Jan 6th truth is starting to leak out.

Sure would be interesting to do a search on how many times the word "insurrection" appears in congressional memos and other inter-office comms in the days and weeks leading up to Jan 6. Bet it would paint a picture.

originally posted by: tjack
Sure would be interesting to do a search on how many times the word "insurrection" appears in congressional memos and other inter-office comms in the days and weeks leading up to Jan 6. Bet it would paint a picture.

Yep, that's one that I think would bear fruit. It had to be the plan as it's the only COTUS mechanism that could eliminate Trump from being able to run again. It was their hail Mary, and Ahmad Rishad was not in the end zone waiting, the ball was dropped.

To pardon, they have to have committed a crime. This whole 'blanket pardon' is BS and not legal according to our Constitution.

Anyone who is pardoned 'had' to have committed a crime to be pardoned or sentence commuted.

The entire 1/6 Commission and anyone associated needs to be charged with treason against the US.

It is not revenge it is what is right and that is to hold people accountable for crimes.

Donald Trump was supposed to die in Butler. When that did not happen they knew they were screwed and their second chance failed also. The more that comes about that anyone with a brain cell knows they were both inside jobs.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: tjack
Sure would be interesting to do a search on how many times the word "insurrection" appears in congressional memos and other inter-office comms in the days and weeks leading up to Jan 6. Bet it would paint a picture.

Yep, that's one that I think would bear fruit. It had to be the plan as it's the only COTUS mechanism that could eliminate Trump from being able to run again. It was their hail Mary, and Ahmad Rishad was not in the end zone waiting, the ball was dropped.

Which is why Pelosi rushed through another Impeachment of President Trump when he only had 2 weeks left in office. Thankfully Mitch McConnell didn't take the bait and vote to remove DJT, which would have made him ineligible to run for President again.

EVIL DEMOCRATS WILL PAY. --Guaranteed--

If they acknowledge a couple dozen CIs in place, that clearly means there probably was hundreds. Now we see why many "arrests" happened and confirms many groups were infiltrated. 😀

a reply to: matafuchs

Anyone who is pardoned 'had' to have committed a crime to be pardoned or sentence commuted.

you would think that to be the case, but fact is in 1886 SCOTUS has ruled presidents can grant pardons before during and after being charged, or being found guilty or for any crimes that they may not have been brought to the light of day yet. they also ruled that by acceptance, the person is all but admitting they are guilty of crimes.

The U.S. Supreme Court clarified presidential pardon power in an 1866 case (Ex Parte Garland) challenging the pardon of a former Confederate soldier by President Andrew Johnson. In its opinion, the Court stated that this power "extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."
Presidential Pardon Power and its Limits

why do you think gaetz went looking for one before being charged or isn't running for rubio's office and is going to work for oan news. he knows there's something they can get him for.

In Burdick v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed the case of a newspaper editor who declined to testify before a grand jury, invoking the Fifth Amendment, even after the president pardoned him. Burdick declined to accept the pardon, and he was held in contempt for refusing to testify. The question before the Supreme Court was what effect, if any, the unaccepted pardon had. The court ruled that a pardon becomes effective only if it is accepted. The court also compared immunity, granted by Congress, and a pardon, explaining that the differences are “substantial.” Unlike immunity, the court reasoned, a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.”
The Supreme Court and the president’s pardon power

the Dec. 1866 EX PARTE GARLAND ruling ( warning opens a PDF) ruling,

Ex PARTE GARLAND.

wonder how many of the trump haters that tried to impeach him will accept a pardon and basically admitting their guilt.

why do you think gaetz went looking for one before being charged or isn't running for rubio's office and is going to work for oan news. he knows there's something they can get him for.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

I disagree on this point. The DOJ and Garland could have prosecuted Gaetz but they didn't 'cause no crime was committed. I have a hard time believing that the weaponized DOJ found nothing on Gaetz but the hack ethics committee in the house did. I think Gaetz wanted to move on and chose to leave after the "wrap-up smear" campaign worked and kept him out of the AG position.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I did not know this was the case....

The president can issue a pardon at any point after a crime is committed and before, during or after criminal proceedings have taken place. The president cannot, however, pardon someone for future crimes. A pardon covers both the offender’s conviction for the crime and the sentence for that crime.

does that include treason?

Whistleblower: FBI Deputy Director Abbate Told Agents to Hide Dozens of January 6 Informants from Public – Knew It Would Be “Too Embarrassing” for Agency to Tell the Truth to Americans

An FBI agent told the House Judiciary Committee that Deputy Director Paul Abbate suggested that at least 25 FBI confidential human sources, or informants, involved in reporting to the bureau from the Jan. 6, 2021, protest should not be publicly acknowledged.

Many FBI whistleblowers have come forward with their concerns about the bureau as Director Christopher A. Wray is testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

They are making allegations of politically motivated investigations, politically biased leadership and misconduct by senior officials at America’s premier law enforcement agency.

According to the whistleblower disclosure sent to the committee, Mr. Abbate notified one or more of his subordinates that the more than 25 informants were too problematic or embarrassing for the FBI to have their existence made known to the public and that the existence, activities and identities of these FBI confidential human sources should not be released.

Full Report:
A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Handling of Its Confidential Human Sources and Intelligence Collection Efforts in the Lead Up to the January 6, 2021 Electoral Certification

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

i guess we'll just have to disagree on gaetz, as for the treason question i know that Washington did, so there is precedence for the ability to do.

he granted pardons to two men who were going to be hanged after being convicted of treason during the whiskey rebellion.
i also know that when article II section 2 was being debated and then written there was a push to exclude treason,

There was little debate at the Constitutional Convention of the pardon power,16 though several exceptions and limitations were proposed. Edmund Randolph proposed reincorporating an exception for cases of treason, arguing that extending pardon authority to such cases "was too great a trust," that the President "may himself be guilty," and that the "Traytors may be his own instruments."17 George Mason likewise argued that treason should be excepted for fear that the President could otherwise "frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself" to "stop inquiry and prevent detection," eventually "establish[ing] a monarchy, and destroy[ing] the republic."18 James Wilson responded to such arguments by pointing out that if the President were himself involved in treasonous conduct, he could be impeached.19 Randolph’s motion was defeated by an 8-2 vote, with one divided.20 Another proposal would have made reprieves and pardons available only after conviction.21 However, when James Wilson pointed out that pre-conviction pardons might be needed to secure accomplice testimony, the motion to add the language was withdrawn.22

]ArtII.S2.C1.3.2 Historical Background on Pardon Power

i would have to say the way the article II section 2 is written, and the 1866 ruling that the president can grant pardons for treason.

he granted pardons to two men who were going to be hanged after being convicted of treason during the whiskey rebellion.
i also know that when article II section 2 was being debated and then written there was a push to exclude treason

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Great follow up, thank you for that. I would love to get some feedback on another point, now that-for example-Hunter has been pardoned is he now compelled to testify against others if called upon to do so? I read that now he cannot use the 5th.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Great follow up, thank you for that. I would love to get some feedback on another point, now that-for example-Hunter has been pardoned is he now compelled to testify against others if called upon to do so? I read that now he cannot use the 5th.

my understanding is his convictions stand and he has admitted his guilt in the tax charges and found guilty on gun charges, in accepting the pardon in doing so he basically admits to guns charges.the crimes that have not come to light according to the first link he basically admitted to guilt so no he can not plead the fifth, he just skates on the punishment of his convection and any that would have come from crimes committed between 2014 to 2024.

so i would think if he refused to answer questions about others related to those crimes he may have been involved in he is protected form during that time period they could charge him with contempt because his pardon doesn't included future crimes and maybe even obstruction.

this is the first search result that i found there maybe better ones. a article written by a law professor.

1.] Because the privilege applies only when a witness reasonably fears prosecution, and the pardon precludes prosecution for any "offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024," a pardon may indeed eliminate the privilege, and allow a court or congressional committee to order Hunter Biden to testify. "[I]f the witness has already received a pardon, he cannot longer set up his privilege." Brown v. Walker (1896). "[A] witness may be compelled to testify concerning his involvement in a crime when he is protected from later prosecution … by the applicable statute of limitations … or by a pardon." Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy (1983) (Marshall, J., concurring) (citing Brown).

[2.] But the privilege disappears only when there's no realistic prospect of prosecution by any American government, federal or state. So if a witness is asked about something, and the answer might lead to state prosecution for which the state statute of limitations hasn't run, the witness can refuse to testify because of that risk of state prosecution, even if a federal prosecution is taken off the table by the federal pardon. (Recall that a Presidential pardon only pardons for federal crimes.) This is relevant because some conduct can violate both state and federal law.
[url=https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/02/can-the-just-pardoned-hunter-biden-claim-privilege-against-self-incrimination-if-questioned-about-his-crimes /]https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/02/can-the-just-pardoned-hunter-biden-claim-privilege-against-self-incrimination-if-questioned-about-his-crimes/[/ url]

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Great follow up, thank you for that. I would love to get some feedback on another point, now that-for example-Hunter has been pardoned is he now compelled to testify against others if called upon to do so? I read that now he cannot use the 5th.

my understanding is his convictions stands and he has admitted his guilt in doing so. plus even crimes that have not come to light according to the first link he basically admitted to guilt so no he can not plead the fifth, he just skates on the punishment of his convection and any that would have come from crimes committed between 2014 to 2024.

so i would think if he refused to answer questions about others related to those crimes , they could charge him with contempt because his pardon doesn't included future crimes and maybe even obstruction.

Ok, thanks. That makes sense.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

I don't think the pardon would prevent him from being jailed on contempt charges or perjury charges if he's deposed after January whatever. So he might not be as Gucci as he thinks.

a reply to: network dude

I don't think the pardon would prevent him from being jailed on contempt charges or perjury charges if he's deposed after January whatever. So he might not be as Gucci as he thinks.

that's my understanding to. he is only covered from 2014 to 2024.

any federal crimes that the statutes of limitations hasn't run out on before 2014 or any after 2024 he's a done tom turkey.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

You are correct, Thanks for the explanation. I read that same bit about Johnson. My point was not about Hunter but the other. For a pardon, there has to be a crime. So if they start to pardon 1/6 people it is confirmation of what we already know. They committed crimes.

For a pardon, there has to be a crime. So if they start to pardon 1/6 people it is confirmation of what we already know. They committed crimes. 

a reply to: matafuchs

January 6 ‘star witness’ Cassidy Hutchinson and Alyssa Farah Griffin should be charged. Even if Liz, Jaime and all the othe Jan6th committee members are pardoned they will be exposed and Cassidy and Alyssa go to jail.

WITNESS TAMPERING: New Texts Reveal Liz Cheney Directly Communicated with J6 ‘Star Witness’ Cassidy Hutchinson About Her Testimony without Hutchinson’s Attorney’s Knowledge

Biden can't pardon everyone