Quote:
Originally Posted by xnbomb
how did I equivocate anything there? It's a pretty straight forward sentence.
Should he have been pardoned? No (check)
Is this "nauseating" when compared to pardons and commutations granted by other administrations? No, not really. I even gave you a specific type of case that you should find more nauseating! (check)
The fact that its a rule of law issue doesn't negate that fact.
There being no rule of law is what I find nauseating. What don't you get?
President lunatic demonstrating he'll pardon anyone who pursues his policy goals even through racist means, repeatedly ruled unconstitutional to the point that a sheriff is convicted of contempt of court, and actually being able to do so before the guy is even *sentenced* is straight banana republic ****.
As Hoya has stated, in great detail, our system isn't built to contain a diseased maniac in charge, and he's obviously going to try to take advantage of every lack of control.
Your comparison completely misses the point. That's what makes it equivocating. Hope that helps.