I am not sure that is the way double jeopardy works. Although the Justice Dept. announced he had been cleared, he was never indicted nor tried thus he was never officially placed in jeopardy.

She was convicted on State charges. President can pardon federal crimes only.

Much of the concern about this pardon is tied to the obviously stolen 2020 presidential election. We can quote slogans such as "fraud invalidates everything" but that is not entirely accurate. For example, look up the concept of "good faith purchaser" where an individual can obtain title to property that was stolen if they bought it with a good faith belief that the seller was the actual owner. While many of us passionately believe the current president was not correctly elected, he was certified in accordance with the Constitution. Entities dealing with the government had a good faith belief that he was the valid president. Any later finding that the election was fraudulent can not reverse the validity of their transactions otherwise no one could ever have full confidence in any dealing with our government or anyone else for that matter. The only recourse is to punish the responsible individuals in accordance with law and make sure the punishment is so severe as to deter future occurrences.

I am as disappointed with this pardon as you or anyone else but when President Trump promises to pardon the January 6th protesters I think that will be a just and noble exercise of Presidential judgment. Some others will likely think it is a gross abuse of power. The pardon power itself is not inherently good or bad. It is the character of the individual that is at issue.

I look at this much the same way I view the Second Amendment. Guns can be used for good or bad but is the person using the instrument that is at issue, not the gun itself. Just as with the pardon power, any effort to get around the Constitutional provision is fraught with danger. Sometimes we must accept the bad to preserve the good.

I am frequently reminded of the wisdom of my old grandmother. One of her favorite sayings was: "Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Some thing are simple, some are difficult and others are impossible. Biden has appointed over 200 Federal Judges who have handled thousands of both civil and criminal cases. He has signed numerous pieces of legislation, approved billions in spending, made agreements with foreign governments, approved numerous personal actions including military promotions and retirements and so many other executive actions they can’t all be counted. Short of inventing a Time Machine to role the clock back, invalidating all acts of a president would fall into the impossible realm.

The presidency is not governed under contract law but rather by Constitutional law. Once Congress certifies the electoral vote and a president is sworn into office, he can only be removed by Constitutional means which are limited to death, resignation, impeachment and conviction or temporarily for incapacity under the 25th amendment. In none of these circumstances are prior actions invalidated. Somewhat like a bad marriage. You can end it but you can’t erase the damage.

The starting date for the pardon, while suspicious, would be allowed under the Constitution. However, the ending date could possibly make the pardon invalid.

It specifies: from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024

It appears the pardon was signed at some time during December 1, 2024 but made effective through that full day. By including a future period of time it became a license to commit future crimes. A pardon is a legal document and the mistake of making it for any future time period should invalidate the entire document. Unless the document was signed on or after 12:00 am on December 2, 2024 there seems to be a problem.

Named after Congressman Carl Vinson of Georgia. He served in the House for over 50 years and was very supportive of the Navy.

First. Rule of ledges: He who goes out on a ledge is responsible for getting himself off that ledge.

The issue of Gaetz as a Special Prosecutor would run into the same problem as Jack Smith in the Florida case against President Trump. He would have to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Constitutional Powers of the President: Article II, Section 2 .....and shall have power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

My comment: No limitations, no reviews, and no appeals.

If there was a betting market on that I would risk a few dollars on it being the case.

Gaetz was a Congressman (House of Representatives) not a Senator. Although he is a lawyer, his limited legal practice and absence of judicial experience would make his nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court doubtful.

Patty Murray is President Pro Tem now but by the time the election is certified the new Republican Senators will be in office and Chuck Grassley will be in that position.

The article states there were 19 pages of legal notes taken in the raid and the contention was that these papers contained attorney client information. The judge ordered copies of the documents destroyed (not the documents themselves) pending his review of the original documents. Sounds like a wise decision as breaching the attorney client privilege could cause the case to be dismissed. Any person held in jail pending trial has a right to work with his attorney in preparation of his defense.

From the article: "It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents."

This is the argument correctly made by many who opposed Barack Hussein Obama's claim to be eligible for the presidency. It was not about his place of birth but the fact that his father was on a student visa and his mother was not of age to confer citizenship. (The same bar existed for Kamala Harris.)

These are interesting times. (Is this Q Post 35 with wrong POTUS)

Isn't there also a problem with Genetically engineered wheat which is used in most of our cereals?

Since Rubio is a member of the Senate club, he will likely be confirmed as Sec of State. This will leave a Senate seat open in Florida and if Gov. DeSantis holds off on appointing a replacement pending Gaetz approval as Attorney General, this will put pressure on the Senate to approve him. Senators, especially republicans, would much rather have him as AG than as a disruptive member of their Senate club.

Also need to review the number of three and four star positions.

One less member of the House.

Ivermectin was developed around 50 years ago and the patent has been expired for ages. I doubt Merck was in the vaccine business at that time and none of the current management was around. The drug is now marketed as a generic which accounts for it's low cost.

The first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The part about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is often left out when citing the 14th as justification for birthright citizenship. The meaning of almost any section of the Constitution could be changed by leaving out or adding words or phrases, but that is not the correct way to interpret a legal document. All words have meaning. I believe President Trump is correct in his assessment and the issue will likely have to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

It is interesting to note that Native Americans were not granted U.S. citizenship until 1924 when the Indian Citizenship Act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge. That was almost 56 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment. They were clearly born in the United States so jurisdiction was the issue making the law necessary.

Haiti was mentioned 22 times. (9, 10, 29, 89, 136, 261, 392, 448, 520, 866, 867, 1233, 1276, 1753, 1831, 1832, 1880, 1881, 1884, 2915, 2918, 3050)

I question whether the UK could muster and sustain a sufficient number of troops to enforce an 80 mile buffer zone much less one extending 800 miles.

Standard bureaucratic maneuver. Leak a decision before it is finalized thus putting pressure on the decision maker to go along or risk revealing disunity. Not likely to work in this case.