News   Apr 10, 2026
 554     0 
News   Apr 10, 2026
 968     0 
News   Apr 10, 2026
 1.5K     0 

President Donald Trump's United States of America

Rumours are swirling that Melania had a child with someone before she turned 18. :oops:

Regardless, it sure feels like we're reaching the end of the line for DJT. Dying, wife is seemingly leaving him, and Israel have him in a vice.
I haven’t seen that particular rumour but Dean Blundell has details on the Amanda Ungaro theory https://deanblundell.substack.com/p/breaking-melanias-i-barely-knew-epstein

1775847885609.png
 

Trump Promises Mass Pardons to Staff Before Leaving Office​

In a recent meeting, the president said he would pardon those within 200 feet of the Oval Office, say people familiar with the remarks​


President Trump has repeatedly promised his top administration officials pardons before he leaves office, according to people who have heard his comments.​

“I’ll pardon everyone who has come within 200 feet of the Oval,” Trump said in a recent meeting to laughs, according to people with knowledge of the comments. That radius appears to be expanding as the president repeats the line. Another person who met with Trump earlier this year said the president quipped about pardoning anyone who had come within 10 feet.​
In one conversation with advisers in the dining room next to the Oval Office last year, Trump said he would host a news conference and announce mass pardons before he left office, some of the people said. The people said they weren’t aware of specific pardons being offered to specific people for specific acts.​
The unconditional power to pardon is one of the most sweeping powers offered to the presidency. This term, Trump has wielded clemency far differently than any other president, dispensing some 1,600 grants to date. Many have gone to allies and donors, or those who had hired them, coming after a social pull-aside or a round of golf. Some have received bipartisan criticism, including one to a crypto billionaire whose company boosted Trump’s own digital-currency company, and another to a former Honduran president convicted of conspiring with cartels to ship cocaine to the U.S. In Trump’s first term, he signed fewer than 250 pardons and commutations.​

The president has repeatedly raised the specter of pardons with White House aides and other administration officials, particularly when staff have suggested they could face prosecution or congressional investigations over decisions, people familiar with the comments said. Trump is known to joke about matters that he later seriously pursues, and the frequent references have led some aides to believe he is serious about the pardons, too.​
Trump aides have worried about losing control of the House of Representatives to Democrats in the November elections. Democrats have said they might investigate the president for a range of issues, including his control over the Justice Department, alleged malfeasance at the Department of Homeland Security and the president’s pardons themselves. The president has discussed how to thwart those potential inquiries, advisers said. The Justice Department ultimately would make the decision on whether to charge someone for not adhering to a congressional subpoena.​
Several aides said Trump raises the pardons so regularly that some of his advisers now laugh about it.​
“The Wall Street Journal should learn to take a joke, however, the President’s pardon power is absolute,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said.​
Trump’s liberal use of the pardon power follows former President Joe Biden’s sweeping and pre-emptive end-of-term grants to multiple top officials and family members who he said could face scrutiny from the Justice Department under Trump. Those included his son Hunter Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the longtime leader of the National Institutes of Health.​

Former Biden aides said they understood why Biden granted them, but that they served as a norm-breaking precedent for Trump to exploit.​
“By testing the boundaries of the pardon power, Biden cracked the door open and we can’t now complain about Donald Trump walking through it, even if he blows it wide open,” said Michael LaRosa, a former communications aide to Biden.​
Trump weighed pardoning White House officials after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol at the end of his first term, according to former administration officials, but didn’t ultimately do so. He later told advisers that he should have issued the pardons, people who talked to him said. Some 1,500 of Trump’s second-term pardons are for defendants charged in connection with Jan. 6.​
After leaving office, federal and state prosecutors charged Trump in four different criminal cases. He was convicted of 34 felony counts in New York and sentenced to no punishment, but wouldn’t be able to pardon himself because those are state crimes. Prosecutors dismissed the others last year. Advisers describe a president who believes he was unfairly targeted by the Justice Department and wants to do whatever is possible to protect himself and his inner circle from scrutiny in the future.​

His former press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Trump didn’t regularly raise pardoning aides in his first administration. At one point, Grisham said, she told him she was in trouble for violating the Hatch Act, which limits political activities from government officials in their official capacity.​
Trump, she said, jokingly told her not to worry about it. “He said, ‘Who cares? You know who is the boss of the Hatch Act, and I’ll pardon you.’”​
Grisham said she wasn’t aware of Trump actually offering to pardon any White House official in his first term. At one point in that term, Trump did muse to immigration officials that he would pardon them if they directed border agents to physically deny migrants from entering the country, according to people who heard his comments. Former officials said they didn’t believe it was a serious offer.​
Liz Oyer, a pardon attorney at the Justice Department before being fired during Trump’s second term, said the offers could spur Cabinet officials and administration officials to behave more aggressively.​
“It seems like he previewed many times his intent to use the pardon power to bail out those who carry out his agenda faithfully,” Oyer said.​
 
I will consult with @lenaitch here, but I don't believe Canadian law has any equivalent to a pre-emptive Pardon. I could stand to be corrected on that.

My read is that all variations of a pardon (or more commonly a record suspension) are only applicable post conviction. There's no version of 'you are exempt from being charged'.
 
Okay, I'll try to explain the best I can, even though @Admiral Beez already alluded to key points.

Let's take a step back and look at Canadian politics. Pierre Poilievre has a likeability problem, I hope no one tries to deny that. Many people go as far as to call him a d!ck. After his election loss a year ago, CBC was interviewing people at the Union Station regarding their thoughts on the election outcome. The word I personally remember people reciting the most about PP is "divisive". And I think him being divisive is just a more polite way of saying just how big of a d!ck he is.

What does that have to do with social justice warriors, you ask? Well, the reason PP is so divisive is that he is a culture warrior on the far right side. As in, his whole shtick is being the anti-woke champion. Some people on the right love him for it, the woke left hates him for it, but the majority of people in the middle look at this culture war and they are tired of this nonsense. They don't like seeing PP turning the social discourse into "us vs. them" culture war. This is what they refer to when they say he is divisive.

Now to my point. And this may be a hard pill to swallow for some people here. The woke social justice warriors are just as divisive as Pierre Poilievre. They just bat for the other team. Anyone involved in culture war fights is just as unlikeable as Pierre Poilievre, no matter which side of the barricades they are on. The entire culture war has become toxic on both sides of the debate.

So yeah, if you are a progressive politician but also embrace the woke SJW issues as part of your politics, you become a lot less electable, than if you were just a progressive.

There is a reason many people refer to Trump's NFL ads as the most effective campaign spending of that election cycle: it really resonated with the general public.
“Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”
You may not agree with the sentiment of the ad. But you have to agree that it hits hard. And for regular in the middle folks who are tired of the constant culture war stuff, it said all they needed to hear.

Personally, I sympathize with the causes that SJWs try to achieve. However, I strongly believe that the way in which they go about trying to enact these changes is counterproductive to their cause. SJWs are their own worst enemy. You can't force culture war stuff down people's throats and expect them to enjoy it.
Setting aside all the straw men you are constructing with this term here, not to mention the pandering to bothside'isms that's absolutely killing Labour in the UK and will likely keep the Dems from properly securing elections...

...you should know that you are using a term defined by the far right nutters to be precisely divisive and to indoctrinate people like you into thinking their way. And it seems to be working here. Because nothing you said has ever demonstrated that a social justice warrior as you are calling them would not be equally or more concerned about those bread and butter issues too. They would have to be. So balderdash to your surmising here. If anything, in particular to the subject matter of this thread, that these "SJW's" have always been right. Because here we are on the late stage of that feedback loop of the wrong side of history. Congratulations to you for buying that grift.

...and in case anyone is wondering though, I'm a social justice mage not a warrior. That is, I like blow troll ideas up from behind the comfort of my armchair. <3
 
Setting aside all the straw men you are constructing with this term here, not to mention the pandering to bothside'isms that's absolutely killing Labour in the UK and will likely keep the Dems from properly securing elections...

...you should know that you are using a term defined by the far right nutters to be precisely divisive and to indoctrinate people like you into thinking their way. And it seems to be working here. Because nothing you said has ever demonstrated that a social justice warrior as you are calling them would not be equally or more concerned about those bread and butter issues too. They would have to be. So balderdash to your surmising here. If anything, in particular to the subject matter of this thread, that these "SJW's" have always been right. Because here we are on the late stage of that feedback loop of the wrong side of history. Congratulations to you for buying that grift.

...and in case anyone is wondering though, I'm a social justice mage not a warrior. That is, I like blow troll ideas up from behind the comfort of my armchair. <3
Yeah, ultimately, the *real* problem is with how the term "SJW" has been weaponized by bad actors--when, in fact, a lot of what they stand for is perfectly benign. Or at this point, said bad actors might as well be arguing that anyone who's pro-Roe v. Wade is a SJW.

Now, I can understand excesses running amok, in the "renaming every single thing named Dundas" sense. But that's always been the risk of the left of centre, long before "SJW" became a thing. (Toronto's urban-progressive realm--the Sewells and Laytons, especially--was constantly taken to task for being the 70s/80s version of "SJW". From within my family orbit, the euphemism offered was "social activist".)
 
Middle of the road Americans don't care about diversity, equity or alphabet (is that now MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+?) issues, but about jobs, social/economic mobility, homelessness, crime and safety, affordability, housing, accessible/affordable/quality healthcare and education, income

In Canada anyway, the LGBTQ acronym is updated, they just kept adding letters every year. So its. MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+. That stands for Missing Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual.
 
Setting aside all the straw men you are constructing with this term here, not to mention the pandering to bothside'isms that's absolutely killing Labour in the UK and will likely keep the Dems from properly securing elections...

...you should know that you are using a term defined by the far right nutters to be precisely divisive and to indoctrinate people like you into thinking their way. And it seems to be working here. Because nothing you said has ever demonstrated that a social justice warrior as you are calling them would not be equally or more concerned about those bread and butter issues too. They would have to be. So balderdash to your surmising here. If anything, in particular to the subject matter of this thread, that these "SJW's" have always been right. Because here we are on the late stage of that feedback loop of the wrong side of history. Congratulations to you for buying that grift.

...and in case anyone is wondering though, I'm a social justice mage not a warrior. That is, I like blow troll ideas up from behind the comfort of my armchair. <3
As I said, it would be a hard pill to swallow for some that the "far right nutters", to use your terminology, appear just as nutty as the far left nutters. At least to the regular people, who don't want any part of either fringe side of the political spectrum.
 
In Canada anyway, the LGBTQ acronym is updated, they just kept adding letters every year. So its. MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+. That stands for Missing Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual.
I'm almost afraid to ask as I don't want to be labeled an ignorant far right nutter for not knowing the exact importance of every letter in the woke alphabet...

But what's with Girls? I mean it's separated by commas from everyone else as a stand-alone category. Is it missing murdered indigineous women and girls? Or are we now saying that all girls by default are somewhere on the oppression ladder? And if it's all girls that are being oppressed, then at what age do they magically stop being oppressed? Because women sure as heck didn't make it onto the alphabet (except if you're both a murdered and an indigenous woman at the same time)
 
As I said, it would be a hard pill to swallow for some that the "far right nutters", to use your terminology, appear just as nutty as the far left nutters. At least to the regular people, who don't want any part of either fringe side of the political spectrum.
If you think my position is nutty, then I don't have anything further to say. I have challenged you to look at the source, where it's coming from and the evidence to support the claims that you are asserting about it...

...meanwhile, the left have no real power or influence here. Or at least where I am coming from. But you are free to live in that fear that we may weirdly take over somehow, even without really understanding what that would mean. While I will just move on.

Tl,dr: Yeah I get it. Both sides...
 
I'm almost afraid to ask as I don't want to be labeled an ignorant far right nutter for not knowing the exact importance of every letter in the woke alphabet...

But what's with Girls? I mean it's separated by commas from everyone else as a stand-alone category. Is it missing murdered indigineous women and girls? Or are we now saying that all girls by default are somewhere on the oppression ladder? And if it's all girls that are being oppressed, then at what age do they magically stop being oppressed? Because women sure as heck didn't make it onto the alphabet (except if you're both a murdered and an indigenous woman at the same time)
From my understanding it is “and girls” to recognize that it wasn’t just missing and murdered Indigenous women.
 
In Canada anyway, the LGBTQ acronym is updated, they just kept adding letters every year. So its. MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+. That stands for Missing Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual.
I have not seen MMIWG added to the LGBT grouping in the wild. They are rather different things, I think.
 
I will consult with @lenaitch here, but I don't believe Canadian law has any equivalent to a pre-emptive Pardon. I could stand to be corrected on that.

My read is that all variations of a pardon (or more commonly a record suspension) are only applicable post conviction. There's no version of 'you are exempt from being charged'.
Technically, there is nothing in Canadian law that provides for a non-administrative pardon, and certainly not preemptively. There is the Royal Prerogative of Mercy within the reserved powers of the Crown, which would exercised by the Governor General on the advice of Cabinet. We have no equivalent of a single person with a sharpie and pad of foolscap.

Even more technically, a pardon is issued by the Parole Board and now called a 'record of suspension'. It is an administrative procedure and can be revoked.
 

Back
Top