wiffleball 4,793 Posted November 30, 2016 Potential pardons; Bergdale, Snowden, Manning. Close Gitmo? More National park space? Syrian fugees? Mass commutations? What else? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad GLuckman 519 Posted November 30, 2016 Hillary pardon? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted November 30, 2016 Recess appointment to the Supreme Court? Not sure if possible Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,793 Posted November 30, 2016 I could certainly see him Attempting to close gitmo. Seeing as how it was one of his key campaign promises. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,783 Posted November 30, 2016 I could certainly see him Attempting to close gitmo. Seeing as how it was one of his key campaign promises. He can't close it unless he finds countries who will accept the remaining inmates and he has pretty much been able to get rid of all the tame ones. Nobody wants the remainders. More commutations is about all he has left. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bandrus1 413 Posted November 30, 2016 More National park space? Please Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,793 Posted November 30, 2016 He can't close it unless he finds countries who will accept the remaining inmates and he has pretty much been able to get rid of all the tame ones. Nobody wants the remainders. More commutations is about all he has left. Apparently, legally, He can move Gitmo prisoners 2 Any federal penitentiary he wants. Not saying that's true or false Or that he's going to do so, Just repeating what I have heard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,714 Posted November 30, 2016 I could certainly see him Attempting to close gitmo. Seeing as how it was one of his key campaign promises. Well, he never could close it by himself. He didn't know what he was talking about. He always needed congressional approval. Not bad work for a constitutional scholar. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,962 Posted November 30, 2016 Hillary pardon? Can you pardon someone who hasn't been charged? Like a future get out of jail free card? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,345 Posted November 30, 2016 Tom Brady? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,345 Posted November 30, 2016 Can you pardon someone who hasn't been charged? Like a future get out of jail free card? didn't Ford do that with Nixon? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,859 Posted November 30, 2016 He should release the GSEs and put an end to the worst theft no one is talking about Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Guy 1,416 Posted November 30, 2016 Potential pardons; More National park space? "National Park Space" aka Government Land buck ofama! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RaiderHaters Revenge 4,439 Posted November 30, 2016 he can still funnel some more money to Iran as a Xmas gift, cause they are good peeps 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,962 Posted November 30, 2016 didn't Ford do that with Nixon? I dunno, it was an honest question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,345 Posted November 30, 2016 I dunno, it was an honest question. I didn't know either... Wiki Summary On September 8, 1974, president of the United States Gerald Ford issued Proclamation 4311, which gave Richard Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president.[1][2][3] In a televised broadcast to the nation, Ford explained that he felt the pardon was in the best interests of the country, and that the Nixon family's situation was "a tragedy in which we all have played a part. It could go on and on and on, or someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must."[4] The Nixon pardon was highly controversial. Critics derided the move, and claimed a "corrupt bargain" had been struck between the men: that Ford's pardon was granted in exchange for Nixon's resignation, elevating Ford to the presidency. Ford's first press secretary and close friend Jerald terHorst resigned his post in protest after the pardon. According to Bob Woodward, Nixon Chief of Staff Alexander Haig proposed a pardon deal to Ford. Ford later decided to pardon Nixon for other reasons, primarily the friendship he and Nixon shared.[5] Regardless, historians believe the controversy was one of the major reasons Ford lost the election in 1976, an observation with which Ford agreed.[5] In an editorial at the time, The New York Times stated that the Nixon pardon was a "profoundly unwise, divisive, and unjust act" that in a stroke had destroyed the new president's "credibility as a man of judgment, candor, and competence". On October 17, 1974, Ford testified before Congress on the pardon. He was the first sitting President to testify before the House of Representatives since Abraham Lincoln.[6][7] After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision which suggested that a pardon carried an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carried an imputation of confession.[8] In 2001, the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation awarded the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award to Ford for his pardon of Nixon.[9] In presenting the award to Ford, Senator Ted Kennedy said that he had initially been opposed to the pardon of Nixon, but later stated that history had proved Ford to have made the correct decision.[10] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,783 Posted November 30, 2016 I would have assumed Nixon was under indictment. Ford fell on his sword to help the nation get over something that may have carried on for years. So while Obama could technically do it, I don't see many parallels, nor do I see any motivation for Obama to dismiss so casually, that, which he knows little about. It would be disastrous to Obama If something horrible should emerge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,652 Posted November 30, 2016 Recess appointment to the Supreme Court? Not sure if possible That would be hilarious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,345 Posted November 30, 2016 I would have assumed Nixon was under indictment. Ford fell on his sword to help the nation get over something that may have carried on for years. So while Obama could technically do it, I don't see many parallels, nor do I see any motivation for Obama to dismiss so casually, that, which he knows little about. It would be disastrous to Obama If something horrible should emerge. If you are implying that by following on his sword, he was doing it out of some nobler purpose so the country could move on I disagree. IMO, he did it so to get it over as quick as possible to put as much distance between Nixon and any re-election chances he might have had....ie. if a trial was going on during an election campaign he'd be sunk. Whatever though, 40+ years ago, you say tomato, I say tomahto Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
giraldi02 476 Posted November 30, 2016 Maybe he'll release the emails from Hillary Clinton that were supposed to be released after the election...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-release.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,714 Posted November 30, 2016 Pardon a few thousand "non-violent" felons? Who knew there were so many? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,705 Posted December 2, 2016 Obama races to impose tougher greenhouse gas rules, and much more http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/01/obama-races-to-impose-tougher-greenhouse-gas-rules-and-much-more.html As of Sept 2015 - 65,000 pages of government regulations have been passed under Obama. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad GLuckman 519 Posted December 2, 2016 Obama races to impose tougher greenhouse gas rules, and much more http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/01/obama-races-to-impose-tougher-greenhouse-gas-rules-and-much-more.html As of Sept 2015 - 65,000 pages of government regulations have been passed under Obama. How does that compare to previous Presidents? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bandrus1 413 Posted December 2, 2016 How does that compare to previous Presidents? Obama races to impose tougher greenhouse gas rules, and much more http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/01/obama-races-to-impose-tougher-greenhouse-gas-rules-and-much-more.html As of Sept 2015 - 65,000 pages of government regulations have been passed under Obama. Great http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/11/29/13781434/great-barrier-reef-coral-dead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,705 Posted December 19, 2016 The Obama administration on Wednesday finalized a rule that lets wind-energy companies operate high-speed turbines for up to 30 years -- even if means killing or injuring thousands of federally protected bald and golden eagles. Under the new rule, wind companies and other power providers will not face a penalty if they kill or injure up to 4,200 bald eagles, nearly four times the current limit. Deaths of the more rare golden eagles would be allowed without penalty so long as companies minimize losses by taking steps such as retrofitting power poles to reduce the risk of electrocution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,705 Posted December 19, 2016 President Obama on Monday pardoned 78 people and granted another 153 commutations, amounting to the most acts of clemency granted by a U.S. president ever in a single day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted December 19, 2016 Pardon a few thousand "non-violent" felons? Who knew there were so many? Most people, I'd guess. There are plenty of crimes that don't involve violence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,714 Posted December 19, 2016 Most people, I'd guess. There are plenty of crimes that don't involve violence. Federal crimes? Let's hear some of them. And we're talking thousands at this point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted December 19, 2016 Federal crimes? Let's hear some of them. And we're talking thousands at this point. Try Google. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,714 Posted December 19, 2016 Try Google. I have. There are not many non-violent felons on the list. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted December 19, 2016 I have. There are not many non-violent felons on the list. Odd. I have too, and what I read was only about 10% of those in federal prison are there for violent crimes. Did yours include drug charges as violent crime? If so, there's the disconnect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,714 Posted December 19, 2016 Odd. I have too, and what I read was only about 10% of those in federal prison are there for violent crimes. Did yours include drug charges as violent crime? If so, there's the disconnect. It certainly is. Large weight drug cases (which all fed cases are) are usually pled down. Drug operations, especially the crack ones, didn't operate without violence. You didn't know that? Maybe you can look up the violence and murder rates during the times these dealers were in business. Besides, some of the the people he's letting out did have weapons charges. Three an old saying in prosecutorial quarters: You go to trial with what you can prove. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted December 19, 2016 There's the difference. Feel free to classify it as violent, but when I google "non-violent federal crimes", drug charges tops the list. Obama's released 6,000 of an estimated 200,000 non-violent criminals, per the definition used by the Justice department. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,714 Posted December 19, 2016 There's the difference. Feel free to classify it as violent, but when I google "non-violent federal crimes", drug charges tops the list. Obama's released 6,000 of an estimated 200,000 non-violent criminals, per the definition used by the Justice department. So you believe that drug dealing, with enough weight to warrant a federal charge, didn't entail violence? And what about the people who did have weapons charges that he's commuting/pardoning? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted December 19, 2016 So you believe that drug dealing, with enough weight to warrant a federal charge, didn't entail violence? And what about the people who did have weapons charges that he's commuting/pardoning? What about them? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,714 Posted December 19, 2016 What about them? Go away. You're ignorant of how the CJS works on any level. Obviously. And troll Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted December 19, 2016 Go away. You're ignorant of how the CJS works on any level. Obviously. And troll Troll for pointing out your ignorance? Sorry, you're wrong. So, sit there in your wrongness and be wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,714 Posted December 19, 2016 Troll for pointing out your ignorance? Sorry, you're wrong. So, sit there in your wrongness and be wrong. I asked you a question. You answered it with a question because you have no answer. That's what ignorant people usually do. Enjoy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted December 20, 2016 I asked you a question. You answered it with a question because you have no answer. That's what ignorant people usually do. Enjoy. You tried to move the goalposts when I showed you were wrong. That's what trolls do. Enjoy. You wanted to know how there could be thousands of federal criminals convicted of non-violent crimes. Most federal criminals are convicted of non-violent crimes. Most, as in around 90%. You try to change the definition, then you try to change the question. And, you think I'm the troll? Too funny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
