Conservative groups influential with the Trump administration have pressed for the preemptive acts of clemency.
There’s a world of difference between a pardon issues to prevent malicious prosecution for non-crimew and one issued to people you’ve been instructing to commit crimes
The presidential pardon needs to be abolished.
Elect me as president. I’ll start pardoning whistleblowers and antifa. They’ll abolish it within a week.
It’s almost like the writers of the Constitution got tired of arguing after a certain point and did not care about looking deeper at many of the provisions that could easily be abused.
I don’t see them as the deep thinkers others do. They had grievances for the times and it’s clear that the works are all driven by those grievances and not for a long lasting society.
Almost like they were human. Is it better for them to just be ideal symbols than something real and complicated?
They’re asking Trump to give preemptive pardons.
The problem is if Democrats gain enough seats to hold Trump accountable he’s going to blame everyone else and won’t want to pardon them as punishment for failing him.
They can still testify.
Republicans aren’t real good about showing up when subpoenaed to testify.
Believe it or not, straight to jail.
If only.
Drug runners always get the kids to do the crimes. trump is no different.
People say getting rid of the pardon power takes a constitutional amendment… Y’all are not being creative enough like Republicans.
Just have the next president tell the Supreme Court to reinterpret pardons as unconstitutional. If they refuse tell them they you will assassinate any who refuse as an official act.
We can go further: Now that the supreme Court has rules that presidents have immunity for all official acts, the next president could simply imprison the pardoned officials. In fact, the next president should dismiss and replace the Supreme Court justices who voted to give presidents complete immunity, so that the precedent can be reverted.
Realistically pardons are the stupidest presidential power. I understand they are necessary but the way Trump is using them should be unconstitutional.
I am not even sure they are necessary to have in the hands of a singular person. I think a citizens review board could come in a lot of different forms of varying merits and still be more fair then having it in the hands of one partisan elected person.
If I were designing it I would make it double as almost like a jobs program. You create these boards out of random citizens and make it a full time 40hr/46 week job. They have to research each case, argue the merits, and then vote all on public record. The duration would maybe 3 to 4 years for each cohort, with the first year being education, training and analyzing and debating the decisions of one of the prior cohorts. The other 2-3 years would be their effective working years. I would also have a recruitment office, so after the cohorts terms are done they could transfer into parallel professions if they wish.
I would make it so it has to be representative of the general population too, meaning not just race, sex and age, but former incarceration status has to be taken into account. Make it a lottery system where every name is by default in the system, if they don’t want the job (which will be most people) you move on to the next person until you fill your cohort.
Yeah let’s turn everything into a competition over who can be more insane.
Why shouldn’t we? Your life is basically a 0 on the cosmic scale, cause chaos we’re all just monkeys wearing pants.
Yeah let’s turn everything into a competition over who can be more insane.
This exact same reasoning would lead to all murder victims just allowing themselves to be murdered.
Gosh, so weird. I would think the most bestest and most transparent admin in history would not need any kind of pardons?
Pardons for…what?
Okay.
Shoot them and pardon the shooters.
Yep. The president can just make a hit list out of the pardon list and call it an “Official Act”
Pardon’s must be nullified. You cannot pardon betraying the constitution or you invite future attempts.
I get it, the Dems are spineless law followers.
But we are no longer a nation of laws. Just exec order an unpardon and ham on.
Still pissed that Biden didn’t assasinate half the supreme court and like 5 Senators as an “Official Act”
Biden will go down as the second-worst President in history, precisely because he didn’t do ANYTHING to prevent what happened.
And to anyone who says he didn’t have the ability, Joe Biden was President when the Roberts Court basically ruled that Presidents could do anything as President without being charged, as long as it could be argued that said actions were part of their Presidential duties.
Yep you and the person before you read this dead on correct.
Even if I were to live another 100 years I’d doubt we’d see a worse President than Biden. Trump did exactly as I always thought he would. But I never imagined the Robert’s court while Biden was still President would hand him emperor powers.
The fact he didn’t pray to his God and then send wet teams after a litany of people, where he’d ultimately be sentenced to death at some point after the constitution would be amended to fix this shit, tells every one how much of a spineless coward Biden was. He couldn’t meet the moment even when he tried.
There’s a world of difference between a pardon issues to prevent malicious prosecution for non-crimes and one issued to people you’ve been instructing to commit crimes
You’re not wrong, of course, but that’s not how the Constitution is written. The President’s pardon power (for Federal) crimes is absolute, with the only exception being in matters of impeachment. The whole notion of pre-emptive pardons seems silly, but Biden gave one to his son and that seems to have stuck.
However, there is an idea that giving a politically-motivated pardon for an actual crime can backfire, because if someone can no longer be prosecuted for something, it also means they have no reason to take the 5th amendment that prevents them from incriminating themselves under oath. So while individuals might be pardoned, the crime was still committed, and investigators are within their rights to bring charges against people they can prosecute. When the pardoned person is questioned under oath, they have to testify truthfully (with no recourse to the 5th amendment for the crime they were pardoned for) or else they can be prosecuted for perjury… which is a new crime that was not subject to any prior pardon.
So, the pardon power is in serious need of reform. That would take a Constitutional Amendment. But we can do anything in an amendment, as long as Congress and enough States agree. We can even retroactively nullify any pardon given by Trump! I doubt it would get the 38 states required to pass if it contained that clause, but a boy can dream, can’t he?
Also interesting to note that the process of passing an amendment does not require the President at all. It does need a 2/3 majority in both houses before it goes to the States, so it’s not something Democrats can do alone. But it would be the perfect middle finger to Trumpism if they can manage to build enough support to get it passed before Trump leaves office.
I really do wish Trump would try to turn over one of those pardons to chase some made up crimes that clearly fail in court - just so he sets precedence and enables the next non-MAGA government to wipe out his pardons as well and mop up his ilk for every single cent misappropriated (not to mention the lives his regime cost, the treasons etc.)
They can be wiped by enforcing 14A3 disqualification and declaring his second term invalid
With how far out of pocket the Trump party is right now, I could see Trump writing an executive order against a new amendment and the GOP side of the SCOTUS finding in his favor. At that point the reasonable (hork) republicans would fold and the DOJ would just stay were it is, neck deep in diaper. That would be bullshit stacked deeper than the Titan sub, but is honestly more likely than the amendment getting passed in the first place.
“Neck deep in diaper” is a new one for me. I’ll be using that going forward, thanks!
Laws are for little people.
small criminals break laws. Big criminals make laws.
It would be nice if this was a scheme for which only a few lawbreakers at the top were responsible but actually the “little people” had a choice and they’re the ones who voted to entrust Trump with the power to pardon.
I spent a lot of time knocking on doors for Harris. In the area I was, people wouldn’t trust her because of skin color and gender. They just couldn’t get past that.
A pardon is an admittance of criminality and guilt.
They should’ve treated as criminals until they make amends to society.
I don’t agree with that necessarily when people cheer to lock someone up without a cause. Like if a president came forward and pardoned say all the people who have immigrated to this country for any previous issues while filing out immigration paperwork, such as typos name changes, and so on then it isn’t directly to cover for guilt, but rather to protect a group of people from harassment.
Edit then you can institute a review process and further assistance while submitting such paperwork in the future and it could mitigate witch hunts and mistreatment of people
I believe immigration violations aren’t criminal charges, they’re civil charges. That’s why you don’t get a lawyer and proceedings are in immigration courts.
A president can grant amnesty instead, which doesn’t have anything to do with admissions of guilt that I’m aware of.
The President has not been granted the power of amnesty over immigration violations.
Consider that President Obama tried a much narrower executive action to exercise prosecution discretion over immigration violations, and that still faced some very stiff scrutiny from the courts. If Obama had an amnesty power, he would have probably used it.
Presidents do have a few other levers to let people enter and stay in the country on their discretion:
- certain visas have very broad and subjective criteria that can be used to admit individuals case by case.
- Presidents can grant Temporary Protected Status to nationalities based on disasters or other contingencies in the home countries. TPS cannot lead to permanent residence or naturalization, but it is a “legal status.”
- presidents have a lot of power in how they process applications from refugees. They can use that power to admit more refugees or fewer refugees.
- Presidents control the policies on use of immigration parole. Immigration parole is basically like release on bond, but without an immigration court case or court date.
Sorry I was tired, I was thinking of the Reagan amnesty, but that was an act of congress that he signed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
Republicans have been using the pardon power to reward their political operatives from the crimes they did to help their political party.
Fascists are exploiting our laws to destroy our democracy.
Yeah I mean I believe that pardons shouldn’t really exist within the executive branch. If they are necessary I feel the process would be better if the executive branch had to send names and crimes you intend to congress with a period of say 60 days to review, a hearing date is set before congress and at the end of that 60 days the executive branch sends their members to present their “case” before congress of why they are special cases and the law shouldn’t just be updated for every individual who performs these acts, past/present/future. Then if 60% of congress votes for it it goes through, or if they vote for a 60 day extension to bring any new information brought during the executive branches testimony to their constituents to see if they need to change their stance.
So effectively that would make it so congress and the executive branch have to be in agreement to overall a finding by the judicial branch. It also should prompt a review of the laws that they had broken to make sure they are brought up to date to ensure future cases aren’t need to be heard.
I fully agree that the pardon power should not be a get out of jail card for criminals.
It’s Saturday which means there’s already too much booze in me but I want a robust system that would filter out political reward pardons, wealth/personal connection pardons and any pardon that happens only because the party giving the pardon benefitted from the crime.
Also, expand SCOTUS to take away the federalist foundation’s control over the American judiciary.
I hear what you are saying, but legally that isn’t how it works. The previous commenter is correct, legally speaking in the US. A pardon is absolutely an admission of guilt.
There are ways around this. You can submit an Alford Plea at your original trial, which again would still indicate guilt under the law, but is a way that a defendant can legally enter into the record that they are “innocent of the charges, but due to circumstances beyond their control, one will submit to the punishment.”
IANYL. I don’t know how this would actually play out inside the bureaucracy.
No a pardon doesn’t have to do with guilt. Guilt is depicted by a judge/jury or by taking a plea deal. A pardon can occur before charges are even filed, and one cannot be declared guilty until a conviction is made… Which would never come to be.
So legally yes, that’s exactly how it works. If Trump pardons Kushner for using U.S. funds and negotiating on behalf of the U.S. like Kushners lawyer recognized he was the signatory on an account holding $770 million dollars but did not make any decisions without Trump approval.
No charges have yet been brought against him. If said pardon goes through it doesnt mean he actually did anything wrong… it means he won’t have to appear in a federal court and explain where/when he turned over access to those accounts when Trump left office(he likely never did)
But in the U.S. you are innocent until proven guilty, and in such a case… He wasn’t proven guilty.
According to Associate Justice Joseph McKenna, writing the majority opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case Burdick v. United States, a pardon is “an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it.”
According to US legal precedent a pardon carries with it the implication that you are guilty, and can therefore be refused to allow an innocent conviction. Skipping the trial also skips the presumption of innocence.
Fuck Trump. But also fuck double standards.
Biden’s weak old ass pardons people that don’t need one but appointed useless Merrick Garland as attorney general. I am tired of all the weak centrist Democrats doing nothing but performative useless shit and letting all the Republicans tax cuts stay.
Not anymore
Ugh Next government better recall all these dollarstore pardons and reverse the Epstein agenda…
There is no legal mechanism to rescind a pardon.
Yeah… there has been no legal mechanism for most of what trump has gotten done. Lock em up anyways and don’t explain shit. And whenever asked about it the administration can just laugh and move on to the next question.
deleted by creator
Sadly im not sure recalling a pardon is possible, even if its ill gotten
If they do this, I say we should ignore the rule of law and hang them after a mass trial. Frankly, pardons have been used to abuse America’s trust and integrity, not to any good end.
You can still commit perjury during questioning about your crimes
and you can’t use the 5th amendment to refuse to answer about things you’ve been pardoned for, because there’s no risk of self-incrimination if you’re already pardoned for any potential charges
Indeed, so someone who has been pardoned federally can be compelled to testify to their crimes.
The really interesting part: When federal crimes have state criminal implications, that means during testimony, they either commit perjury by not being truthful about the crimes, can be jailed for contempt for refusing to answer, or they are truthful and while some conduct will be covered by the pardon, there’s a good chance testimony can be used to inform other non-pardonable state crimes.
Now, the question is whether anyone in positions of prosecutorial power has the guts to push, or instead will give up before trying. But they definitely can.
Most likely, if they can demonstrate that there might plausibly be some state level criminal liability they’re not immunised for, then they still get to use the 5th amendment to avoid answering.
