REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Election hearings in the Arizona legislature today 11/30/2020
- Thread starter Mike_Jones
- Start date
I'm going to take that as a no. Here's a brief explanation. See if you can wrap your demented mind around it:
The pardon of Richard Nixon (formally known as Proclamation 4311) was a presidential proclamation issued by President of the United States Gerald Ford on September 8, 1974. By it, Ford granted to Richard Nixon, his predecessor, a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes that he might have committed against the United States as president.[1][2] In particular, the pardon covered Nixon's actions during the Watergate scandal
The pardon of Richard Nixon (formally known as Proclamation 4311) was a presidential proclamation issued by President of the United States Gerald Ford on September 8, 1974. By it, Ford granted to Richard Nixon, his predecessor, a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes that he might have committed against the United States as president.[1][2] In particular, the pardon covered Nixon's actions during the Watergate scandal
the law that says it is the law that says that the crime is a crime
he can be charged for obstruction and witness tampering because those things are
clearly delineated in the legal code as crimes
you're making the claim, without any legal expertise or supporting authority, that a
president cannot be charged after he leaves office.
I have presented you a mountain of legal authorities, including Robert Mueller, who
all say that there is nothing protecting a president from being charged criminally.
I have also linked you to a supreme court ruling that arrives at the same conclusion.
thank you for being an insane retard, you insane fkn retard
There is no question retard. Not with legal scholars and coherent individuals anyway. 
"There is no debate over whether a former president can be indicted for conduct that occurred while in office. In fact, President Gerald Ford, who succeeded Nixon after his resignation, was mindful of this when he granted “a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed.”
Why are you so bad at this?
"There is no debate over whether a former president can be indicted for conduct that occurred while in office. In fact, President Gerald Ford, who succeeded Nixon after his resignation, was mindful of this when he granted “a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed.”
Why are you so bad at this?
There is no shortage of idiot leftists with liberal axes to grind in our highest institutions. Kagan and Sotamayor are two perfect examples. I don't have to prove that something that's never been done can't be done. You and the thousands of experts in your head have to prove that it can be done.
And you haven't proven sh!t.
.
There is no question retard. Not with legal scholars and coherent individuals anyway.
"There is no debate over whether a former president can be indicted for conduct that occurred while in office. In fact, President Gerald Ford, who succeeded Nixon after his resignation, was mindful of this when he granted “a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed.”
Why are you so bad at this?
Opinions.
.
No dummy. The default is that everyone is subject to prosecution for their crimes. The constitution can arguably be read to shield a sitting president from indictment and prosecution. After all, if a criminal dipshit like Trump was getting indicted all over the place it would be hard for him to golf do his job. There is no viable argument that the constitution shields an ex-president from prosecution for crimes he committed while in office. That's not an opinion. It's fact. There's no serious debate about it.
this thread aged like milk. will Arizona might be next up to indict it's fake electors and their handlers?
www.rollingstone.com
Arizona Investigators 'Aggressively' Looking at Top Trump Ally Kelli Ward
Kelli Ward, a Trump ally and top Arizona Republican, is in the crosshairs of a state investigation into the fake electors scheme.
www.rollingstone.com
yeah, here's a good one. another day, another bullshit election case gets tossed, with sanctions
Isn't it illegal for an attorney to misrepresent facts or otherwise knowingly tell lies in court? Can't they can get disbarred for doing that?
As I've heard it told, an extension of the court they can't knowingly "lie" They take a sort of Hippocratic oath
another squidley election fraud thread that ends in indictments for the squidleys 
It’s insane the number of times Squidley was wrong during this period.another squidley election fraud thread that ends in indictments for the squidleys
