TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -13-

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TheOne7

no proven guilt yet exist to pardon.

A pardon requires an admission of guilt.

It does not. 😌

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

EMN, yes, definitely #2496... #1110,1114, 1117, 1118 are in dropdown at cell P8 and #1314 at cell P33.

The confusion may be because the former 4 posts are not a mirror but at the same point on the clock as the primary source post #2496?

originally posted by: Sillyolme

"A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense

a reply to: queenofswords


ir.lawnet.fordham.edu...


YES IT DOES

Read closer and deeper. A pardon IS NOT an admission of guilt.

Read your own 1975 source, but read it thoroughly. Your snippet needs the context of the entirety of your article. Below is another snippet from your article.

In addition, it has been argued that an acceptance of a pardon only may be to avoid the expense, trauma and other side effects of a criminal proceeding so that its acceptance is not inconsistent with a position of innocence.

There are a gazillion sources that will show you that a pardon IS NOT an admission of guilt. Research it and don't be half-@$$ about it.

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

Kilmurry is in low south of Ireland, near Cork (where my grandmother was born):

Kilmurry - googlemaps

There is also a Kilmurry Hill Rd, in Pfafftown, North Carolina.

This baptism records 1800s also shows some interesting family names in the current context:

Lynch, Brennan, Ryan, Kelly, MCarthy, Crowley, Clooney, Carney, Conway, Cavanagh.

Kilmurry is less than 50 houses now (goog sat pic).

Those baptism records are from 180 to 130 yrs ago - that's a massive hit rate on surnames for basically a village!!!

Well, that is quite interesting for a small farm village out in the middle of nowhere. We certainly do recognize those names today! Surprised someone took the time to digitize those old records. See a number of records from mid to late 1800s.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

Its from a genealogy site... retired people feel the need to trace family tree and pass on to their descendents I guess.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

PMd you

A preemptive pardon is contradictory to the constitution and has not really been challenged in a meaningful way. Simply put it could be easily overturned even though there indeed laws on the books that claim it to be valid. They are 100% wrong and the whole thought of such flies in the face of innocent until proven guilty and as others pointed out an admission of guilt is proof and that or a conviction is required in order to pardon a crime.

Keep in mind some of you are arguing that in the usa it is possible to be guilty in the eyes of the law without having admitted to guilt or having been convicted. Please do not throw the presumption of innocence in the trash.Simply put that is not real life and would be quickly overturned if fought.

Come clean and hope for a pardon.

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

Ah, I see now. Bigger LCD screen helps.

originally posted by: Sillyolme

"A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense

a reply to: queenofswords


ir.lawnet.fordham.edu...


YES IT DOES

It's not exactly cut and dry. There are several arguments to be made that a conviction is not required, which is even argued in your first link if you bothered to real all the words.

Eugene Volokh, not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, explains at reason.com, Is accepting a pardon an admission of guilt?

He makes four points on the subject.

I'm including the conclusion, which makes my point that it is not a cut and dry issue, and that it may not require an admission of guilt.

Legal authorities, then, are split on the subject of how the law should understand pardons; but because some pardons are understood as being based on the pardoned person's factual innocence, I doubt that any judge today would genuinely view acceptance of pardon as always being an admission of guilt. And my sense (though I realize that it might be mistaken) is that most people's moral judgment today would be that, even if a pardon is offered just as a gesture of mercy and not as exoneration, the recipient may honorably accept it even if they continue to deny their factual guilt or their moral guilt.

And bigger font doesn't make you more right.

You don't need to yell, but you should question everything, even your own beliefs.

a reply to: TheOne7

A preemptive pardon is contradictory to the constitution and has not really been challenged in a meaningful way.

[snip] Opinion (1988) Constitution Allows Pardons Before Conviction

Accordingly, the Constitution simply provides that the President ''shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment'' (Article II, section 2).

The leading Supreme Court case is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the Court in a 5-4 decision, held that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It 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.''

Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)

Still, I agree with you that if you know you are guilty, then jsut admit that you screwed up and come clean, plead guilty, and move on with your life after acceting the pardon.

You make yourself the better man or woman by accepting and admitting your failings than denying in the face of solid evidence to the contrary.

Pardon = thread drift.

On to FAR more interesting things.

Pelosi: ”…I have those who want to be for impeachment and for abolishing ICE. Two really winning issues for us, right? In the districts we have to win? I don’t even think they’re the right thing to do...”

Controlled Opposition as the speaker, placed to oversee the House implosion?

The FBI raid occurred on November 19, according to the report. One day later, on November 20, House Republicans called U.S. Attorney John Huber to appear before Congress to give testimony on his investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

Huber hired to investigate U1 sending U1 to Russia with Mueller to Iran to C_A and more and now stories are showing up in MSM revealing bits and pieces of the picture painted here nearly a year ago. Obama=Spygate, U1=CF/Mueller/Iran.

RBG wears her "dissent jabot" in the SC photo. Does it really matter what her pathetic protests are meant to infer at this point?

High Fives at the summit!!!

Oh, and for this AM -

My phone pinged to say there's been a 7.0 Mag earthquake in Alaska... is that unusual? Anchorage known for earthquakes?

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
My phone pinged to say there's been a 7.0 Mag earthquake in Alaska... is that unusual? Anchorage known for earthquakes?

TSUNAMI WARNING goes with it.

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

There have been at least 3

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

Yes. Q-quake central

Q #2365 & 114 have checksum match.

Just practicing.

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
My phone pinged to say there's been a 7.0 Mag earthquake in Alaska... is that unusual? Anchorage known for earthquakes?

Alaska gets tons of earthquakes.

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
My phone pinged to say there's been a 7.0 Mag earthquake in Alaska... is that unusual? Anchorage known for earthquakes?

More earthquakes per year than any other part of the U.S. Also the biggest in U.S. history in the 60's, I think it was a 9.2.

a reply to: CoramDeo
the post is not directed at you personally

''It 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.''

Pretty clear that many have dropped the ball in regards to this matter. The presumption of innocence resounds throughout our society and in the very bed rock that our laws make up as a whole. In each and every instance is where one must apply logic toward any conclusion to be made on the subject. It is not wise to argue against logic that tells us that the phrase "after it's commission" and "every known offense to the law" refers to an admission of guilt in some form either by the pardoner or the pardoned or a trial by way of due process with a guilt outcome and in every case retaliative this has not been brought up as an issue of debate. Hard to believe it slipped through the cracks for hundreds of years but it is what it is.




This reminds me very much of the same sort of ignorance (as in to ignore but not stupidity) being displayed in the matter of the unconstitutional acting attorney general. Givin the very clear wording that shows if fired then a position would have to be filled by the advice and consent of congress. Attempts to argue the case of sessions resignation are accepted as a refusal of truth and form of rebellion.

This is the most clear warning one can give to the usa in this matter.7.0





On a side note it is time to buy some btc cause it is going for another ride.

a reply to: imthegoat

7.0 Mag is just like a burp for Alaska then? Nothing to see here?

I can relax n go for a beer...

a reply to: CoramDeo

Thank You.