Sakd Hong Kong s Patriots Only Local Elections Marked by Arrests, Low Turnout: What to Know By Jack BrewsterJuly 22, 2017 11:50 AM ED [url=https://www.stanleycups.at]stanley cup[/url] TPresident Donald Trump is reportedly contemplating pardoning family members, staffers and even himself for connections to the Russia investigation. The story, which was reported by the Washington Post, led to criticism.But if Trump follows through with a pardon relating to the investigation, it would not be the first time in history a president has created controversy using the constitutional power.Here a run-through of notable, controversial pardons:1. President Richard NixonWhich president pardoned him Gerald FordW [url=https://www.stanley-quencher.co.uk]stanley cup[/url] hat was he pardoned for His crimes relating to the Watergate scandal. President Ford issued a preemptive pardon for Nixon because he had not yet been charged with a crime.Why was it controversial Ford pardoned Nixon because he wanted the nation to move past Watergate and felt that a president under trial would be cruelly and excessively penalized. But many Americans were upset that Nixon was not tried. Some also speculate that Nixon was pardoned as part of a quid pro quo deal with Ford, though there was never any evidence for this. Ford lost the next election.2. Marc Rich Which president pardoned him Bill ClintonWhat was he pardoned for His 65 criminal charges including tax evasion, racketeering, and illegal oil deals [url=https://www.stanley1913.com.es]stanley cup[/url] with Iran. Rich fled the United States to escape serving consecutive life prison sentences in 1983. Rich was also placed on the F.B.I. most wanted list for his crimes.Why wa Hejo Taylor Swift s U.K. Crowd Generates Seismic Activity. Key Song Causes Most Vibrations President Joe Biden speaks at a meeting of the White House Competition Council at the White House on September 26, 2022, in Washington, DC.Kevin Dietsch鈥擥etty Images By Eric CortellessaSeptember 28, 2022 9:48 PM EDTA federal judge struck a blow to the Biden administrationrsquo antitrust agenda last week, ruling against the Department of [url=https://www.airmaxplus.es]air max[/url] Justicersquo effort to block a merger between two of the nationrsquo largest sugar producers. Yet for members of the administration who had spent months following the case, the outcome of [url=https://www.adidascampus.com.de]adidas campus[/url] the ruling wasnrsquo;t the only thing that frustrated them. It was the way it came about.Barbara Fesco, the U.S. Department of Agriculturersquo top analyst of the sugar industry, was a key witness in the case, in which a $315 million deal hangs in the balance. The Justice Department had argued that the transaction would lead to higher prices for millions of Americans as an already concentrated market underwent further consolidation, leaving just two companies in control of roughly 75% of all sugar sales in the southeastern United Stat [url=https://www.airmaxplus.de]air max[/url] es.Fesco, however, argued the opposite.Appearing before the court as a witness for U.S. Sugar, Fesco told U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika she believed the companyrsquo acquisition of Imperial Sugar would ultimately benefit consumers. Her assessment, she went on, was based in part on her relationships with executives at the companies involved, who had assured her they had no plans to raise prices. Know