tyb
Vraiment.
Cui qui l'a senti l'a distribué
How the corrupt fucks are feeling right now. Everywhere they go they find us looking straight at them.
Jeremiah 16
16Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the LORD, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks. 17For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes. 18And first I will recompense their iniquity and their sin double; because they have defiled my land, they have filled mine inheritance with the carcases of their detestable and abominable things.
Kinda makes sense actually all things considered.
-
Burisma
-
Ukraine get money to fight Russia apparently.
-
I would think that Russia isn't too pleased about that if true.
-
Biden got his hand stuck in a very sticky web.
-
The more they struggle the tighter the web grabs them.
They are fucked, but it's really their own doing. They thought they were untouchable. They were wrong.
Here's how I view it. I don't have a problem with Russians, it's their country and it isn't my place to tell them what to do, I may not agree with what they do, but unless they fuck with me, then if it has problems, it's up to the Russians to fix. Same goes for any country. I wouldn't want them to fuck around in my country so why would I think it was ok to do the same to them? The problem is the sneaky fuckers who want to stir up shit or take what someone else has.
Well I guess the whole Bidet pardon might just be true. It was apparently on the news tonight. I don't watch the news so at least for me this is close enough to a second source validation.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
ArtII.S2.C1.3.6 Rejection of a Pardon
Burdick notwithstanding, if a pardon is accepted, it obviates a Fifth Amendment objection to providing testimony.8 Additionally, it appears that the Wilson/Burdick rule does not extend to commutations and remissions. In the later case Biddle v. Perovich, the Court considered a commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment that the recipient argued was "without his consent and without legal authority."9 The Biddle Court disagreed with this assessment, stating, contrary to the language of Wilson, that a pardon "is not a private act of grace" but is rather a determination of what the public welfare requires.10 As such, in the Biddle Court’s view, "the public welfare, not [a recipient’s] consent determines what shall be done."11 On this basis, the Court in Biddle concluded that Burdick should not "be extended to the present case," indicating that no one doubted "a reduction of the term of an imprisonment or the amount of a fine would limit the sentence effectively on the one side and on the other would leave the reduced term or fine valid and to be enforced" with "the convict’s consent . . . not required."12
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-6/ALDE_00013323/
Feed the shills balut.
ArtII.S2.C1.3.7 Legal Effect of a Pardon
The legal significance of a pardon has been a subject of shifting judicial views over time. In the 1866 case Ex parte Garland, the Court took a broad view of the nature and consquence of a pardon:
A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.
ArtII.S2.C1.3.8 Congress's Role in Pardons
Despite the Supreme Court’s rigid view of the limits of legislative authority over pardons, Congress may have a role to play in exercise of the pardon power through other legal and constitutional processes. For instance, there is historical precedent for Congress facilitating exercise of the power by funding positions in the Department of Justice to assist in considering clemency petitions.6 The Court in The Laura also upheld a statute vesting in a subordinate officer, the Secretary of the Treasury, the authority to remit fines or penalties provided for in laws related to steam-vessels, with exceptions, rejecting the argument that the law encroached on the President’s power to pardon based on precedent for the practice going back to England.7
Beyond legislation, Congress has invoked its Article I authority to conduct oversight as a more indirect constraint on use of the pardon power,8 and the Supreme Court has alluded to the possibility of impeachment as a check on misuse of the power.9 Congress can also seek to amend the Constitution to clarify or constrain the President’s clemency authority.10 These constitutional processes are subject to constraints, which are discussed in more detail in their respective annotations.11
obviate
to remove a difficulty, especially so that action to deal with it becomes unnecessary.
if a pardon is accepted, it obviates a Fifth Amendment objection to providing testimony.
It REMOVES the fifth amendment objection. In other words, it no longer protects them from answering questions. They MUST comply, The fifth no longer protects them.
Bidet himself is gonna have to deal with the oath of office, but not so much Hunter I don't think. Hunter is small fry though. He has just been used by, "the big guy."
The lefts motto. Rules and laws for thee but not for me.
Us anons fighting the heavy horses of the enemy.