cherrybobeddie
Well-Known Member
Oh, I scanned and did not see it. Sorry to bother everyone.
This isn't over.
- Thread starter Unclebaldrick
- Start date
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Could they use this to get rid of Trump and win Georgia? She is headed for the hot seat ASAP and they threatened her with inherent powers, after she signed too! They will compel her to testify and she is suppose to today after missing the first summons and signing the papers, they still want to see her NOW!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence: Emily Murphy Lied About The Transition For 15 Days | The Last Word | MSNBC
Lawrence O’Donnell says Emily Murphy has taken ownership of a “crime against democracy.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence: Emily Murphy Lied About The Transition For 15 Days | The Last Word | MSNBC
Lawrence O’Donnell says Emily Murphy has taken ownership of a “crime against democracy.”
Last edited:
well i'm going to call it Crimes Against Peaceful Transition..i love when he folds his arms- he's so mad that his rosebud of petulance is crooked.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I saw a congressman on the committee threaten her with inherent powers last night after she signed and refused to show on Monday, but sent an assistant. Nancy wants her there today bright and early, the hot seat is waiting.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I figure Donald is behind it, Roger thought of it and is operating it, his style, Donald has no brain. Roger is going down with Donald, they never charged him with conspiracy or other crimes, but the future AG or special independent counsel will, Roger is a desperate rat too, he knows what's coming if Trump loses, fuck the senate!
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Looks like Laura just lost half of her viewers, those who got pissed and went searching for the "truth". You sold out to the deep state Laura!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.businessinsider.com
Laura Ingraham told viewers that Biden would be the next president and suggested anyone saying otherwise was lying
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Ingraham told viewers that Biden would be the next president and suggested anyone saying otherwise was lying
The Fox News host said she still supported President Donald Trump's right to challenge the election result but considered him unlikely to succeed.
www.businessinsider.com
Laura Ingraham told viewers that Biden would be the next president and suggested anyone saying otherwise was lying
- On Monday night, the Fox News host Laura Ingraham said it was highly unlikely that President Donald Trump would win his legal challenges to the 2020 election results and secure a second term.
- "Unless the legal situation changes in a dramatic, and frankly, an unlikely manner, Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20," Ingraham said on her show.
- She added: "If I told you there was an excellent, phenomenal chance that the Supreme Court was going to step in and deliver a victory to President Trump, I would be lying to you."
- Ingraham appears to be the first top Fox News pundit to speak so directly about Biden's win, which Fox News itself called on November 7.
- Trump has refused to concede the race. On Monday, however, he tweeted support for the General Services Administration's move to start the transition process to Biden's team.
these are all just trolls for the news cycle..i must admit they are funny as hell and we have what? another 57 days of Donald's Three Ring Circus?
you didn't bother anyone; i answered your post with a post.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Good thread title, flows right into this ain't over for Donald or the rest of us, who want to see justice done to this miscreant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The One Word That Bars Trump From Pardoning Himself
The question shouldn’t be whether the president can pardon himself but whether he can grant himself a pardon—and those are not the same thing.
As Donald trump’s tenure in office comes in for its landing, a major question is whether the president—facing questions about liability for offenses including bank and tax fraud—can pardon himself.
This might seem like the right operational question, but it is imprecise as a constitutional one. Article II of the Constitution says that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Did you catch that? The president has the power not to pardon people, but “to grant … Pardons” (emphasis added). So the question is not whether Trump can pardon himself. It’s whether he can grant himself a pardon.
Garrett Epps: Can Trump pardon himself?
That might seem like an odd way of putting the question, but it’s linguistically important. On the one hand, some actions can’t be reflexive—you can’t do them to yourself. Think of surrendering, relinquishing, or handing over something. These verbs entail a transfer to someone else; the actor can’t also be the recipient.
On the other hand, countless verbs do leave open the possibility of reflexive meaning. If, for example, the Constitution had empowered the president not to grant a pardon but to announce a pardon, one would be hard-pressed to insist that the president could not announce himself as a recipient.
So, what about granting? Is it—in its usage in the Constitution—a verb more like handing over or announcing?
Judges and other legal scholars have a set of techniques for determining the meaning of constitutional text. One is to scour the rest of the Constitution for hints. If the same word appears in multiple clauses of the Constitution, one should assume that it has the same meaning throughout unless a clear reason exists to think otherwise. So let’s look at the verb grant in the Constitution outside the pardons clause.
Article I says that all of the “legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” “We the People” are doing the granting here, doling out to Congress the power to make policy. Grant here is transitive—from one entity to another.
The same article gives Congress the power “to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” Those are permission slips that let private commercial vessels make war against ships of enemy nations and do things that would otherwise be piracy. Again, grant is transitive—from Congress to ships.
Article I later states that “no Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States,” that “no state … shall grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” and that “no state … shall grant any title of Nobility.” Transitive, transitive, and transitive.
According to Article II, the president has the power “to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” Again, transitive. If, say, the previously Senate-confirmed secretary of education quits while the Senate is in recess, the president can name a temporary replacement.
The last use of the word grant in the Constitution, apart from the pardons clause itself, is in Article III, where the power of the judiciary is set to include “Controversies … between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States.” Here grant is a noun, not a verb, but it again describes something extending from one entity (a state) to another (a citizen).
Corey Brettschneider and Jeffrey K. Tulis: The traditional interpretation of the pardon power is wrong
Based solely on other uses of grant in the Constitution, a person could reasonably determine that a president cannot grant himself a pardon. But in evaluating the meaning of the Constitution’s words, the text of the Constitution isn’t all that counts. The most common interpretive method these days—championed by Justice Antonin Scalia and now broadly popular among conservatives—is to look for evidence of a term’s “original public meaning.” That, theoretically, is the meaning that ordinary English speakers of the late 18th century would have attached to a given term when coming upon it in a legal document like the Constitution.
But how is one to determine this “original public meaning”? One place to begin is a law dictionary in use at the time, such as The Law-Dictionary: Explaining the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the English Law; Defining and Interpreting the Terms or Words of Art; and Comprising Copious Information on the Subjects of Law, Trade, and Government, compiled by Giles Jacob, and the most popular legal dictionary of the era. According to Jacob’s tome, a grant—which he defined only as a noun—is a “conveyance in writing of incorporeal things.” And what, in turn, is a conveyance? It is “a deed which passes or conveys land from one man to another.”
Note: “from one man to another.”
Thus, to the extent that the most popular contemporaneous law dictionary is valuable in understanding what ordinary speakers of the founding era meant by “granting,” it seems clear that they probably had in mind an interpersonal transfer.
Now, dictionaries are not the only available evidence of a term’s meaning at a particular historical moment. We have books, newspapers, and other printed matter. And people today are fortunate to have an easy way to search huge amounts of such material in the form of the Google Books Ngram Viewer. This extraordinary bit of technology allows a user to pick a beginning and an end date and request a calculation of the frequency with which words and phrases appear in all of Google’s scanned written material from that time period. This tool can reveal, for example, that the word texting got almost no use across the 20th century until 1997, when, for reasons everyone can infer, it began to skyrocket.
Jeffrey Crouch: Our Founders didn’t intend for pardons to work like this
According to the Ngram Viewer, did English speakers in the late 18th century understand the verb grant to have a reflexive meaning? In their world, could you grant something to yourself? If you could, evidence of that in the form of phrases such as grants himself and grants herself and grant themselves and grant myself and grant yourself should appear throughout the Ngram Viewer’s corpus.
But, in the time period from 1750 to 1800, essentially none of these appears. Transitive uses of the verb—“grant me,” “grant him,” “grant her,” “grant us,” “grant you,” and the like, where the person receiving the grant is different from the person doing the granting—are all common. But reflexive uses, where the person doing the granting is also the person on the receiving end? All but nonexistent. In most instances where a phrase like grant myself does pop up, it’s a different meaning of grant entirely, as in John Knox’s 1790 book, History of the Reformation of Religion in the Realm of Scotland, in which the word means something like “acknowledge”: “And when you let me see the contrary, I shall grant myself to be deceived in that point.”
To be sure, by the 20th century a reflexive meaning of grant appears in Ngram Viewer searches, as in this passage from a 1921 Macmillan Reader for Commercial Classes: “We need more sleep at twenty-five than we do at fifty, and the young man who grants himself less than eight hours’ sleep every night just robs himself of so much vitality.”
In the second half of the 18th century, we see no such evidence.
Ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer. Can Donald Trump pardon himself? Perhaps, but that’s not the question the Constitution requires us to ask. Can Donald Trump grant himself a pardon? The evidence, at least according to the text of the Constitution and its original meaning, says no.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The One Word That Bars Trump From Pardoning Himself
The question shouldn’t be whether the president can pardon himself but whether he can grant himself a pardon—and those are not the same thing.
As Donald trump’s tenure in office comes in for its landing, a major question is whether the president—facing questions about liability for offenses including bank and tax fraud—can pardon himself.
This might seem like the right operational question, but it is imprecise as a constitutional one. Article II of the Constitution says that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Did you catch that? The president has the power not to pardon people, but “to grant … Pardons” (emphasis added). So the question is not whether Trump can pardon himself. It’s whether he can grant himself a pardon.
Garrett Epps: Can Trump pardon himself?
That might seem like an odd way of putting the question, but it’s linguistically important. On the one hand, some actions can’t be reflexive—you can’t do them to yourself. Think of surrendering, relinquishing, or handing over something. These verbs entail a transfer to someone else; the actor can’t also be the recipient.
On the other hand, countless verbs do leave open the possibility of reflexive meaning. If, for example, the Constitution had empowered the president not to grant a pardon but to announce a pardon, one would be hard-pressed to insist that the president could not announce himself as a recipient.
So, what about granting? Is it—in its usage in the Constitution—a verb more like handing over or announcing?
Judges and other legal scholars have a set of techniques for determining the meaning of constitutional text. One is to scour the rest of the Constitution for hints. If the same word appears in multiple clauses of the Constitution, one should assume that it has the same meaning throughout unless a clear reason exists to think otherwise. So let’s look at the verb grant in the Constitution outside the pardons clause.
Article I says that all of the “legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” “We the People” are doing the granting here, doling out to Congress the power to make policy. Grant here is transitive—from one entity to another.
The same article gives Congress the power “to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” Those are permission slips that let private commercial vessels make war against ships of enemy nations and do things that would otherwise be piracy. Again, grant is transitive—from Congress to ships.
Article I later states that “no Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States,” that “no state … shall grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” and that “no state … shall grant any title of Nobility.” Transitive, transitive, and transitive.
According to Article II, the president has the power “to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” Again, transitive. If, say, the previously Senate-confirmed secretary of education quits while the Senate is in recess, the president can name a temporary replacement.
The last use of the word grant in the Constitution, apart from the pardons clause itself, is in Article III, where the power of the judiciary is set to include “Controversies … between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States.” Here grant is a noun, not a verb, but it again describes something extending from one entity (a state) to another (a citizen).
Corey Brettschneider and Jeffrey K. Tulis: The traditional interpretation of the pardon power is wrong
Based solely on other uses of grant in the Constitution, a person could reasonably determine that a president cannot grant himself a pardon. But in evaluating the meaning of the Constitution’s words, the text of the Constitution isn’t all that counts. The most common interpretive method these days—championed by Justice Antonin Scalia and now broadly popular among conservatives—is to look for evidence of a term’s “original public meaning.” That, theoretically, is the meaning that ordinary English speakers of the late 18th century would have attached to a given term when coming upon it in a legal document like the Constitution.
But how is one to determine this “original public meaning”? One place to begin is a law dictionary in use at the time, such as The Law-Dictionary: Explaining the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the English Law; Defining and Interpreting the Terms or Words of Art; and Comprising Copious Information on the Subjects of Law, Trade, and Government, compiled by Giles Jacob, and the most popular legal dictionary of the era. According to Jacob’s tome, a grant—which he defined only as a noun—is a “conveyance in writing of incorporeal things.” And what, in turn, is a conveyance? It is “a deed which passes or conveys land from one man to another.”
Note: “from one man to another.”
Thus, to the extent that the most popular contemporaneous law dictionary is valuable in understanding what ordinary speakers of the founding era meant by “granting,” it seems clear that they probably had in mind an interpersonal transfer.
Now, dictionaries are not the only available evidence of a term’s meaning at a particular historical moment. We have books, newspapers, and other printed matter. And people today are fortunate to have an easy way to search huge amounts of such material in the form of the Google Books Ngram Viewer. This extraordinary bit of technology allows a user to pick a beginning and an end date and request a calculation of the frequency with which words and phrases appear in all of Google’s scanned written material from that time period. This tool can reveal, for example, that the word texting got almost no use across the 20th century until 1997, when, for reasons everyone can infer, it began to skyrocket.
Jeffrey Crouch: Our Founders didn’t intend for pardons to work like this
According to the Ngram Viewer, did English speakers in the late 18th century understand the verb grant to have a reflexive meaning? In their world, could you grant something to yourself? If you could, evidence of that in the form of phrases such as grants himself and grants herself and grant themselves and grant myself and grant yourself should appear throughout the Ngram Viewer’s corpus.
But, in the time period from 1750 to 1800, essentially none of these appears. Transitive uses of the verb—“grant me,” “grant him,” “grant her,” “grant us,” “grant you,” and the like, where the person receiving the grant is different from the person doing the granting—are all common. But reflexive uses, where the person doing the granting is also the person on the receiving end? All but nonexistent. In most instances where a phrase like grant myself does pop up, it’s a different meaning of grant entirely, as in John Knox’s 1790 book, History of the Reformation of Religion in the Realm of Scotland, in which the word means something like “acknowledge”: “And when you let me see the contrary, I shall grant myself to be deceived in that point.”
To be sure, by the 20th century a reflexive meaning of grant appears in Ngram Viewer searches, as in this passage from a 1921 Macmillan Reader for Commercial Classes: “We need more sleep at twenty-five than we do at fifty, and the young man who grants himself less than eight hours’ sleep every night just robs himself of so much vitality.”
In the second half of the 18th century, we see no such evidence.
Ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer. Can Donald Trump pardon himself? Perhaps, but that’s not the question the Constitution requires us to ask. Can Donald Trump grant himself a pardon? The evidence, at least according to the text of the Constitution and its original meaning, says no.
is this in anywhere?
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I saw it on MSNBC they were interviewing one of the senior congressmen on the committee, this was after she signed the papers in the evening and didn't show for the hearing yesterday. They want her there today personally, no assistant and mentioned inherent powers, article 1, he said Nancy wanted her there, and there is a reason for that. Trump illegally ordered her with hold ascertainment and it might be costing lives or cost them already, ascertainment under law is her call alone, not Trump's. This will also serve to put the fear of Jesus into the rest of the civil service and send a message, there's a new boss in town, don't let them destroy evidence or follow their illegal orders.
MickFoster
Well-Known Member
Google News
Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.
news.google.com
xtsho
Well-Known Member
That ends the legal challenges in Pennsylvania. I wonder why Rudy didn't take all of his evidence of voter fraud to court when he had the chance.Google News
Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.
xtsho
Well-Known Member
On November 1st I told our friends around the world that trump was not America and that we'd fix this. We did. Proof that our Democracy is strong. We might elect a piece of garbage now and then but we have mechanisms in place to remove them. And despite all of the nefarious means a piece of garbage like trump uses to try and cling to power, our system of Democracy prevailed. This isn't Russia or Venezuela. Men like Putin and Chavez can and will be removed from power by the people.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/what-has-trump-done-to-this-country.1018837/page-305#post-15905993
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
he was "exaggerating a bit"
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
A psycho that has a IQ of 78 with help nearly brought this country down so I wouldn't celebrate too much. He also showed the road map for doing it again. If another psycho that isn't a village idiot gets into office in the future we are fucked.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Yep lot's of people have been thinking like that too, more lately.