As promised during the campaign, President Donald Trump pardoned most of the rioters from January 6th soon after taking office. The scope of the pardon was greater than expected. Indeed, many of us opposed the inclusion of those who were convicted of violent crimes against police officers. However, one recipient quickly stood out in the group for her refusal to accept the pardon: Pamela Hemphill. The right to refuse a pardon is found not in the Constitution but in a curious line of case law treating the executive action as an offer requiring acceptance.
Ironically, Hemphill (called the “MAGA granny”) was the prototypical case cited by critics of what one of the leading Justice officials called the “shock and awe” campaign against those involved in the riot. Like many, she was convicted only of a misdemeanor for parading, demonstrating or picketing in the Capitol building. (Three other misdemeanors were dropped as part of a plea bargain).
She was still sentenced to two months in jail, three years of probation and a $500 fine to be paid into a fund.
Prosecutors cited her rhetoric in postings before January 6th and a picture holding a gun. She later said that a therapist changed her mind and she became a supporter of Kamala Harris.
Hemphill said that she viewed the pardon as belittling the attack and rewriting history.
Even those of us who expressed concerns over the handling of these cases agree with Hemphill that January 6th was a desecration of our constitutional process.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
However, the question is whether this sweeping power can be refused by the recipient. In my view, there is a strong basis for treating pardons as a one-way street. You do not have to agree with the pardon for a president to grant you the benefit of it. Pardons are a final failsafe in the criminal justice system, allowing presidents to correct what they view as a wrong in the treatment of individuals or groups. This view treats a pardon as an act in the public welfare or good, a view that I tend to favor.
Yet, in 1833, in the case of United States v. Wilson, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that this private act of grace
is a deed” which requires “delivery” and “delivery is not complete, without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.
The Court stressed that our pardon jurisprudence rests on English common law because the “[pardon] power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of [England] . . . [,] to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance.” In England, it was treated as a private agreement or act with the King. However, many have suggested that our rejection of a monarchy should militate in favor of a public purpose or public welfare view of the authority. Nevertheless, Marshall suggested that even a condemned person could refuse a pardon if it were conditional. In other words, a person could find that the “condition may be more objectionable than the punishment inflicted by the judgment.”
The Court reaffirmed Wilson in Burdick v. United States after President Woodrow Wilson pardoned a newspaper editor, George Burdick, who had refused to testify by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Wilson wanted Burdick to testify in a case and hoped that the pardon would bar the use of the privilege against self-incrimination.
Justice Joseph McKenna wrote the opinion that found that Burdick was entitled to reject the pardon for a number of reasons. In dicta, McKenna noted that a pardon is an implicit admission of guilt — a view that I have always rejected as fundamentally wrong. However, the Court emphasized that the Burdick pardon would have resulted in losing his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. That condition seemed to drive the decision.
The Court then muddled this area even further with a seemingly conflicting result a few years later in Biddle v. Perovich. In that case, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote for a unanimous Court that there was no consent required in commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment.
President Taft had reduced Vuco Perovich’s death sentence to life in prison. Perovich wanted a full pardon and challenged the change. The Court found that the president had the authority regardless of his opposition. The decision clearly rejects the view of Wilson in holding that a pardon is not a private act of grace.
I fall obviously closer to Biddle and view both Wilson and Burdick as deeply flawed, particularly the latter’s suggestion of implied guilt from a pardon.
Ironically, the implied guilt issue came up in another Trump pardon involving Clint Lorance who was convicted in the killing of two Afghan civilians. After Trump pardoned Lorance, he sought to continue to seek relief in challenging his conviction but the district court found, ala Burdick, that the pardon was an admission of guilt. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit correctly reversed the trial court and found no such admission.
Hemphill raises the reverse image of Lorance. She opposes the pardon because she feels that it removes or expunges her guilt.
The Hemphill pardon does not contain any conditions. However, this was not a commutation but a full pardon. It could be cited as a problem in refusing to testify on the underlying criminal acts (though Hemphill appears eager to discuss those acts). It does not appear to implicate other constitutional rights. (Notably, individuals are routinely compelled to testify with the grant of immunity).
I remain skeptical of the private act model in such cases. Yet, it is not a matter likely to be litigated. It is unlikely to arise without a fight over the privilege against self-incrimination. Frankly, I wish we could see a test case to allow the Court to revisit the underlying authority.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
This is semi on-topic with the discussion of pardons I read the following news an hour of so ago. This symbolizes the SEG that it put on my face 🙂 Trump may be powerless to revoke Biden’s pardons, but what he did here could be the ultimate anti-pardon where this particular individual is concerned. Maybe the subject would be well advised to move to Wuhan now.
Trump Terminates Fauci’s Security Detail
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-terminates-faucis-security-detail
“You can’t have a security detail for the rest of your life because you worked for government.”
“terminate with extreme prejudice” might have some applicability there.
Wrong.
Trump said he [Faucci] made a fortune and could pay for his own security.
He’d even recommend some companies to him.
Sad. First Trump lies about COVID. Then he lies about Fauci. Then Fox News rushes to bolster Trump’s lie. Then Trumptards believe Trump’s lie. The, Trumptards wish for Fauci’s death. Evil in America.
Democrats have not been this upset with a President of The United States since President Lincoln freed their slaves. At least Enigmainblahblah still loves the beatings you provide him. No doubt it is the highlight of your sexual fantasies
🔥🔥🔥
“Sad. First Trump lies about COVID”
Predictable. Another whimpering cowardly Anonymous Democrat pedophile acolyte of the Pedophile In Chief who just fled the White House, coming straight here from CNN to lie about Trump.
Nobody ever imagined THAT happening.
Trumptards?? You wish for Trumps death as seen by the quotes from the attempts on his life!
OMGeee! Dr Kevorkian you are so helpful!
😉
In so many ways, elites are taking away power from average Americans. These pardons from both Presidents are arrogant dismissals of jury authority. If you care about ordinary people wielding the power in this nation, I wouldn’t count on Trump to restore it, especially if it means constraints on his personal power. He’s a paragon of elitism. It’s sickening.
DEMS are the party of RICH ELITES., THEY CHOSE KAMALA!!
No, Trump is a bodyguard for the American people. He understands that is his role and acts accordingly. The true elites hate the American people whom they consider the great unwashed masses. Individual freedoms get in their way of global control. That’s why the deep state hates Trump so much and has spent the last 10 years trying to destroy him.
Have fun when the consequences of Trump’s Maoist/Stalinist national tariffs come snapping back.
Trump is a Marxist now that exceeds your usual inane blatherings by a light year. he’s going to use tariffs as a bargaining tool he always does that he always throws hand grenades first and then goes back down. well I like some Trump’s policies they are nowhere nearly what we need. European Union has been screwing us for years while we spend billions defending it like $200 in the Ukraine. we should pull our NATO should pull out of the UN and concentrate on the Pacific
Do you really know what a Marxist is?!?!?!? Watching Trump in NC and CA today, tells me he is a pragmatic patriot! Like him or not, can you really imagine Biden dealing with the issues that need to be addressed that will move our country forward?! We were living with a president that was sleepy, dull, and certainly not creative. He slowly gave away the morality and the heart of our people. Our future generations need someone who thinks forward. Let us be positive and wish this new President and his cabinet good luck and with that, a better future for our children!
MAGA media has done a wonderful job of convincing gullible people that Trump is a “man of the people” and Democrats are the “elites”. All smoke and mirrors. Trump exists to enrich himself, to get attention, adulation and power and will say and do anything to get what he wants. Just like he lied about Mexico building the “big beautiful wall”, he lied to get you gullibles to vote for him by taking advantage of concern over the cost of groceries. He had no idea how to bring down the cost of groceries, he didn’t care how many people died because of his lies about COVID, he doesn’t care that Ashli Babbitt died because of his lies. He made a fool of himself when speaking to the group at Davos.
“MAGA media has done a wonderful job of convincing gullible people ”
Crying, whining cowardly DemocratCommie who CNN convinced that the illegal “Trump-Russia Dossier” was verified… here hoping its audience will be just as gullible as it is.
Old Airborne Dog
DEMS tears flowing for the next 4,8,12,16 years???
* The true enemy has not yet been identified. It’s probably davos actors. It was meant to take the United States down to mule and roller carts. In this way new nations could rise up that had been kept down by the US and spread their brilliance worldwide.
I’m Purdy sure. Trump and team placed a challenge. Bets?
“In my view, there is a strong basis for treating pardons as a one-way street.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
The pardon is irrefutably “a one-way street.”
Rejection is not an option.
The pardon is granted by the president, not the convict or potential future convict, and must be processed by the judicial system as such.
A pardoned convict or potential future convict has no right to stay in jail, reject a return of fines, or perpetuate a criminal record.
If testimony is compelled by the pardon, the pardoned convict or potential future convict must testify.
Many claims, no substantiation = all hat, no cattle…
Turley is wrong on this issue.
He asserts:
“The Court then muddled this area even further with a seemingly conflicting result a few years later in Biddle v. Perovich. In that case, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote for a unanimous Court that there was no consent required in commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. … The decision clearly rejects the view of Wilson in holding that a pardon “is not a private act of grace.”
But this is a fallacious straw-man argument. It is attempting to refute the argument that “a pardon can be rejected” by injecting arguments about why “a commutation cannot be rejected”.
There is an enormous distinction between a pardon and a commutation.
And Turley even alludes to this when he, only four sentences later, he writes:
“The Hemphill pardon does not contain any conditions. However, this was not a commutation but a full pardon.”
As I understand them, a pardon effectively wipes the conviction (even though accepting one implies an admission of guilt of the underlying accusation) whereas, with a commutation, the conviction itself still stands and as such requires no admission of guilt by the recipient (implied or otherwise) since that is already an accepted matter of factual law — because the conviction remains intact.
There is also an exceedingly important reason a pardon is not, as Turley claims, a one-way-street. A pardon must require acceptance, and cannot be automatic, when in pursuing the accusation or conviction at issue the state commits, or has committed, a violation of the constitutional rights of the person being pardoned.
If, in the pursuit of a conviction, the state has violated the constitutional rights of the accused, that person has an equally important constitutional right to challenge the accusation/conviction.
Moreover, if a pardon is granted before a conviction is achieved through a trial, and if a pardon is indeed indeed “a one-way-street”, the pardon has clearly violated the constitutional right of the accursed to face his or her accusers in court. And yet, the pardon implies (at the very least, most people make the inference) an acceptance of guilt.
If we are to accept Turley’s claims then we would also have to accept the notion that POTUS, through his “pardoning prerogative”, has a constitutional right to violate the constitutional rights of the person he is pardoning. And that’s just stupendously NUTS.
Jonathan argues that Biden’s preemptive pardons of his family, Fauci, Millie et al, do not have to be accepted to be effective. Some of these pardons go back as far as 2014, and purport to exonerate them from any crimes against the US during that specified period that they might be persecuted for in the future. Using this logic, President Trump should immediately issue preemptive pardons to his entire executive branch, family, outside advisors, et al, and update them an a periodic basis during his administration as he deems necessary.
If a non-pardon case gets dismissed prior to trail does that violate their right to confront their accuser?
I’m not sure how that’s relent. If a case gets dismissed there is no case and no assumption of guilt applies. Nevertheless, up until 1981, in the Federal courts a private individual could bring a private criminal prosecution and some states still permit them. These were/are brought if the state refuses to prosecute or if the court dismisses the case outright. Moreover, If the dismissed case is civil there remains the possibility of confronting ones accuses, if the accusations are a lie, under tort law. It’s also possible, in some jurisdictions, to confront lying accusers in a criminal case under tort law notwithstanding the dismissal — the dismissal might have no bearing on the harm done to the accused by the lying accusers.
It is perfectly relevant to your argument.
The right to confron an accuser is at trial
no trial no right.
Private criminal prosecutions are still criminal prosecutions where a private party acts as prosecutor.
A conviction results in a criminal record and a criminal sentence.
I do not beleive that a Pardon has any effect on civil liability.
I am sorry, but several steps in your argument are assumptions and not facts. I am also pretty sure that you are wrong on several items not relevant to the argument.
I do not beleive that a pardon extinguishes the record of the investigation, prosevution and trial.
This was addressed right here requarding the Hunter Biden case.
Hunter and his lawyers argued that everything stops with the pardon.
But Weis pointed out and the court agreed that the records was not cleared and some things had to be completed.
That even though hunter was pardoned, that does not make the whole process that was completed as if it never happened.
The prosecutions occured, the Trial occured, witnesses testified, the jury decided, or Hunter plead – the judicial record of all this remains.
Hunter can not be sentenced, The government can not consider what he did or was convicted of, but the record remains.
If as an example other witnesses perjured themselves they can be prosecuted
The right to face your accuser is at trial – if there is no trial there is no right.
If someone accuses you of something, and the prosecutors refuse to go to trial – you have no right to confront your accuser.
There are differences between a pardon and a commutation – but none that require either to be accepted.
Clemancy is an order of the president to the federal government.
The person pardoned has no role.
A commutation directs government to alter the enforcement of a sentence.
A pardon directs governent to treat a parson as if they never committed the criminal acts alleged.
@ John Say “I do not beleive that a pardon extinguishes the record of the investigation, prosevution and trial.” Yes. And nothing I wrote suggested it does.
You write: “A pardon directs governent to treat a parson as if they never committed the criminal acts alleged.”
Which is essentially what I wrote:
“As I understand them, a pardon effectively wipes the conviction (even though accepting one implies an admission of guilt of the underlying accusation) whereas, with a commutation, the conviction itself still stands and as such requires no admission of guilt by the recipient (implied or otherwise) since that is already an accepted matter of factual law — because the conviction remains intact.”
With a pardon, as you say, the state is simply directed by POTUS “to treat a person as if they never committed the criminal acts alleged.” This “wipes the conviction”, but is does not wipe the trial record. And I made no claim it does. On the other hand a commutation has no effect on the conviction. Rather, it simply removes the sentencing burden on the convicted. So, on this point, I don’t see what you complaint is.
Sixth Amendment:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
If POTUS preempts this by way of a pardon before a trial begins, or during a trial and before a judgement is rendered, POTUS has, assuming the pardon authority is a “one-way-street” such that the one pardoned cannot reject it in favor of a trial to “prove” his or her innocence of the alleged crime — as Turley, and evidently you claim — POTUS has violated that person’s 6th Amendment rights.
The point is this, if you feel you are innocent of a crime and have been besmirched by the state’s accusations against you, unless you can reject a pardon, if one is extended, you have no recourse to prove your innocence.
And proving your innocence is the essence of the rights enumerated in the 6th Amendment.
You claim: “if there is no trial there is no right. If someone accuses you of something, and the prosecutors refuse to go to trial – you have no right to confront your accuser.”
But there is a big difference between a prosecutor dropping charges and not prosecuting you for some alleged crime and POTUS giving you a pardon.
In the former, at least you have the option to sue the state and prosecutor (unlawful arrest etc.) and, in so doing, introduce evidence that shows your innocence.
In the latter you have no such recourse against POTUS’s act of Pardon. And this is one reason why a person must have the natural right to reject such a pardon.
I neglected to mention that what I’m referent here has a bearing on pardons that are done for malicious reasons.
There is much talk, among the MAGA crowd that the Biden’s pardons have a “silver lining” in that now those pardoned do not have recourse to the 5th amendment if called to testify before a Grand Joury or some congressional hearing — with the idea that they cannot then be untruthful regarding their conduct, and if they do lie, then they face the penalties of perjury.
And there is no reason POTUS couldn’t issue a pardon for just such a strategy in a case where he is fearful some political enemy might “get off” at trial. Turely even alluded to this in his December 9, 2024 article “Pardon Envy: Democrats Vie to Make the Biden Pardon List”.
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/12/09/pardon-envy-democrats-vie-to-make-the-biden-pardon-list/
He wrote:
“A white-knight pardon can also work when you are protecting someone who does not want to be saved. That is the case with a Trump pardon. Such a pardon is absolutely not needed and would constitute the most hostile pardon in history. The federal cases against Trump are effectively dead.”
But suppose such cases against Trump had not been “effectively dead.” In that case, it would have been prudent for Biden to pardon Trump so as to circumvent any potentiality of a “win” at trial (many of us felt the smart money was on a Trump win, at least on appeal) and likewise remove Trump’s 5th Amendment rights in the fashion the MAGA crowd is now discussing.
There is no way in hell Trump would have wanted that. And he would have undoubtedly rejected such an offer of pardon. But, according to Turley, pardons are a one-way-street and cannot be rejected.
Moreover, if I recall correctly, “Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79” (1915) was one such case. Two editors of the New York Tribune, George Burdick and William L. Curtin, wanted to refuse a pardon from Woodrow Wilson. Both men were in contempt of court for refusing to disclose a source for an article. Both men plead their 5th Amendment right and refused to reveal their source. Burdick was fined and sent to jail. So Wilson issued each a pardon with the notion that they could then no longer rely on their 5th Amendment right and would be forced to reveal the source
Thankfully SCOTUS agreed with Burdick, who had appealed his sentence and fine, and ruled that, for several reasons, a person offered a pardon could indeed reject it.
As I understand it, Burdick was desirous of a trial so he could assert his 1st Amendment rights regarding the confidentiality of newspaper sources and the pardon stymied that.
I neglected to mention that what I’m referencing here would usually (but not always) only have a bearing on pardons that are done for malicious reasons.
There is much talk, among the MAGA crowd, that Biden’s pardons have a “silver lining” in that now those pardoned do not have recourse to the 5th amendment if called to testify before a Grand Joury or some congressional hearing — with the idea that they cannot then be refuse to testify. If their testimony is untruthful regarding their conduct for which they were pardoned, then they face the penalties of perjury.
And there is no reason POTUS couldn’t issue a pardon for just such a strategy in a case where he is fearful some political enemy might “get off” at trial. Turely even alluded to this in his December 9, 2024 article “Pardon Envy: Democrats Vie to Make the Biden Pardon List”.
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/12/09/pardon-envy-democrats-vie-to-make-the-biden-pardon-list/
He wrote:
“A white-knight pardon can also work when you are protecting someone who does not want to be saved. That is the case with a Trump pardon. Such a pardon is absolutely not needed and would constitute the most hostile pardon in history. The federal cases against Trump are effectively dead.”
But suppose such cases against Trump had not been “effectively dead.” In that case, it would have been prudent for Biden to pardon Trump so as to circumvent any potentiality of a “win” at trial (many of us felt the smart money was on a Trump win, at least on appeal) and likewise remove Trump’s 5th Amendment rights in the fashion the MAGA crowd is now discussing regarding the Biden pardons.
There is no way in hell Trump would have wanted that. And he would have undoubtedly rejected such an offer of pardon. But, according to Turley, pardons are a one-way-street and cannot be rejected.
Moreover, if I recall correctly, “Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79” (1915) was one such case. Two editors of the New York Tribune, George Burdick and William L. Curtin, wanted to refuse a pardon from Woodrow Wilson. Both men were in contempt of court for refusing to disclose a source for an article. Both men plead their 5th Amendment right and refused to reveal their source. Burdick was fined and sent to jail. So Wilson issued each a pardon with the notion that they could then no longer rely on their 5th Amendment right and would be forced to reveal the source.
Thankfully SCOTUS agreed with Burdick, who had appealed his sentence and fine, and ruled that, for several reasons, a person offered a pardon could, indeed, reject it.
As I understand it, Burdick was desirous of a trial so he could assert his 1st Amendment rights regarding the confidentiality of newspaper sources and the pardon stymied that.
Poor baby, cry me some crocodile tears…
You reap what you sow
“My Wife Is A Nurse & Was Recently Hired By The VA. Our Home Is Packed Up, We Have A New Home, Have Spent Thousands To Move Our Family From Ft. Worth To Waco! Following Trump’s Hiring Freeze EO, VA Rescinded Her Job Offer! My Wife Is In Tears & Inconsolable & My Family Is Devastated! It Has Been My Wife’s Dream To Work With Needy Disabled Veterans. I’m A Disabled Vet! Now Our Family Is Lost With No Clear Path Of What To Do. Her Job Was Two Start In Two Weeks (Right After We Settle In) WE ARE ALL HUGE TRUMP SUPPORTERS & I KNOW THIS WAS AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.
I’m Sure Veteran’s Medical Care Professionals Were NOT The Target Of This EO!
Please Help Me Get This Message To The @WhiteHouse So The President Can Fix This Error! Veterans Need Not Be Effected Because Of Out Of Control Government Spending Elsewhere! Please Help RETWEET THIS SO
@realDonaldTrump Is Made Aware!”
Eliminate the incoherent, convoluted, and incompetent VA.
Provide Blue Cross Blue Shield healthcare coverage or a reasonable facsimile for eligible veterans.
Period.
Full stop.
I’m 64, all I do each year is a check and a blood panel, but I’m paying $10,000 this year for Blue Cross Blue Shield health care. And you’re advocating going from a screwed up system to a total financial cluster f*** system. Trump supporters are as dumb as it gets.
Ah nope.
Obama’sACA did that.
PBMs should be revamped or removed.
If you’re paying $10K for BCBS, you’re a complete idiot.
Whom did you upset?
They could send you down to Kaiser in Compton.
The CEO of health care institutions love your idea. They can overcharge, become billionaires, and donate money to trump for a 3rd term.
Tell your Repo Representatives of your plan, tell them its ok if they take campaign contributions and pocket some of the money as well.
At least they provide healthcare while the VA provides bizarre obfuscation and convoluted delay.
Vets spend more time on hold than with a qualified doctor.
Trump did the same thing to law school graduates who turned down private practice jobs and accepted government jobs to get experience in areas like tax, labor law and finance. Now they’re screwed. Trump has NO plan and couldn’t care less who gets hurt by his knee-jerk policies. He ordered the CDC to stop sending out the “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report” that health departments depend on to track communicable disease trends.
* No doubt Trump thinks the j6 parades and rioters were treated with lawfare as Trump supporters. For justice he pardoned them. Take it or leave it.
Pardons are by grace.
Freedom of speech is an endowed state of being. It’s not negotiable. The 5th does not imply guilt. Keep a watch out for a simple twist of fate. A pardon can be granted and a person retains freedom of speech in truth.
If you are a trump supporter and have cancer, or your loved one has cancer. I truly hope you or they die a miserable painful death. You voted for this BS, reap the rewards…
Trump’s cancellation of NIH grant review panels, as Forbes reports, includes the $7.1 billion annual budget for the National Cancer Institute: “of which more than $3 billion a year is allocated directly towards research for the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of cancer, which causes over 600,000 deaths in the U.S. every year.” The NCI supports 72 different cancer centers.
Anonymous – It may be that spending money on cancer research is not the best use of the money. Cancer is a fearful and powerful disease. Nixon announced our “war on cancer” in 1971. Trillions of dollars later, we are still losing the war. Money spent on other diseases might save more lives.
Edward, you said a mouthful of truth. Your cowardly little anonymous detractor is full of shit and everyone but him knows it. Actually I think he knows it too.
Truth? Yea, I’m sure Edward is smarter than the people doing cancer research.
if you voted for trump, I hope your wife and children get cancer and suffer a terrible death. You can watch them and remind them that don’t worry honey, I voted for trump so he could heal you. That should console them.
Edward, you said a mouthful of truth there my friend. Your cowardly anonymous detractor is full of s—t and everyone knows it, including him.
“…spending money on cancer research is not the best use of the money…”
Total BS. Go read up on the incredible immunity therapies discovered in the past 10 years in cancer research which can be deployed for most other diseases.
The remit is for 10 days (feb 2), clown.
MAY YOU GO FIRST!
In deep-blue New Jersey, Trump is more popular than their Democrat governor:
https://www.mediaite.com/news/nj-poll-reveals-trump-more-popular-than-democratic-gov-phil-murphy/
“With the DEI tide quickly going out, journalist John LeFevre pointed out there are “now thousands of unemployed DEI ‘experts’…”
LeFevre continued:
They have useless degrees, minimal skills, wildly unrealistic salary expectations and delusionally-high opinions of themselves.
These people are unemployable.
They’re toxic, bad energy, team-killers, and walking lawsuits.
And the NGOs and academia are getting dismantled next… so they can’t even find a home there.
A couple of them can join KJP at Jennifer Rubin’s new media empire, “run it back” with Kamala 2028 using the same playbook, or grift off of whatever retarded endeavor Steve Jobs’ widow or Reid Hoffman funds next…”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/great-dei-purge-trump-corporate-america-could-leave-thousands-dei-experts-unemployed
wildly unrealistic salary expectations
Probably because so many were pulling in north of $500K in their prior jobs, ruining whatever corporation they were employed by.
There must be historic, colossal DEI and Affirmative Action REPARATIONS for every actual American who was denied university admission, employment, or contract due to his race, gender, or disability dating back to the outset of the implementation of wholly unconstitutional communist social engineering.
JFK’s Executive Order 10925, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), LBJ’s Civil Rights Act, and Executive Order 11246 Rehabilitation Act, and Richard Nixon’s Rehabilitation Act, from 1961-73, must be abrogated and extirpated with extreme prejudice as irrevocably unconstitutional.
I have the solution to the citizen at birth issue. Make special birthing rooms for illegal interlopers at every hospital in America receiving federal benefits. This area of rooms would be designated as an open border port and thereby not legally be defined as within the United States. Juan and Maria could have a healthy baby and be on their way as one happy united illegal family. See how simple solutions are…
I have a better solution, eugenics for everyone 21 and older who can’t pass a basic algebra test. There goes ½ the Dems and 9/10ths of Trump’s base.
In four years you have lost the House, the Senate, and the presidency. You also lost Roe v. Wade along the way. You are depressed that it might be harder to murder innocent pre-born babies. It hurts, I know. But welcome to reality.
Roe v. Wade never existed licitly.
The decision by the Supreme Court of 1973 was a deliberate act of corruption for which concurring justices must have paid a dear price.
Abortion has always been a matter of state legislation, per the Constitution.
Abortion has always been homicide, as the embryos and fetuses fight the mother’s white cells to survive, proving it’s not, “My body, my choice,” it’s a separate human being’s body, the greatest desire of which is to live and grow.
They don’t care about any of that. All they care about is the result. They got the result they wanted in 1973, and then their candy was taken away in 2022. They cry themselves to sleep every night thinking about how awful it is that more babies can’t be ripped limb from limb.
Wow, that’s not a bad idea Annoyingus and the selflessness you offer up is amazing. Willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the betterment of our nation.
Thank you!
Love it!!
All of the Trumpsters in these comments support the pardoning of all those convicted over the Jan 6th riots. Simple. Committing violence in Trump’s name is no crime.
^^ Idiot never heard of prosecutorial overreach 😂
Interesting that no Trump supporter here has denied it.
Yes they have, many times over.
Where’s the denial? You aren’t denying it.
A peaceful assembly became a riot when police summarily and without warning attacked the people and caused collateral damage to their own colleagues. The denial of civil rights and nationwide witch hunts were consistent with the lawless treatment of people that day, which with the exclusion and destruction of evidence could only be resolved with a dismissal of charges with prejudice or a pardon.
You got that exactly right. The most basic things are, for some reason, impossible for Democrats to understand.
No, that is a straight up lie.
“I broke the law cuz the policeman told me to turn back… waaaaaaaaaaaaaa.”
Thank you.
There was no “peaceful assembly”. You don’t wear a flak vest or carry bear spray to a”peaceful protest”.
Those were the ones that had been Boy Scouts GooGoo. You know, always be prepared in case someone shoots you with rubber bullets or sprays you with hot sauce as you peacefully assemble in THE PEOPLES HOUSE to object to a stolen election rife with fraud. Alas, the Orange Man pardoned those among us that had the patriotic wherewithal to stand and a wrong is on course to be righted. God Bless America!
And this is OK with you MAGA supporters?
What happens when they come for you?
Newark Mayor Ray Baraka said ICE officials detained undocumented residents as well as citizens during a raid on a business, without producing a warrant. One of the people detained, Baraka said, was a U.S. military veteran “who suffered the indignity of having the legitimacy of his military documentation questioned.”
I am OK with it! Carry on, ICE!
The bad guys are getting the message. Border patrol encounters at the southern border are down a whopping 90% (4,000 to 400 per day) compared to the Biden admin. I’m OK with it too.
The cartel money machine just got seriously damaged! I wonder if fentanyl importation levels will follow the same trend. A win win for America! You would think that the father of a drug addict would have made that a priority issue!
Just wait till the national tariffs kick in and the country teeters toward recession and even a depression.
Trump supporter response: No it won’t cuz Trump is smarter than the economists and he became an expert in finance cuz he learned when he catastrophically bankrupted his companies 6 times from the 1980s to 2009.
So what do you suppose happens when a country operates without a budget, racks up $37 Trillion in debt and operates with a $2Trillion deficit ? You’re worried about tariffs? Inflation was historically controlled through prime interest rates to banks, with a $37T national debt they can no longer afford to raise the rate without shooting themselves in the foot. Tariffs level the trade markets and provide a way to remove liquidity out of the market. Go count your $6M in your Roth account.
Go look up how Trump bankrupted his companies 6 times over the span of 20 years, last one in 2009. The moron thinks if you make a huge splash the money will roll in. The details don’t matter. It never worked and it won’t work now. You can manufacture all the BS logic you want to support tariffs because Trump said so. If Trump said tariffs were awful and we need free markets you’d be singing that tune. The fact is, only two large economies in the past century have enacted national tariffs: China under Mao and the USSR under Stalin. How’d that go? Tariff is a communist’s favorite word.
“Trump bankrupted his companies …, last one in 2009.”
Your knowledge and understanding of complex business projects are severely lacking, leaving you with stale and useless talking points that represent an ignorant position involving Donald Trump’s businesses. Suffice it to say. Donald Trump is a billionaire, and you are not, probably being relegated to living off of social security or a job that will not leave you with much upon retirement.
Since Donald Trump had no significant control of the company at that time, why are you blaming him for the 2009 bankruptcy? Why aren’t you blaming Mark Juliano and others?
If you own a few dollars of stock in a company and it fails, is that company’s failure your fault? Blaming that on you, when the entire industry was in a downturn, is a foolish decision.
The following year, 2010, the company successfully emerged from bankruptcy.
Note: This fool constantly makes meaningless, superficial points, reiterating them repeatedly, dragging the discussion into the gutter. He is too devoid of character to have an alias.
“. . . a U.S. military veteran ‘who suffered . . .'”
Gee, I wonder why that was necessary.
Could it be because Newark is a sanctuary city?
Homan warned that when local politicians protect criminal immigrants, that they were endangering the innocent.
Are you serious??
…the indignity of having the legitimacy of his military documentation questioned.
His ID was questioned.
Oh, my….how dare they!
* The origin of grace–> it falleth like dew (rain) from the heavens.
Some comments from CJ Marshall .. I suppose one must understand grace and its child mercy aren’t bargaining chips. Hemphill never bargained for the grace. She bargained for the misdemeanor charge. There was nothing asked of her to receive it. One cannot bargain with the rain. She suffers nothing for receiving it and one would need to rethink the justice in demanding her her freedom of silence was taken for the grace given
You’re all wrong. I shall bargain with the wind today.
😂
Terry, What color is the wind?
Why it’s Blew of course…
South Park – 2015
And why not?
One local Republican group in Tennessee decided to promote its reading list of recommended books by including a quote from Adolf Hitler.
Oh no, not Hitler! How could they?!
Don’t you think people should read Mien Kampf or learn about the Red Terror and what happened to the Russian Czar and his family so they would better understand what occurred leading up to WW2?
FWIW, a State Department manual on citizen births. I think this is what I saw at Free Republic several months ago:
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_6
Here is the parent site, with more links:
https://fam.state.gov/search?query=petitioner%27s%20birth%20certificate&filter=CHAPTERTITLE%7CU.S.%20CITIZENSHIP
* 2021? Bureaucrat additions?
Just print one up and fill it in. Same for naturalization papers.
Well anyway, this answers my question about why not just get a passport and visa etc. The applicant must read, write and speak English.
Long way around to answer that.
It’s mildly interesting that Harris and Obama returned to the US to claim their citizenship before age 18.
It’s over and done. Best wishes, Floyd, and the rest…
C yall.
For anybody wanting to see a REAL American at work, see this fascinating video. I do not know what this dude’s politics are, and do not care. He is taking care of business!
Taking shelter from the rain, Floyd?
I wish I was that young, and healthy. I have built some things out of pallets – a couple of chairs, and a book case. I have used pallet wood in other projects around the house, like computer carts. Currently, I have 4 pallets behind the porch. I was going to buy a pallet-busting device from Amazon, but it was $70, and then Hemingway had to go to the vet.
But if I had it to do all over, I could live in a pallet house. Heck, I lived in what was basically a shed for 7 years and was quite content. Hey, a roof over your head is a roof over your head.
Plus, here is the inside:
Not sure what happened to my comment.
So I was asking about the ability to sue the State and Prosecution for violating their rights.
Since many were coerced to take a plea deal, they lost their right to appeal. Unless they can argue ineffective counsel, they are SoL.
But here’s the thing.
Malicious prosecution.
1) Over charged them. (SCOTUS found that one of the charges was unconstitutional as used.)
2) Withheld exculpatory evidence.
Here they provided some video evidence of what took place on J6th. Yet there was more evidence that showed what happened inside the Capitol.
The prosecution knew the video existed, yet didn’t ask for it or was denied because of the national security claim. (Yet Congress had access to it and it was later provided to them. ) [Pelosi could have asked for the videos but didn’t. ]
I wish Turley would write an article on this..
-G
A very interesting question. With the sheer number of people who were overcharged and mistreated by the Biden DOJ, I think there will be attempts to get compensation, so perhaps we will get an answer.
(OT)
The “51 Spies Who Lied” are losing their security clearances.
That, alone, is worth the price of the election.
Nah.
Watching Brennan cry about it?
Priceless.
Now he’s no longer a valuable commentator for MSNBC or one of the other channels.
But this is really a side show.
-G
In the end it’s telling who has accepted and who has refused. Many of us have know this the entire time. Admissions of guilt by proxy are still admissions of guilt, and it wont absolve anyone going forward, even if justice comes through disclosure rather than time served. We deserve to know, and thus far our suspicions have only been confirmed.
We have had the equivalent of the Marxist mafia running our country for nigh on 16 years, and we all know it. The lies will not work anymore. They just won’t.
2021: Dems have presidency and both houses of Congress. They also have Roe v. Wade.
2025: Dems have lost presidency and both houses of Congress. They also lost Roe v. Wade.
I think the above helps explain why they are in such a “blue state,” which in turn helps explain why they show up here to litter this comment section with so many gripes and inanities.
“Dems” didn’t “lose” Roe v. Wade. A rogue SCOTUS, comprised of 4 members who LIED during their confirmation by claiming that Roe was settled law, reversed a ruling that found the right to abortion to the age of fetal viability was protected under the Constitution. Three of these rogue judges were appointed by someone who not only lost the popular vote, but who CHEATED to get into office with the help of Russian hackers. It is outrageous for American people to lose a Co;nstitutional right based on lies.
In 2024, a fat orange man LIED to the American people about having the power to bring down grocery prices “immediately”, and that was a driving factor for numerous voters who would not have otherwise voted for him. The high cost of groceries is due partly to supply chain issues, but also the lingering effects of his first term in office in which he left the country with the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The fat orange man’s “victory” was with LESS THAN half the popular vote and with one of the slimmest margins in recent history–1.48%. He lies about having a “mandate”, and has a less than 50% approval rating–which keeps going down.
These are facts–you MAGAs keep trying to portray Democrats as “losers”, but your candidate is a pathological LIAR, a dangerous narcissist and someone who displays his ignorance day after day.
^^ This is exactly what I was talking about. I understand why they do this.
BBBBBUUUUTTTTT…. MUH ROGUE SCOTUS REVERSED MUH INVISIBLE SCOTUS DEMOCRAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A TAXPAYER FUNDED ELECTIVE BIRTH CONTROL ABORTION!!!!!!
Democrat emanations and penumbras, emanations and penumbras….
Well, of course. After all of Biden’s disasters of failed economic policies, no one, no one, could reverse that in one day. As I have stated here before, it will take years if not a decade to fix Biden’s mess.
Here, just take a look for yourself, Biden’s Blemish: Wages Haven’t Kept Up With Inflation
https://www.statista.com/chart/33790/nominal-and-real-wage-growth-in-the-united-states/
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/33790.jpeg
Note the source of the data is the BLS.
White House sends Marines to the southern border
“Promise Made –> Promise KEPT!” the White House posted on X.
https://justthenews.com/government/security/white-house-announces-it-has-sent-marines-southern-border
More MAGA winning!!!!
Absolutely, Promises kept.
Ukraine war continues
Egg prices are higher.
Birthright citizenship continues.
^^ Brain dead comment of the day ^^
“MEXICO WILL PAY TO BUILD THE WALL.”
“Grocery prices will come down very quickly.”
But Democrats are losers. As long as you have woke, progressive leftists in the Democrat party, they will continue to be losers. Why? Woke leftists are stupid and crazy. Sane and normal traditional Democrats want you off their side and out of their party. As long as you are part of the Democrat party, they will continue to be losers. Dont believe me? Bill Maher has been calling you out for years. Sane and normal Democrats think you in your TDS fever are toxic to their party. They want you out. I dont blame them. That is just a fact.
Gigi:
(1) SCOTUS nominees did NOT “lie” about Roe v. Wade. It WAS “settled law,” for a few decades.
—Just like Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law for nearly 90 YEARS, until SCOTUS overruled it with Brown v. Bd. of Ed. As a self-declared lawyer, you should know that. I can cite for you several more examples of SCOTUS overruling prior “settled lawAAAAA” if you would like, but you said you were a lawyer, so….Again, and your point was???
(2) Nor does blaming Trump for the COVID “worst economic depression” stand up to truth. Here’s some facts on that:
“The Great Depression was likely the largest and longest slump in economic activity in U.S. history, though records for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are sketchy…but some rough comparisons based on various measures of economic activity are possible.” https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2020/august/comparing-the-covid-19-recession-with-the-great-depression
Also, take a look at the charts in this: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/tale-three-depressions
So, tell me again, who is telling the “lies” here????????????
(3) Likewise, your comment today about tariffs: Gigi, did it ever occur to you that when Trump says “China will pay,” he may be speaking figuratively and not literally? Instead of relying on Wiki and Google, you need to learn something about economics. I can tell that you lifted your short-known information from these sources just by what you have said.
I have prepared a response for the next time you try to ad lib about this. Since it is OT and several paragraphs, I don’t want to pull a John Say on you and I will hold it in my back pocket until then.
(4) You frequently and repeatedly refer to Trump as the “fat” man. You do seem to have a hang-up over weight.
You also often refer to him as “that fat, old man.” (although younger than Biden by what, 5+ years?) You do seem to have a hang-up about age. From your hang-ups, I am able to adduce/deduce some things about you…..but what I don’t know is why you are so intense in your vitriol? Trump. Trump. Trump. Trump. Trump. Did you lose your lawyer job because of him? Did you lose your nurse job because of him? My inquiring mind wants to know….
I am not afraid to sign in for this responsive comment. yours truly, lin.
Lin: I listen to interviews with Nobel prize winners in economics who say Trump doesn’t have a clue about tariffs. The party who orders goods pays the tariff upon delivery—not the manufacturer—not the country of origin. The only people who will be hurt by Trump Tariffs are the American people because the cost will be passed on to us. Trump isn’t punishing Canada, Mexico or China. He doesn’t understand this basic concept and when an idea gets stuck in his head, it stays there.
Why do I comment about Trump and his appearance? Because that’s exactly what he does and what MAGA media does. Yesterday that cackling axxhole Gutfeld went after Bishop Budde for daring to ask for mercy for migrants. Gutfeld commented that Trump was improving his vitriol because he didn’t comment about how “ugly” she is. If MAGA can insult a Bishop for seeking mercy for frightened people, Trump’s obesity, baldness, and general ridiculous appearance are fair.
There is no comparison between Plessy and Roe—none. Society hasn’t changed, shared values haven’t changed since Rie was decided. and most Americans support the right to abortion up to the age of fetal viability. Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett all said Roe was settled law and that they would honor stare decided. They lied. They were nominated by The Federalist Society specifically to overturn Roe. And Trump, who nominated them, did lose the popular vote and did collaborate with Russian hackers to spread lies about Hillary Clinton. It is outrageous for women to lose a Constitutional right like this.
If Trumps tariffs are so bad, why did Biden keep them? And then add even more?
UF (hope you don’t mind the abbreviation), that just can’t be true.
In 2019, biden said…
“Trump doesn’t get the basics. He thinks his tariffs are being paid by China,” Biden said at the time. “Any freshman econ student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs.”
Well…I looked it up….
But now, not only is Biden keeping those Trump-era tariffs in place, he actually is building on them.
It’s true that Biden’s new tariffs on $18 billion worth of Chinese imports are narrowly focused on a few strategic industries. At a Rose Garden event unveiling the new actions, Biden touted it as a “smart approach” to target goods such as electric vehicles, solar cells, steel, aluminum and certain medical equipment.
But he is maintaining many of the broad-based tariffs from the Trump-era that he was once highly critical of.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-slammed-trumps-china-tariffs-now-building-analysis/story?id=110234482
May I ask a question? Does your name refer to Upstate New York? If so, what areas of NY are included in Upstate? My son lives in the Finger Lakes area — so beautiful and the people are wonderful. I’ve had people tell me it is Upstate, but also that it’s Western NY not Upstate. This is just to satisfy my curiosity.
Please just ignore if you don’t want to answer. Thank you.
Wait….that gigi wacko claims to be a lawyer???
No.way…..bwahahahahahahahahaha….
Sorry, very uncharitable of me, but….hahahahahahahahahaha….
Abortions are regulated under state homicide laws. Elective abortion is premeditated murder after six weeks. It is a hate crime from conception with Loving.
Reality plays no role in your comments, but of course, you already know that.
There’s no semicolon in Constitutional.