "a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance carries a confession of it."
- Implications of Refusal: By refusing the pardon, Burdick retained his Fifth Amendment rights and could not be compelled to testify.
Significance:
- This case established that a presidential pardon is not automatic and requires the consent of the individual being pardoned.
It clarified the constitutional limits of executive clemency, emphasizing the autonomy of individuals to reject such acts. - The ruling has been cited in subsequent cases and discussions about the nature of pardons and their implications for legal rights and reputations.
-
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 13:47 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Mr. Clemency:
@Jolly If you don’t count Carter maybe.
Depends on if we're talking individual vs. blanket.
Biden is the most for individual.
-
Seen on X:
"The pardons are actually great news. No one who was just pardoned will be able to refuse to testify in a civil, criminal, or congressional proceeding based upon the 5th Amendment. "
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 13:52 last edited by@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
Seen on X:
"The pardons are actually great news. No one who was just pardoned will be able to refuse to testify in a civil, criminal, or congressional proceeding based upon the 5th Amendment. "
Meh. “I do not recall….”
-
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
Seen on X:
"The pardons are actually great news. No one who was just pardoned will be able to refuse to testify in a civil, criminal, or congressional proceeding based upon the 5th Amendment. "
Nice to see that Milley, Fauci et al admit their guilt.
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), is a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the nature of presidential pardons and their acceptance. The case centered on whether a pardon must be accepted by the recipient to take effect and the implications of accepting a pardon on one's legal status.
Key Facts:
- Background: George Burdick, the editor of the New York Tribune, was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury investigating customs fraud. He refused to answer questions, invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- Presidential Pardon: President Woodrow Wilson issued Burdick a full pardon for any offenses he may have committed in connection with the investigation, effectively removing the risk of self-incrimination.
- Refusal to Accept: Burdick declined the pardon, arguing that accepting it would imply an admission of guilt. He continued to refuse to testify.
Supreme Court Decision:
The Court ruled in favor of Burdick, holding that:
- Pardon Must Be Accepted: A pardon is a voluntary act that must be accepted by the recipient to be effective. The Court stated that "a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance carries a confession of it."
- Implications of Refusal: By refusing the pardon, Burdick retained his Fifth Amendment rights and could not be compelled to testify.
Significance:
- This case established that a presidential pardon is not automatic and requires the consent of the individual being pardoned.
It clarified the constitutional limits of executive clemency, emphasizing the autonomy of individuals to reject such acts. - The ruling has been cited in subsequent cases and discussions about the nature of pardons and their implications for legal rights and reputations.
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 13:53 last edited by@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
Nice to see that Milley, Fauci et al admit their guilt.
In normal times sure. Today it’s just reflective of believing Trump when he says he’s committed to lawfare.
-
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 14:00 last edited by
Normal times?
Doesn't matter. You don't get to go ape-shit just because you don't like the in-coming President.
-
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 14:35 last edited by
And in a few hours you’ll express glee over the pardoning of magat vermin who got violent for just that reason.
-
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 14:59 last edited by
-
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 15:10 last edited by
I think Mr. Biden is going to take it to the finish line.
Ms. Harris never got the job.
He is a racist, there is no pardoning that.
-
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
Nice to see that Milley, Fauci et al admit their guilt.
In normal times sure. Today it’s just reflective of believing Trump when he says he’s committed to lawfare.
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 15:34 last edited by jon-nyc@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
Nice to see that Milley, Fauci et al admit their guilt.
From that libtard Ed Whelan.
-
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
Nice to see that Milley, Fauci et al admit their guilt.
From that libtard Ed Whelan.
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 16:08 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Mr. Clemency:
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
Nice to see that Milley, Fauci et al admit their guilt.
From that libtard Ed Whelan.
I'll see your libtard and raise you two MAGATs.
Make it three.
Four:
The Ultimate MAGAT, the ODGCM:
-
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 16:18 last edited by
By the way, why does the Fauci's pardon backdate to 2014?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 16:25 last edited by
MAGAT HQ: The Brookings Institution.
-
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 16:25 last edited by
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
why does the Fauci's pardon backdate to 2014?
To cover as many crimes as possible - and the statute of limitations?
-
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 16:54 last edited by
And in his final moments he pardoned all his family members.
Looks like the Biden crime family is a thing.
-
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 17:05 last edited by jon-nyc
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
By the way, why does the Fauci's pardon backdate to 2014?
Are all of them backdated to then? Maybe he did a cut and paste on the hunter memo.
If his alone went to 2014 that would be suspicious.
-
wrote on 20 Jan 2025, 17:21 last edited by
I wonder how things look like 4 years hence.
