Quote:

---

If trump/Republicans were to investigate matters, wouldn't these people be compelled to speak?

---

Answer in this thread:


https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3523492

Who?mikejones! said:

---

If trump/Republicans were to investigate matters, wouldn't these people be compelled to speak?

---

Yes, they, the pardoned, may be compelled to speak to Congress but their efforts would be diminished if not thwarted by the Democrats. The energy to get through the congressional investigations would be huge and those efforts should be focused on more productive efforts.

I believe the hope is that with the new administration skulduggery would be revealed by IG investigations conducted by the new bosses and not involve the Congress or courts unless and until some bad actors can be charged. Nothing wrong with destroying the left by going after secondary bad actors who remain in the govt.

Ag In Ok said:

---

This should be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. 8,000+ get out of jail + stay out of jail free cards isn't American.

---

That's the thing - the Court has already ruled multiple times on pardons. I suppose it's possible that the current Court might come to a different decision, but I don't think they'd want to touch it.

An indirect way to flush things out would be to open an inquiry into war profiteering in general.

HTownAg98 said:

---

richardag said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

richardag said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Do these pardons eliminate the potential to try these people even though they are pardoned?

---

Yes. The defendant would file immediate motion to Dismiss. There would be no trial.

Congress MUST get these people to testify!

---

Motion to dismiss on what grounds?
Thanks in advance for an explanation.

---

On the grounds that they have been pardoned by the President. You present the pardon to the court, and the judge dismisses the case.

---

I guess I will forever not understand.

• A trial is to determine guilt or innocence of breaking the law.
• A pardon is given to exempt people from punishment.

IANAL so forgive my failure to connect those two distinctly different actions listed above. I am sure someone will redefine what a pardon is.

---

If they can't be punished, there's no point of holding a trial. It's as if the charge goes away in the eyes of the court. Look at the Michael Flynn case. He was pardoned before he went to trial after he reversed his guilty plea, and the case was dismissed.

---

I still do not understand. One of the points of a trial is proof, in the eyes of the law, guilt or innocence. I consider this a significant point. It shows the citizens of this country whether a crime was committed and who was responsible.
The sentencing provides accountability and is the punishment in the eyes of the law.
Again, IANAL and will never understand why or what reasons can allow a case to be dismissed because of a pardon.
A pardon unduly tips the scale in direct opposition to determining the truth.
I accept that you're correct as to what will prevail but will never understand.

FJB

Claude! said:

---

Distasteful, but probably legal. The President's pardon power is pretty pervasive (I was going to say far-reaching, but I like alliteration). The Constitution puts two limits on it - the offense must be against the United States (i.e., the President can't pardon a state crime) and the President cannot pardon impeachments (which is not an issue here).

In Ex Parte Garland (1866), the Supreme Court stated that pardons can be granted prior to charges being brought (or by extension even known) and, subject to the above constitutional limits, the pardon power is plenary and not really subject to legislative or judicial review. Given that there's no constitutional requirement for specificity on the pardon, it likely can be a get out of jail free card.

---

In the history of our nation have subsequent Supreme Courts reinterpreted previous Supreme Court rulings?

The pardon is the hall pass of all hall passes to freedom from crimes and will never be rescinded.

If I was Trump or somebody with enough influence in Congress, I would now immediately order some kind of an investigation into what unknown crimes may have been committed by anybody who received a preemptive pardon without even being under investigation under the guise of "transparency" or that "the people should know" or "we can learn from this" or "they may have other unpardoned conspirators" or whatever.

Also if I was a ******** (ie typical unscrupulous politician) I'd also make sure the final report found all kinds of nonsense and then just say, "geez too bad these folks got pardoned, we cant punish them since they were pardoned, but also no need to like have them demand a trial to clear their reputation or face their accusers either, since it'd be pointless"

bobbranco said:

---

The pardon is the hall pass of all hall passes to freedom from crimes and will never be rescinded.

---

I never said a pardon should be rescinded.

I understand. Not my intention to put words in your mouth. Only stating that pardons will not be rescinded.

IMO Trump needs to send the Democrats a stern message that if they start any investigation or attempt to make any charges against people in his administration or supporters he will issue a pardon for them before they even get started. The precedent is set and if that's the way Democrats want this to be then so be it.

Quote:

---

If they can't be punished, there's no point of holding a trial. It's as if the charge goes away in the eyes of the court. Look at the Michael Flynn case. He was pardoned before he went to trial after he reversed his guilty plea, and the case was dismissed.

---

WTH are you talking about? Flynn wasn't pardoned before he went to trial after Sidney reversed his guilty plea. Bill Barr moved to dismiss the charges because they were BS. It was the judge who became the A-hole who refused to dismiss the case, after being told TWICE by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss the case.

And that same freakin' judge, Sullivan, is still sentencing Jan 6ers for years for trespassing.

richardag said:

---

Claude! said:

---

Distasteful, but probably legal. The President's pardon power is pretty pervasive (I was going to say far-reaching, but I like alliteration). The Constitution puts two limits on it - the offense must be against the United States (i.e., the President can't pardon a state crime) and the President cannot pardon impeachments (which is not an issue here).

In Ex Parte Garland (1866), the Supreme Court stated that pardons can be granted prior to charges being brought (or by extension even known) and, subject to the above constitutional limits, the pardon power is plenary and not really subject to legislative or judicial review. Given that there's no constitutional requirement for specificity on the pardon, it likely can be a get out of jail free card.

---

In the history of our nation have subsequent Supreme Courts reinterpreted previous Supreme Court rulings?

---

Of course, but I think there are a couple of problems with that here:
1. I have problems finding four Justices that would even vote to take the case.
2. If they take the case, I don't see five Justices voting to support whatever rationale that the Trump administration might put forward. None of the liberal three for certain, and Chief Justice Roberts is so afraid of appearing political that he'd almost certainly not vote in favor. I'd honestly even be surprised if Justice Thomas would look favorably on the question, given the strong history of the plenary nature of the pardon power going back to before the Constitution.

Add to that, I don't even think it's in President Trump's best interests to pursue the matter. As it stands now, the Democrats are tarred with the stench of corruption from (thankfully former) President Biden's decision. President Trump can hold the moral high ground without expending the political capital required to try to limit the pardon power (an attempt that I don't think is likely to succeed) and the subsequent political capital he'd need to spend trying to go after the various people that former President Biden pardoned, who would then be able play the victim card and who in many cases probably wouldn't receive their just desserts anyway.

Plus, if President Trump is looking to limit the Presidential pardon power, he'd necessarily be limiting his own power, and who knows how he might decide to exercise it.

I think the avenue is to move forward with investigations on these issues, with removal of their 5th amendment rights. Then you go for civil suits and perjury when the opportunity presents itself.

All of this needs to be dragged into the light regardless

bobbranco said:

---

I understand. Not my intention to put words in your mouth. Only stating that pardons will not be rescinded.

---

Thanks for the reply.

Claude! said:

---

richardag said:

---

Claude! said:

---

Distasteful, but probably legal. The President's pardon power is pretty pervasive (I was going to say far-reaching, but I like alliteration). The Constitution puts two limits on it - the offense must be against the United States (i.e., the President can't pardon a state crime) and the President cannot pardon impeachments (which is not an issue here).

In Ex Parte Garland (1866), the Supreme Court stated that pardons can be granted prior to charges being brought (or by extension even known) and, subject to the above constitutional limits, the pardon power is plenary and not really subject to legislative or judicial review. Given that there's no constitutional requirement for specificity on the pardon, it likely can be a get out of jail free card.

---

In the history of our nation have subsequent Supreme Courts reinterpreted previous Supreme Court rulings?

---

Of course, but I think there are a couple of problems with that here:
1. I have problems finding four Justices that would even vote to take the case.
2. If they take the case, I don't see five Justices voting to support whatever rationale that the Trump administration might put forward. None of the liberal three for certain, and Chief Justice Roberts is so afraid of appearing political that he'd almost certainly not vote in favor. I'd honestly even be surprised if Justice Thomas would look favorably on the question, given the strong history of the plenary nature of the pardon power going back to before the Constitution.

Add to that, I don't even think it's in President Trump's best interests to pursue the matter. As it stands now, the Democrats are tarred with the stench of corruption from (thankfully former) President Biden's decision. President Trump can hold the moral high ground without expending the political capital required to try to limit the pardon power (an attempt that I don't think is likely to succeed) and the subsequent political capital he'd need to spend trying to go after the various people that former President Biden pardoned, who would then be able play the victim card and who in many cases probably wouldn't receive their just desserts anyway.

Plus, if President Trump is looking to limit the Presidential pardon power, he'd necessarily be limiting his own power, and who knows how he might decide to exercise it.

---

Thanks for the response.

GM. pic.twitter.com/CwQ9dICx2E

— Who Touched The Thermostat (@TheWT3Show) January 20, 2025

Investigations need to begin today.

the real reason Biden pardoned Mark Milley pic.twitter.com/ubOOmIHIN8

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) January 20, 2025

Quote:

---

President Biden's pardon of Dr. Anthony Fauci may protect the former National Institutes of Health official from immediate criminal prosecution, but some critics say he is not completely out of legal jeopardy and that public sentiment might still condemn the man who became known during the COVID-19 pandemic as "Mr. Science."
In the days before Biden offered the pardon to Fauci, along with other critics of Donald Trump, some experts who have followed Fauci's career and handling of the pandemic, as well as members of the Trump transition team, reiterated their assertion that Fauci perjured himself on several occasions during the pandemic especially regarding his agency's links to the lab in Wuhan, China, that might have created the virus that causes COVID-19.

The pardon addresses any COVID-related offenses, and is backdated to 2014the year a U.S. ban on so-called "gain of function" virus research took effect -- research Fauci is accused of outsourcing to China.

---

Quote:

---

But former Senate investigator Jason Foster, who now runs the whistleblower nonprofit Empower Oversight, says that Biden's pardon creates new legal jeopardy for Fauci. Sen. Rand Paul has vowed to continue investigating the COVID origins question, and sources tell RealClearInvestigations that Sen. Ron Johnson and House Republican investigators plan to do so as well. When testifying in those inquiries or answering written depositions, Fauci will be unable to dodge questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. "They can ask him if he lied before, replough old ground," Foster said. "And if he lies about any prior lie, he can be prosecuted for that or held in contempt."

---

LINK

Fauci is not out of the woods, yet.

Mark Levin pointed out another weakness in the pardons and clearly intended cover-up. If the bad actors destroy so much as one document later than noon of yesterday past, they are not covered by the pardons. Any attempts to destroy evidence, smash drives, delete --- going forward can re-activate grounds to charge.

titan said:

---

Mark Levin pointed out another weakness in the pardons and clearly intended cover-up. If the bad actors destroy so much as one document later than noon of yesterday past, they are not covered by the pardons. Any attempts to destroy evidence, smash drives, delete --- going forward can re-activate grounds to charge.

---

Can they plead the 5th still since they are now pardoned ?? They could be dragged up to Capitol Hill and made to talk if they cant plead the 5th. Getting the scummy Marxist networks to cover it would be a whole other problem !!!

EX TEXASEX said:

---

titan said:

---

Mark Levin pointed out another weakness in the pardons and clearly intended cover-up. If the bad actors destroy so much as one document later than noon of yesterday past, they are not covered by the pardons. Any attempts to destroy evidence, smash drives, delete --- going forward can re-activate grounds to charge.

---

Can they plead the 5th still since they are now pardoned ?? They could be dragged up to Capitol Hill and made to talk if they cant plead the 5th. Getting the scummy Marxist networks to cover it would be a whole other problem !!!

---

Can't plead the pardon in a 5th way for a NEW crime post-dating Trump's inauguration hour. That's what Levin is saying -- -types like this were destroying evidence and setting up traps well after Trump's Jan 2017 inauguration.

This time its the way to void the pardons. Go after any new violation after noon yesterday. So if they missed anything they wanted to delete or destroy, its too late.

🫤 pic.twitter.com/4coTQiAKkv

— Rothmus 🏴 (@Rothmus) January 26, 2025

Update: Biden pardons will be investigated now, per Ed Martin. They were all auto-pens fwiw, except for Hunter's.

🫡 Even if you cannot get the J6 committee pardons overturned, bringing them to the light will mean a lot.

— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) May 19, 2025

It’s always been striking that the only pardon Biden personally signed (or was made to sign himself) was the Hunter pardon. In other words, they knew very well that there were potential legal issues with the auto-pen and wanted to make sure the Hunter pardon was airtight. https://t.co/5xJKK2YDsZ pic.twitter.com/zgoj9KUkAJ

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) May 19, 2025

I still wouldn't put any big hopes in this but it could make all the right traitors nervous at least.

I heard an interview with Ed Martin Friday. IIRC, he said they wanted to bring it all to light to make sure people knew to what extent they had been deceived. To what extent the obvious corruption was occurring. He said charges would be brought where possible, and said even in cases where statutes of limitations had run that they wanted people to know what happened.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

All this is BS- just like all weather on local stations, "severe storms today, possibility". Then you change your plans and nothing happens. They sight "possibility" as their excuse.
Keeps us jumping, just like all this crap. Ain't nothing happening to the swamp. Trump's swamp will cover its ass by covering Bidens swamp.
Like another poster said somewhere, just take care of you and yours- it's the way you have to live.

Again, Ed Martin wasn't making claims about huge arrests. But he did say they want the info out there. He also said they're very aware that people want to see tangible results (prosecutions).

I read somewhere that hormone blockers are actually for prostate cancer treatment, but that they also adversely impact dementia patients, part of the reason they aren't used in elderly prostate cancer patients sometimes ("Gender transition" is an off-label use to abuse children).

Again, there could be useful information gained if someone in his care team is honest about the discussions/sequence of events/decisions by the Biden familia. Tucker Carlson has commented that he knew Biden associates in 2017 who were transparent that he had dementia at that point with him privately/shocked he would be back in the race in 2020.

There is some, if not a substantial, possibility that these pardons might be deemed null and void, imho, if enough evidence comes out/is provided. As a reminder, Liz Oyer was/is a criminal-loving fraud who was rightfully fired (no, not over Mel Gibson, LOL).

"...When I came into work on Friday morning, I said to a colleague, I really think that Mel Gibson might be my downfall."

Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer speaks to @kaitlancollins after being fired last week. pic.twitter.com/8O8kPhL3I4

— TheSourceCNN (@TheSourceCNN) March 12, 2025

She should be deposed asap, if not made a subject of the investigation, imho.