Presidential Pardons & Acceptance of Guilt

 So, Biden's last minute pardons included almost everyone in Congress who 'investigated' Trump for January 6th including: all Capitol Police and DC Police who were testified in regard to the same, General Milley, and others whomever they are, all preemptively. More at the source. This comes as no surprise, at least to me. What I will be surprised about is if Biden does not pardon some, or even most, of those convicted for crimes on January 6th if only for him to try to show the world what a great guy is he, at least in his own mind. I also will be somewhat shocked if he does not pardon himself or at least try to do so. No, he pretty much cannot be prosecuted for crimes he committed while president but he could be charged for all those he committed while vice president and while a senator - for instance his taking and possessing classified documents before he became president.

Oh yeah, he also pardoned Dr. Fauci, a man who lied to every U.S. citizen repeatedly and who put everyone's health at great risk who got a COVID vaccination and who seemingly, in great part, was responsible for creating the enhanced version of the virus that caused the pandemic and therefore who apparently was responsible for putting every human life on the planet at risk.

I must note, there reportedly was a Supreme Court decision in the early 1900s that said if a person accepts a pardon, it is an admission of guilt (as per verbal reports I heard on NewsMax2 on January 20, 2025). I am not sure how that would work if the pardoned person had not yet been accused of a crime before the pardon was granted, as in how could they be admitting guilt if they were not charged with anything prior to the pardon. Thus, I am left wondering if a person who has been preemptively pardoned could be indicted for a crime subsequent to the pardon and then have prosecution declined by the DOJ. Bear in mind that a grand jury hearing is an investigation, it is not a prosecution. 

 

I think it would certainly be right and just to at least try indicting many of these pardoned persons which would then very possibly make the pardoned person either have to admit to his or her guilt if he or she accepted the pardon or decline the pardon. If the pardon is accepted and this becomes an admission of guilt and there is a follow-up indictment, it would be very easy to fire every federal employee who accepts such a preemptive pardon. It would also make it impossible for any federal employee so indicted to ever testify under oath in federal proceedings if indicted for false statements. In addition, it would make it virtually mandatory to terminate the security clearance of any person pardoned but who was subsequently indicted for any felony. Again, I must emphasize that a grand jury indictment is not a criminal prosecution, it is the conclusion of a grand jury investigation albeit, it can lead to (but does not have to lead to) a prosecution. This of course,only holds water  if the NewsMax2 reports I heard about acceptance of a pardon is in fact an admission of guilt. I am not sure if that would pass the muster of the Supreme Court justices but I strongly believe it would b e well worth the effort to find out and to help clearing out the swamp if the Supreme Court agreed.

I hope that somehow my idea is viewed or heard by President Trump and that he goes after the likes of Dr. Death Fauci General Milley, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi among many others.

All the best,

Glenn B

Single Issue Votes

 On a gun forum which I sue frequently, the news that the NRA has endorsed a sole democrat politician for this years elections has drawn the ire of many forum members. The thing is that the forum members who oppose the NRA having done so probably are, in my estimation, using the same basic method of how they have gone about deciding to oppose the NRA on this issue; that method was, by my guess, to base their decision on a single issue. In this case that would be that the forum users disagree with the NRA based solely on the fact that the politician is a democrat and thus must be opposed. Of course, I think the NRA's single issue used to by them to decide to endorse her was something different, her support of the right to keep and bear arms, but the method of using only a single issue to make their decision is the same.

The thing is, it is not a single issue situation, one has to consider all of the other issues which she supported and voted for in addition to those she openly opposed and voted against in order to make a wise decision as to whether to support or oppose the NRA's endorsement of her. I am pretty certain though, the NRA bases the political endorsements they give to politicians on only one issue, the RKBA or at least in the great part upon that lone issue. In that regard, many in the gun forum's thread discussing this seem to be of the same ilk, as is the mindset of other conservative who oppose the NRA's endorsement of her, as far as how they are going about judging the NRA. By that I mean they evidently are basing their dislike of the NRA's endorsement of congresswoman Mary Peltola, D–Alaska (more at the source) on a single issue when there is no doubt one issue does not make up the platforms of most politicians nor the ideals of most voters.At least I think not of logical voters in most elections. If this lady is consistently one who votes more conservatively or at least logically and is not woke nor a DEI selection by voters, then maybe she deserves not only an A+ from the NRA but the support of those in the Rebooblican Party who currently oppose her, having received the nod from the NRA, just because she is a registered Demonkrat. 

I had been thinking, just in the last couple of weeks of registering as a Demonkrat; that just so I could vote in the Demonkrat primaries - the ones that should have been held with little delay after the likes of Schumer, Pelosi, Harris and others seemingly conspired to boot out Biden. Let's face it, my (any any other voters) due process as a voter may have been violated by them not allowing voters the opportunity to vote for their candidate of choice to replace Biden on the ticket. I would have voted for almost anyone other than Harris; my vote probably would have come to be a write in vote or Biden (it would be great if dems did that en masse, voted for Biden in the new primary (that should have been held) and then Biden would have wound up with more votes than Harris. You may think it great that she was appointed by the Dems and is running against Trump but I think a leftist of lesser degree would be easier for Trump to defeat; and the easiest would have been Biden - easily accomplished, as I said, by way of write in votes for Biden. 

Now, I am not very religious; although, sometimes I wonder if I am more religious than I think and at other times ponder whether or not I am religious at all. Yet, I do embrace several, or I suppose it is actually many, Christian morals, philosophies, ideals and etiquette and live most of my life with them as guidelines along with some of the same from a few other religions and or lay philosophies of some who are agnostic or not religious at all. In general, I think I live my life by trying to do the right things much more frequently than not. Despite that, I have as of late found myself sort of praying to God (if there is one), or the Gods if more than one (the early Christians number one way into the hearts of those of other faiths to win them over, I think, was mainly the fact that despite claiming there was only one God, they kind of sort of almost practiced a religion that was polytheism in a way never seen before because their one God was also three Gods all miraculously being one and the same), Nature, the Force or whatever powers that may be that Harris does not defeat The Donald and then wind up destroying outr great nation and I base my prayers on several issues. In the case of the upcoming election while the one issue of the RKBA is extremely important to me, I still believe candidates need be judged on several issues and have their voting records and their overall politics scrutinized by a multitude of examiners, the voters, just to assure their platform and possibly prior behavior agree with those types of essentially Judaeo-Christian and other religion's ideals before anyone decides to give them a shining endorsement or their vote. 

It is much the same when deciding whom not to support and voting against someone, for instance Harris. There are many points I can think of why one should not vote for Harris. Those being the disaster of the essentially open border, her abject disrespect for the law when it came to what I think was post G. Floyd terrorism practiced by BLM and ANTIFA among others, her extreme disrespect for law enforcers as I see it based upon her thinking defunding the police was a good idea and I believe she probably still thinks it, her seeming belief that riots involving those groups were peaceful protests, an alleged large number of race based convictions of black men for minor marijuana infractions when she was a prosecutor, my belief she is a racist, her playing all sides against the middle by claiming at different times to be of different races, her failure as Border Czar, the failing economy, her anti-RKBA stance, her poor judgement as in her selection of her running mate- even many dems agree on that, her all too often senseless babble that she repeatedly regurgitates, her inability to get her point across to make anyone understand what she actually means when speaking about the issues (this has been a long time ploy of leftists leaving it to their followers to decide the meaning of her babble for themselves thus getting self satisfaction even if their interpretations are very different than one anothers in the dem party - keeps everyone happy when they all can make believe they got it right), her seeming frequent inability to finish making a point about something serious without breaking out into a wild cackle, her very apparent lack of knowledge on subjects about which she is interviewed or about which she is making a statement, her evident lies about the competency of Joe Biden.

All that said, I cannot understand why anyone who is acting rationally would vote for her. Instead I see a multitude of mindless adherents who will vote for her because they believe she would be the first woman president and sex is their one issue, she would be the first black woman president and race and sex are what does it for them or simply race alone is enough, she would be the first person of Asian descent and her ancestry, race and ethnicity does it for other voters. I prefer to base my distaste for her on multiple issues: first of all that she is the selection of the deep state within the Demonkrat party and thus her candidacy was not put to a vote and deprived other candidates of a fair chance and also deprived the voters of the opportunity to make the selection, that she goes along with how she was selected as the candidate, she seems to support late term abortion, she is anti-RKBA, she did nothing to get the economy out of the mess it is in but supported Bidenomics that caused the economy to falter, that she evidently  lied about Bidens mental acuity, that she apparently lied about her support of Biden as the dem candidate, that she speaks in senseless riddles or babble,  that she seems very uninformed and unknowledgeable about major issues, opposes Donald Trump and has seemingly expressed the same hatred for him as other mindless Demonkrats by which they hate him so much they'd do anything to prevent him from being elected again - even supporting his assassination, that she plays both sides against the middle in the Israel versus Hamas war... The list goes on and on but those multiple issues I just presented are more than enough reason for me never to vote for Harris and probably for me to never vote for a Demonkrat ever again because it seems the great majority of the party's members are actually functioning irrationally when it comes to politics. 

While I tend to doubt it, maybe the NRA decided to endorse congresswoman Mary Peltola, D–Alaska based upon multiple issues, after their scrutiny of her overall politics, as opposed to doing so based upon a single issue. I certainly would hope voters do so, that is to consider many issues if not all of them even if the NRA maybe did not. I definitely wish they'd do so when it comes to whom they decide to cast their vote for president - Harris or Trump. If they do that, I think there is no way Trump can lose unless the election is rigged.

All the best,

Glenn B

Riddle Me This Batman...

...the dems want Trump impeached for obstruction of justice; so why is it they do not want to prosecute, in some way shape or form, Special Counsel Mueller. He reportedly knew that President Trump had been exonerated of anything to do with conspiring (collusion as they called it) with the Russians and supposedly knew it a year or so before closing the investigation. So, did Mueller obstruct justice being done by holding off on making public that determination for about a year. After all justice being done does not necessarily mean charging and convicting someone of a crime - it means being just and thus would also mean determining someone was not guilty as charged or even suspected instead of carrying on your investigation while the person still believes you are investigating him of the original charge. Of course, that could drive anyone nuts, especially when the person being investigated knew with certainty that he had not conspired, colluded, assisted or anything like that; yet, the government makes it appear as if he is still the target of that investigation!


Now with that said, think of a charge of entrapment against Mueller if President Trump is indeed impeached. President Trump would never have been pressured into saying half of the things he said, about it being a witch hunt and that the investigation should be toned down or that the investigation was this or that or asking for help in getting it over with, had Mueller spoken up sooner about him being innocent and no longer a suspect in that regard. Thus, if impeached, the government by way of Mueller continuing to make it appear as if an investigation against President Trump was ongoing, one that should have ceased and been announced in a timely fashion as completed with a finding of no criminal acts by the president, quite possibly trapped the president by way of making him think they were conspiring to frame him and thus making him speak out against the witch hunt et al. If they use anything he said, at least after the first year of the investigation, to impeach him - it is fruit of the poisonous tree and Mueller needs to be prosecuted himself - in my opinion.

All the best,
Glenn B

Mexico & Clinton - More Biased Balderdash In The Media?

So, Reuters is reporting that Hillary Clinton will not have a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and they are making it appear as if she said she will not do so because Donald Trump created problems there. (Souce of both of the following quotes.)

"U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Monday she will not accept an invitation from Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto for a visit after rival Donald Trump created what she called a "diplomatic incident" in his foray there."

Doesn't that sound to you like she said she will not meet with him because Trump created a diplomatic incident there. It sure sounds like that to me and many readers would probably get that far and stop reading, at least the biased for Clinton and against Trump voter types that so strongly seem to support a leftist platform and let's be honest, also the die hard Trump voters who cannot accept any criticism of him. Yet, if you would just read on, to the very next paragraph, you would see that apparently that is not what Clinton said in response to a question as to whether or not she would meet with the president of Mexico. What she said was much briefer and seemingly made no reference to Trumps visit there, at least if quoted correctly.

"In a written excerpt from an interview with ABC News that will air Tuesday morning, Clinton simply said "no" when asked if she would travel to Mexico before the election on Nov. 8, without elaborating further."

The first paragraph certainly seems like an embellishment or certainly at least an exaggeration of what she reportedly really said, at least it seems that way to me especially in light of the fact that it was reported she did not elaborate further.

Now pardon me for being so bold as to say this but wouldn't one think that the candidate who keeps boasting about her record as Secretary of State (the chief diplomat in the USA) would most assuredly accept an invitation from our country's neighbor to the south to visit with that country's president as a sign of good diplomacy if for no other reason! Instead, she just gives a one word answer "no" that she will not accept such an invitation and snubs him just like that.

I also imagine that one would think that the candidate that Clinton brands as racist, Donald Trump, would never accept such an invitation. Yet, he did so and has already met with the Mexican president. Regardless of their differing opinions on border security and illegal immigration and whether or not they clashed over such issues, at least Trump had the respect for president Pena Nieto to meet with him and discuss the issue face to face. And to think, now Clinton is trying to assert that Trump's visit was a dismal failure because she says he did not breach certain issues - who is kidding whom here! She is a weasel at best and likely will be the ruin of America if elected.

All the best,
Glenn B

So Why Is Trump Still In The Lead...

...in the race for the Republican nomination? Many Republicans, who claim to be conservative, rant and rave against Trump saying he will be the end of the Republican Party and scratch their heads in wonder as to why he is doing so well. Sadly, they just don't seem to grasp the point that they, those RINOs (as in the ones doing the complaining), already put an end to the Republican Party as we knew it. It was they who allowed Trump to step right in and scoop up Republican votes with Cruz a fairly close second (another outsider if you listen to the RINOs).

Picture source.

How the RINOs can be so dumbfounded about Trump being so popular, mostly because of the ineptness of the Republican Party, is beyond me. I imagine it is that RINOs are just like liberals and leftists and find it difficult to accept responsibility for their shortcomings. Anyway,I can not say it as well as Ann Coulter said it, read what she said here:

http://freedomsback.com/ann-coulter/gop-baffled-as-voters-rally-to-popular-candidate/

I'd much rather see Cruz in the White House but even I have to admit, Trump is a better choice than any other candidate besides Cruz. I will have no problem voting for him if he wins the nomination and I will then just hope and pray he keeps half of his campaign promises. As for those among you who say they would never vote for Trump al I can say is that you had best wake up if he wins the nomination because otherwise it is going to be Clinton or Sanders taking the top spot. Heaven help us if so because then we may be left with no other recourse than prayer or revolution and prayer has not been working all that well over the past 7 plus years.

All the best,
Glenn B

The Oprah Winfrey Show Disgusted Me - But This I Had To Watch...

...and I recommend you watch it too.

Before you watch it though, allow me to tell you what I think of Oprah and her show. Fuck Oprah ten times really hard, in her ass, with a donkey dick fired up with a ton of Viagra, Ben Gay and crystal meth. Yes, I despise her and her kind of so called entertainers. (No I do not mean that in any racial sort of connotation, it is just that I despise what I consider to be ultra leftists like her regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion or whatever.) Now take a gander at this video from the Oprah show, knowing how I feel about her and still with me insisting it is worth your while (and please note, this video was made a long time ago):



As for Trump, I would rather vote for him than (and these are my opinions of some other candidates):

Christie (hypocritical RINO), Rubio (hypocritical RINO and wetback lover)

Bush, (really sad case of a guy trying to convince us he is a conservative yet is little more, if anything, than a snivelling RINO)

Kucinich (maybe another RINO and maybe not but just does not have a snowballs chance in the middle of a nuclear war of lasting through the primaries),

Carson (while he thinks right, he is just too much of a whoosh)

Sanders (avowed socialist or in other words I think a commie)

Clinton (a rotten nasty bitch who cares only about the power she can yield even at the expense of the security of the American people and it is probably all just to get back at Bill for sticking his dick in whatever hole was available)
 
Normally, I probably would vote for Cruz before Trump since Trump has been way too far on the left, regarding many issues, over the years, for me. So, I think I would lean toward Cruz. Then again, that is only if the courts proved satisfactorily that he is what is meant by a natural born citizen. Since he is a dual US and Canadian citizen, born in Canada, I doubt they can do so. I say that because at the time the Constitution was written there was no such thing as a dual citizen as far as I am aware.

Better yet, I would vote for Rand Paul before them all but he will never win the primary as far as I can envision. What a pity because I think he has the right stuff for all Americans and I do mean for Americans and not for wetbacks or terrorists as leans Obama (in my estimation).

So, I am guessing it's going to be Donald Trump who will get my vote. Hopefully he has changed his principles on some things as he indicates in his speeches. While the leopard cannot change its spots, a man can definitely change his convictions, look to George W. Bush being a pussy and having done so by giving the bailouts and look to Ronald Reagan who was an avowed liberal but became the best president in my lifetime after he came over to the right.

My thanks and a hat tip to Steve Del C. for the video.

All the best,
Glenn B