Biden goes back on his word.

[o_mlly]

The verdict is the conviction. Trump has been found guilty.

Nope. If you have a law degree then consider asking for a tuition refund. Since Merchan has repeated delayed sentencing, the criminal case is not over. Merchan cleverly blocked sentencing to prevent Trump from appealing ... I've posted all this before but as usual you just don't want to hear it.

The 10 Stages of a Criminal Case

If you have been arrested for a crime, you are at the beginning of what could become a long journey through the criminal justice system.

www.thoughtco.com

The 10 Stages of a Criminal Case​

Stages of a Criminal Case​

1. Arrest
2. Booking Process
3. Bail or Bond
4. Arraignment
5. Plea Bargaining
6. Preliminary Hearing
7. Pre-Trial Motions
8. Criminal Trial
9. Sentencing
10. Appeals Process

 

[o_mlly]

Are you ambiguous about what moral character is?

No, I'm not. But you seem unwilling to remove the ambiguity of what you mean by "good moral character". Care to try again?

I'm asking about what president, if any, you think had good moral character.

I can't read people's minds, can you? If so then you're free to go first.

 

[durangodawood]

No, I'm not. But you seem unwilling to remove the ambiguity of what you mean by "good moral character". Care to try again?

The question is about what president you think has good moral character by the standards you say youre not ambiguous about. Not who you think would fit my definition of good moral character.

I can't read people's minds, can you? If so then you're free to go first.

You mean you need to see into a president's mind to get a sense of their moral character?

 

[o_mlly]

The question is about what president you think has good moral character by the standards you say youre not ambiguous about. Not who you think would fit my definition of good moral character.

So give us your definition of "good moral character". Or are you now goading me to answer your ambiguous post? It's against forum rules.

You mean you need to see into a president's mind to get a sense of their moral character?

Yes. Don't you? If not answer your own question.

 

[Vambram]

Yet Trump pardoned a family member, and made him ambassador to France. (He gave pardon's out like candy to others) The hypocrisy is so obvious.

That man whom Trump pardoned did serve out the sentence of his crime. Hunter Biden did not.

 

[durangodawood]

So give us your definition of "good moral character". Or are you now goading me to answer your ambiguous post? It's against forum rules.

I'm "goading" you by explaining why youre perfectly equipped to answer the question?

I mean you said youre not ambiguous about what you think good moral character is. And the question is about what you think.

.......answer your own question.

Thats fair. Let me think about it a bit and I will answer.

I do think that, short of mind reading, we can get a sense of moral character from exhibited behavior. If not then we're forever locked out of judging peoples character in any case. Is that what you think?

 

[ThisIsMe123]

That man whom Trump pardoned did serve out the sentence of his crime. Hunter Biden did not.

Of course he served his time. Hes a criminal. Not sure why Trump would Pardon him.

Plus he's oddly giving our pardons like candy

 

[Vambram]

Of course he served his time. Hes a criminal. Not sure why Trump would Pardon him.

Plus he's oddly giving our pardons like candy

POTUS's have consistently been giving out pardons like candy.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Of course he served his time. Hes a criminal. Not sure why Trump would Pardon him.

Plus he's oddly giving our pardons like candy

POTUS's have consistently been giving out pardons like candy.

I googled and regrettably, there is no candy with a brand name "Pardon" .. that would have been funny.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

I googled and regrettably, there is no candy with a brand name "Pardon" .. that would have been funny.

Yeah even the January 6th criminals

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yeah even the January 6th criminals

There was some Canadian involvement in that, apologies.

Hoping that border security emphasis of Trump bears some decent fruit.

 

[durangodawood]

Nope. If you have a law degree then consider asking for a tuition refund. Since Merchan has repeated delayed sentencing, the criminal case is not over. Merchan cleverly blocked sentencing to prevent Trump from appealing ... I've posted all this before but as usual you just don't want to hear it.

The 10 Stages of a Criminal Case

If you have been arrested for a crime, you are at the beginning of what could become a long journey through the criminal justice system.

www.thoughtco.com

The 10 Stages of a Criminal Case​

Stages of a Criminal Case​

1. Arrest
2. Booking Process
3. Bail or Bond
4. Arraignment
5. Plea Bargaining
6. Preliminary Hearing
7. Pre-Trial Motions
8. Criminal Trial
9. Sentencing
10. Appeals Process

You are "convicted" if, at stage 8 in your list, the jury finds you guilty.

Thats what it says everywhere I look anyway.

 

[probinson]

You are "convicted" if, at stage 8 in your list, the jury finds you guilty.

Thats what it says everywhere I look anyway.

IANAL, and I don't really care one way or the other if people call Trump a "convicted felon", but here is one article that says Trump is not yet a convicted felon.

On May 30, 2024, Donald Trump pulled off a historic first: he became the first former president of the United States to be found guilty of felony crimes. However, it's inaccurate to say that he's a convicted felon at this time because, well, that's just not how the law was designed. While he's guilty in his infamous hush money trial, the "convicted felon" title is still pending.​

​

...​

​

Donald Trump's sentencing is set for July 11, 2024, just days before the Republican National Convention kicks off. So, we're in this strange limbo where he's guilty of felony crimes but not quite a convicted felon — at least not until he gets his official sentence. During sentencing, the judge will decide his fate, which could range from a slap on the wrist to time behind bars. Trump's crimes fall under the Class E felony category in New York, which is the lowest level of felony in the state. He could face a fine, probation, or up to four years in prison.​

​

Why Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon (Yet) - Nicki Swift

While a jury found him guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records, technically, former President Donald Trump isn't a convicted felon just yet.

www.nickiswift.com

​

Here is an article quoting a Yale law professor who also says that it is not accurate to call Trump a convicted felon.

Despite media reports, Rubenfeld insisted that it’s “not true” that Trump is already a “convicted felon,” arguing that one is “not a convicted felon because of a jury verdict.”​

​

“You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt. Now, in New York, it’s very likely that Judge Merchan will enter that judgment of guilt against Trump on the same day that he issues sentencing. That’d be July 11th.”​

​

Yale law professor says Trump isn’t a convicted felon despite guilty verdict — here’s why

Yale Law professor Jed Rubenfeld says there’s a way former President Donald Trump’s legal team could limit the impact of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case on the 2024…

nypost.com

​

 

[durangodawood]

IANAL, and I don't really care one way or the other if people call Trump a "convicted felon", but here is one article that says Trump is not yet a convicted felon.

On May 30, 2024, Donald Trump pulled off a historic first: he became the first former president of the United States to be found guilty of felony crimes. However, it's inaccurate to say that he's a convicted felon at this time because, well, that's just not how the law was designed. While he's guilty in his infamous hush money trial, the "convicted felon" title is still pending.​

​

...​

​

Donald Trump's sentencing is set for July 11, 2024, just days before the Republican National Convention kicks off. So, we're in this strange limbo where he's guilty of felony crimes but not quite a convicted felon — at least not until he gets his official sentence. During sentencing, the judge will decide his fate, which could range from a slap on the wrist to time behind bars. Trump's crimes fall under the Class E felony category in New York, which is the lowest level of felony in the state. He could face a fine, probation, or up to four years in prison.​

​

Why Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon (Yet) - Nicki Swift

While a jury found him guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records, technically, former President Donald Trump isn't a convicted felon just yet.

www.nickiswift.com

​

Here is an article quoting a Yale law professor who also says that it is not accurate to call Trump a convicted felon.

Despite media reports, Rubenfeld insisted that it’s “not true” that Trump is already a “convicted felon,” arguing that one is “not a convicted felon because of a jury verdict.”​

​

“You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt. Now, in New York, it’s very likely that Judge Merchan will enter that judgment of guilt against Trump on the same day that he issues sentencing. That’d be July 11th.”​

​

Yale law professor says Trump isn’t a convicted felon despite guilty verdict — here’s why

Yale Law professor Jed Rubenfeld says there’s a way former President Donald Trump’s legal team could limit the impact of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case on the 2024…

nypost.com

​

I keep looking up law dictionaries and they say youre "convicted" when youre found (or plead) guilty.

But like you, I dont talk about "convicted felon Trump" - even tho I think its valid to do so. Its just a distraction.

 

[probinson]

I keep looking up law dictionaries and they say youre "convicted" when youre found (or plead) guilty.

But like you, I dont talk about "convicted felon Trump" - even tho I think its valid to do so. Its just a distraction.

I know this isn't the topic of this thread, but since we're well and truly down the rabbit hole on Trump's conviction, I found this 23-minute video quite informative. This is from Professor Jed Rubenfeld, a Yale law professor and constitutional scholar, where he succinctly describes the serious constitutional questions surrounding the Trump trial in laymen's terms. I learned more about this trial from this 23-minute video than I have from months of reading about it in the news.

 

[durangodawood]

I know this isn't the topic of this thread, but since we're well and truly down the rabbit hole on Trump's conviction, I found this 23-minute video quite informative. This is from Professor Jed Rubenfeld, a Yale law professor and constitutional scholar, where he succinctly describes the serious constitutional questions surrounding the Trump trial in laymen's terms. I learned more about this trial from this 23-minute video than I have from months of reading about it in the news.

Very interesting. I knew some of this already, but not certain really salient opinions. This is why in many other threads here Ive already said I wish this case was not the big test, and that the "I need you to find the votes" one proceeded instead.

I will say, it would be interesting to hear the opposing opinion. I feel like Ive heard one sides compelling closing argument - where youre like "oh yeah youre totally right!"...... perhaps until you hear the other side.

 

[probinson]

Very interesting. I knew some of this already, but not certain really salient opinions. This is why in many other threads here Ive already said I wish this case was not the big test, and that the "I need you to find the votes" one proceeded instead.

I will say, it would be interesting to hear the opposing opinion. I feel like Ive heard one sides compelling closing argument - where youre like "oh yeah youre totally right!"...... perhaps until you hear the other side.

What I'd really like to see is for someone who disagrees with the points raised in this video to provide a rebuttal. I felt like this video was a very objective, non-partisan analysis of the case. But again, IANAL, so I'm certainly open to hearing another viewpoint that directly addresses the constitutional questions raised in this video. If you find any such thing, please let me know.

 

[JSRG]

This may be the most tortured explanation of a "lie" that I've ever heard.

How is it tortured? A lie is when you make statement believing it to be false with intend of tricking someone with it. (the desire to deceive someone is necessary for something to be a lie or else sarcasm or a fictional work would count as a lie even though there is no intent to deceive)

Thus, if you make a promise and break it, it is only a lie if at the time you gave the promise you intended to break it. Otherwise, it's not a lie. This isn't tortured, it's simple common sense.

The topic title accurately says "Biden goes back on his word" which is absolutely undeniable.

From post #17 in this thread.

The president has discussed pardoning his son with some of his closest aides at least since Hunter Biden’s conviction in June, said two people with direct knowledge of the discussions about the matter. They said it was decided at the time that he would publicly say he would not pardon his son even though doing so remained on the table.​

​

President Biden pardons his son Hunter Biden

The decision, which was first reported by NBC News, is a reversal for the president, who repeatedly said he would not use his authority to pardon his son or commute his sentence.

www.nbcnews.com

​

​

It was a lie.

This is of course assuming that these insider sources are accurate. Even these don't say he said he wouldn't pardon him while planning to pardon him (thereby not making any promises necessarily false), though there would at a minimum be intent to mislead.

 

[probinson]

This is of course assuming that these insider sources are accurate. Even these don't say he said he wouldn't pardon him while planning to pardon him (thereby not making any promises necessarily false), though there would at a minimum be intent to mislead.

Biden said, unequivocally, that he WOULD NOT pardon his son (multiple times) while fully intending to leave that possibility on the table. That, by any sensible definition of the word, is a lie.

 

[durangodawood]

What I'd really like to see is for someone who disagrees with the points raised in this video to provide a rebuttal. I felt like this video was a very objective, non-partisan analysis of the case. But again, IANAL, so I'm certainly open to hearing another viewpoint that directly addresses the constitutional questions raised in this video. If you find any such thing, please let me know.

Oh I agree. As of now Im convinced by his arguments. But I know this feeling and have felt it dashed before.