1 A little off the rails, here, Tim. Blanket pardons certainly are legal, and there is nothing in the constitution which limits the nature of the power to grant pardons. Further, impeaching a president who has already been voted out of office is absurd. I love you, man, but your Biden Derangement Syndrome has reached epic proportions.

2 Bill, I gather this is a pardon for anything at all he did, not just related to this crime. I looked at a number of websites and saw arguments in both directions so I think this could well wind up in court. As I say I'm no legal scholar, but I rather don't believe a President can pardon a person for any and all crimes related or unrelated to those being discussed. If a fellow was being charged with bribery and given a pardon, does that give him immunity from an unrelated murder he committed in 1982?  If that were the case every President would pardon everyone all the time.

Bill, you may remember there was talk of impeaching Trump after he got out of office and in fact he was already a lame duck when they did. They can hold his pension if nothing else. And this will make the subpoena powers of the impeachment committee shed light on things that now cannot be divulged due to executive privilege. It will show the depth of corruption in the Biden Administration and there will be no way they can stop that. Now Biden will assert privilege and that will be that if any investigation ramps up.

It's not derangement syndrome but rather a simple desire for justice. Is Biden and his Democrat friends under the same law as the rest of us or not?

And if they are going to pursue our guy we can damned well pursue theirs using the same methods. That is the only way things will ever get back to normal; if there is Mutual Assured Destruction.

3 Oh, to clarify my point; the President can pardon a person for crimes and give a "blanket" but that doesn't cut off all prosecution for any crime, I do not believe. It applies to those crimes and any related crimes for which the person is accused, but if new, totally unrelated crimes come to light I don't think the Presidential pardon would be in force for those. Again, I may be wrong but I did a bit of homework, anyway, and legal scholars seem to have some degree of argument over it.

4 The fact that the Democrats did it is not justification. Democrats do lots of insane and illegal things. Come on, man. Impeachment is removal from office. It has no other meaning, present or future, inherent, implied, or implicit. It does nothing and affects the person now and forever in no way other than by removing him from office. "Retroactive impeachment?" If you are sane, why do you want to create chaos and hold up progress in Congress to accomplish nothing that has not already happened?

5 Oh, come on Bill; I just pointed out what impeachment will allow. And a future Democrat wouldn't be able to pardon Biden if he is convicted (something unlikely to happen, granted, but who knows what will shake out of the tree.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again;  we must maintain reciprocity for the actions of the Democrats/Left. If they attack us in a certain way we must attack them in just this same way. The only way any of this will end is if it becomes too costly for them to do and we aren't making it too costly right now by "being the bigger man". Schoolyards are full of kids with missing teeth and missing lunch money because they tried to be the bigger man with the school bully.

The Supreme Court ruled that if a President is successfully impeached he loses his immunity from prosecution. And in fact the Federal case against Trump was predicated in no small part on the fact Trump was impeached (although not removed) and thus  was not eligible for immunity. But of course Trump wasn't convicted, which made that argument dubious, and it is doubtful Biden would be either.

The point is to force open things now hidden by executive privilege.

Bill, I disagree; impeachment is indeed about more than simple removal from office, or at least that is what it is at present.

You mention the "chaos"of this; isn't that precisely what people elected Donald Trump to do? He was elected in no small part to overturn the stranglehold of the Ruling Class. Trump is a reformer and we are fifty years beyond when we should have done some major reforms. Trump is there to slash and burn on these government agencies, for instance. That will be called chaos, but it's necessary chaos.

Why do the Democrats do so well most of the time? They are abhorrent and do not follow the law but still almost win every election or do win. That is because they approach politics using Machiavellian tactics, and they are never boring. Crazy, yes, but not boring.

Yes, they get a lot of help from a fawning media,but they know how to do political theater and we do not. Our side doesn't understand that there are things the public expects to see and demands. One thing is moral outrage where moral outrage is due. Republicans will pay lame lip service but take no action, making them appear to the public to be hypocrites. If you truly believe Joe Biden is a criminal and what you said is not just political rhetoric you would take action. The Karl Rove "move on" approach has always been a huge failure, and Rove could barely drag George W. Bush across the finish line - or anyone else. Bush should have had little trouble in either election.

One thing is certain; endless investigations that are stonewalled or strong words not backed by action are both unproductive and just plain boring. The public sees a lack of courage of conviction in the GOP. If they shoot their mouths off they should be willing to take action. The Democrats would not hesitate to do this. They may still impeach Trump yet again, even after he's out of office.

And Congress itself has determined it can impeach a retired President. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10565 From  the report:

"The House has never impeached, nor has the Senate ever tried, a former President. However, both chambers have previously determined that they retain power to proceed against an executive branch official that has resigned from office. The principal precedent is the 1876 impeachment of Secretary of War William Belknap."

CBS thinks so
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-impeachment-leaving-office/

So too does the AP;
https://apnews.com/article/can-trump-impeached-after-leaving-office-ae386f5cb003ea323319f60347586dec

Bill, love you man but you and I just disagree on this.