If Roberts decides to hear it at all. Roberts is batting 0-3 when it comes to anything that will consequentially hurt the Deep State. He's happily voted for everything red as long as it doesn't touch his bank roll masters.
IOW, can't wait to see what happens after the 2028 elections! I wonder who gets the pardons, and if DOGE will stick around after Trump leaves office for good.
If staffers did go off, I can see how there's something to be looked at.
Also, hasn't anything that could be considered as part of the "files (Epstein's black book, flight logs for Epstein's private plane) already been made public?
Chris Chan vs the team of Mary Lee Walsh and Michael Schneider, reincarnated. I'm here for it, baby.
And that will be interesting to find out, we have an accusation of something pretty serious..if Roberts blurts out "It will be fine" while taking Obama's dick up his ass (again) then we learned something new.
That is kind of not what is being accused here, I don't think anyone really has an issue with the following happening
It was a lot of information that was already available to the public but compiled and more censored in some areas. As of this time we are still technically waiting on "Phase 2" of the document release that may come sometime between now and never.
He literally signed the pardon live, they were smart and worded it in a way where he just had to do it once and basically go "see attached".
No, but he knew he was pardoning them, it wasn’t some tranny staffer pardoning a murdering rapist kek
I don't think they can let this pass, pretty sure only the SC would have authority to oversee this kind of dispute. Trumps taken an action, someone will have to file to have that action suspended, so if they say "Nope not hearing it" then that'd be the dispute thrown out, Trumps action stands. They'll have to issue a ruling if they want the pardons to stand, right?
But you lose the right against self incrimination, right? I've seen MATI.
Prepardoning isn't too egregious of an action, assuming that it is still outlining a fairly well defined circumstance. "Hunter Biden is pardoned for any activities involving or stemming from the Ukranian company Burisma." It sets a well defined "something criminal likely happened involving this specific circumstance, but don't touch it." It covers the activity well enough that conclusions can be drawn, but still leaves them open for unrelated shennanigans. Otherwise you'd end up with the judiciary sitting on crimes and waiting for a favorable executive to bring down the hammer to make it stick longer. On paper blanket pardons are completely legal, they just come off as extremely suspect.
Biden's no longer a threat, not worth spending the time to prosecute him tbh. His political capital is gone, and he doesn't have the mental capacity to assist the Dems in game plans. By the time they got a conviction he'll probably be dead anyways, and if not, locking up a vegetable doesn't feel as satisfying. The infestation of lively bureaucrats and their leadership is a much more pressing matter.
That argument was insane. “The largest deportation program in the history of the US” was a cornerstone of Trump’s campaign.
That was just one document, an executive order he signed on his first day.
The executive order formed DOGE as a temporary organization with an 18 month death clock. It ends on July 4th 2026.
Not to this extreme. There has been blanket pardons before and pardons expanding a long time, what he gave Hunter has to be some sort of record. But keep in mind that what Biden did is allowed because the power of the pardon is damn near unlimited.
I'm not convinced it was Hunter either. Joe bends over backwards to defend Hunter. I think you guys are all overlooking how this story might've been started. Trump's tweet is far more telling than I think people understand. If you read between the lines a little bit, it heavily seems to imply the order of events went something like this. In a conversation between Trump and Biden, Biden tells Trump he doesn't know anything about these pardons. He didn't sign them. Someone else did. He was just as surprised as us. He mentioned this to Trump casually, and he says he'll look into it. Trump has someone look into this and they find almost all of them were signed with auto-pen. Hence the tweets. It doesn't make sense for Trump to specifically say Joe had no knowledge of this without having spoken with Joe first before announcing this.
If they ignore it they could always choose to hear it when it's inevitably brought back to their door after the conclusion of the investigation/trial imo
If that's the case then shouldn't the president still sign a document that lists everything that was signed with an autopen?
