International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Pardons (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=348912)

psionl0 20th January 2021 03:39 AM

I don't get the fuss. Revoking or seriously modifying the President's power to issue pardons just because he might pardon the "wrong" people is nothing more than a trivial pursuit.

Firestone 20th January 2021 03:46 AM

The main problem is the self-dealing, I think.

If a president can just pardon people who commit crimes on his behalf (as Trump did with Manafort, Stone, ...), it effectively puts the president's team above the law.

Mumbles 20th January 2021 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firestone (Post 13367455)
The main problem is the self-dealing, I think.

If a president can just pardon people who commit crimes on his behalf (as Trump did with Manafort, Stone, ...), it effectively puts the president's team above the law.

That's really the only issue at hand - and the lesson shouldn't be "we need to get rid of pardons", since even Toupee Fiasco managed to pardon people who deserved it.

Rather, it's "Don't vote obvious bungling criminal sociopaths into office". That fixes that *actual* problem with Toupee Fiasco's pardons, and many other problems with the past four years.

DevilsAdvocate 20th January 2021 04:19 AM

Rudy is in a heap of trouble. That "trial by combat" thing isn't going to turn out well. At his criminal trial is he going to be represented by Lin Wood or Sydney Powell?

The Don 20th January 2021 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate (Post 13367475)
Rudy is in a heap of trouble. That "trial by combat" thing isn't going to turn out well. At his criminal trial is he going to be represented by Lin Wood or Sydney Powell?

I'm not so sure. :(

IMO it will be difficult to get a 12-person jury to convict him because at least one will be an ardent Trump supporter who will find some way to excuse Rudy Giuliani's words and deeds.

catsmate 20th January 2021 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate (Post 13367387)
In interesting legal matters, considering the very late hour, Biden could maybe theoretically revoke Bannon's pardon. It won't happen, but it possibly could.

Grant revoked two pardons granted by Andrew Johnson. The courts upheld the revocations because the prison warden had not delivered the pardon. Another revocation was upheld because the prisoner had physically received the pardon.

If Biden were to revoke Bannon's pardon, that may be upheld if, at that time, it has not been received by the clerks of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, or possibly even if the pardon has not been delivered, by some manner, to Bannon himself.

Probably won't happen. But an interesting idea.

Shades of Marbury v. Madison.

SuburbanTurkey 20th January 2021 05:18 AM

No pardons yet for Jan6 invaders.

Time's not out yet, but Trump seems on track to hang these goons out to dry.

What I wouldn't pay to be inside the minds of these people that got duped into raiding the Capitol and abandoned by the leader they did it for.

timhau 20th January 2021 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate (Post 13367475)
Rudy is in a heap of trouble. That "trial by combat" thing isn't going to turn out well. At his criminal trial is he going to be represented by Lin Wood or Sydney Powell?

He'll represent himself. You know what they say about men who are their own lawyers.

Darat 20th January 2021 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate (Post 13367475)
Rudy is in a heap of trouble. That "trial by combat" thing isn't going to turn out well. At his criminal trial is he going to be represented by Lin Wood or Sydney Powell?

Can they do that from jail? ;)

turingtest 20th January 2021 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13367511)
No pardons yet for Jan6 invaders.

Time's not out yet, but Trump seems on track to hang these goons out to dry.

What I wouldn't pay to be inside the minds of these people that got duped into raiding the Capitol and abandoned by the leader they did it for.

They've been listening to Trump make statements like these (Snopes), going back to Aug 2015-
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...828e36b018.jpg
-and thought they could actually get away with what their leader was telling them to do. Now they're finding out that they're not getting pardoned, and he's sure as hell not going to pay any of their legal fees. If they have any brains at all, they'll understand that the guy they thought they were using to send a message was using them for his own personal profit the whole time. And if they have any sense of consistency in the message they thought they were sending with "drain the swamp!" they'll get that this was betrayed too- that they will pay legal prices for acts which were incited by a politician who will probably end up paying no price at all; they will be the goats sacrificed on the altar of "unity."

Puppycow 20th January 2021 06:24 AM

The list of pardons seems to have one thing in common.

They are some form of white collar crime, and they are wealthy, or at least formerly wealthy people. Now they all owe him a favor.

The Don 20th January 2021 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 13367543)
The list of pardons seems to have one thing in common.

They are some form of white collar crime, and they are wealthy, or at least formerly wealthy people. Now they all owe him a favor.

Well, yes and no.

Owing someone a favour is only a problem when there are consequences for not paying them back. If the case of certain Italian fraternal organisations, the consequences are clear but in President Trump's case, I'm not sure what he can do, apart from impotently threatening legal action, now that he's out of office.

Suddenly 20th January 2021 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 13367483)
I'm not so sure. :(

IMO it will be difficult to get a 12-person jury to convict him because at least one will be an ardent Trump supporter who will find some way to excuse Rudy Giuliani's words and deeds.

The AUSA office will probably spend more resources on jury selection than anything else.

Not that it would be hard. Most of the ardent Trump supporters proudly state so on their facebook page.

BobTheCoward 20th January 2021 06:54 AM

The pardon power puts the president above impeachment.

"I have a pardon here for every American for every crime Ever. Signing this will immediately release 150,000 inmates. Vote to impeach me and I sign it."

SuburbanTurkey 20th January 2021 06:54 AM

Quote:

A 71-year-old supporter of President Donald Trump was reportedly shocked when Trump recently commuted the 40-year sentence of a man who stole his life savings in a Ponzi scheme.
leopards, faces, etc.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-suppo...scheme-1562797

ponderingturtle 20th January 2021 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13367583)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

zooterkin 20th January 2021 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13367582)
The pardon power puts the president above impeachment.

"I have a pardon here for every American for every crime Ever. Signing this will immediately release 150,000 inmates. Vote to impeach me and I sign it."

And yet...

Mader Levap 20th January 2021 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 13367543)
The list of pardons seems to have one thing in common.

They are some form of white collar crime, and they are wealthy, or at least formerly wealthy people. Now they all owe him a favor.

I bet most of them is 2mln$ poorer. Rest is cover to make all pardons more acceptable.

ahhell 20th January 2021 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbles (Post 13367467)
That's really the only issue at hand - and the lesson shouldn't be "we need to get rid of pardons", since even Toupee Fiasco managed to pardon people who deserved it.

Rather, it's "Don't vote obvious bungling criminal sociopaths into office". That fixes that *actual* problem with Toupee Fiasco's pardons, and many other problems with the past four years.

Even the best of Presidents have had...controversial pardons. I think reasonable limits are a good idea without repealing the power all together. That would be in line with the rest of the Constitution, which is designed to limit the impact of less than honorable actors.

SuburbanTurkey 20th January 2021 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 13367634)
Even the best of Presidents have had...controversial pardons. I think reasonable limits are a good idea without repealing the power all together. That would be in line with the rest of the Constitution, which is designed to limit the impact of less than honorable actors.

The lame-duck pardon is a known monster. Presidents and governors that have pardon power and no accountability to the public in the lame duck period have no reason not to wield this power capriciously.

It's especially a problem for presidents, because it's usually a career ending position. There's no other elections to worry about if you're leaving the Presidency, so it's no problem at all to tarnish your reputation by handing out personal favors.

Sherman Bay 20th January 2021 07:59 AM

According to this TeamJustice lawyer, presidential pardons are not absolute, and may be subject to review or cancellation by the courts. He makes a case that this is what could happen if Trump pardoned a member of his family. Ref: Burdick vs. US.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States (1915)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baWkPCQzgoQ

JoeMorgue 20th January 2021 08:00 AM

Also "President" is a big enough position that other things are likely to overshadow it.

Sure we could argue the pros and cons of this or that pardon or the pardon concept itself, but I think we all know that no President's legacy is going to wind up being based their pardons, they will always be a footnote.

SuburbanTurkey 20th January 2021 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay (Post 13367648)
According to this TeamJustice lawyer, presidential pardons are not absolute, and may be subject to review or cancellation by the courts. He makes a case that this is what could happen if Trump pardoned a member of his family. Ref: Burdick vs. US.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States (1915)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baWkPCQzgoQ

Good thing we don't have a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS that takes a sweeping view of executive power.

Oh wait.

Craig4 20th January 2021 08:05 AM

Oh to be a fly on the wall of Q Shaman's cell when he found out he didn't make the cut. All those morons Trump had storm the Capitol, thinking there was a pardon coming. Heh...heh...heh. Some of them threw their lives away for nothing. I am darkly amused.

slyjoe 20th January 2021 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13367653)
Also "President" is a big enough position that other things are likely to overshadow it.

Sure we could argue the pros and cons of this or that pardon or the pardon concept itself, but I think we all know that no President's legacy is going to wind up being based their pardons, they will always be a footnote.

This is true, except maybe for the case of Ford with the Nixon blanket pardon.

What I would worry about if I was Bannon is that accepting the pardon is "essentially" an admission of guilt (no I don't want to get into the legal nuances of that here).

An admission of guilt would probably not be to the pardonees' advantage when the lawsuits start flying.

SuburbanTurkey 20th January 2021 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 13367659)
Oh to be a fly on the wall of Q Shaman's cell when he found out he didn't make the cut. All those morons Trump had storm the Capitol, thinking there was a pardon coming. Heh...heh...heh. Some of them threw their lives away for nothing. I am darkly amused.

I was thinking the same thing.

The writing is already on the wall, but when 1201 hits, all these Jan6 CHUDs will know, for certain, that they have been abandoned.

ahhell 20th January 2021 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13367646)
The lame-duck pardon is a known monster. Presidents and governors that have pardon power and no accountability to the public in the lame duck period have no reason not to wield this power capriciously.

It's especially a problem for presidents, because it's usually a career ending position. There's no other elections to worry about if you're leaving the Presidency, so it's no problem at all to tarnish your reputation by handing out personal favors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13367653)
Also "President" is a big enough position that other things are likely to overshadow it.

Sure we could argue the pros and cons of this or that pardon or the pardon concept itself, but I think we all know that no President's legacy is going to wind up being based their pardons, they will always be a footnote.

I agree with both of those statements.
Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13367654)
Good thing we don't have a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS that takes a sweeping view of executive power.

Oh wait.

As a rule, conservative judges/justices don't actually have a sweeping view of executive power. At least not based on their stated philosophies, mostly because with a few exceptions, like pardons, the constitution doesn't take a sweeping view of executive power. They typically have a fairly dim view of Chevron Deference for instance. People being who we are, I'm sure they can find a work around.

JoeMorgue 20th January 2021 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13367660)
This is true, except maybe for the case of Ford with the Nixon blanket pardon.

Fair point. That certainly is a valid exception. Ford is certainly the only President that comes to mind where if you going to do like a bullet-point level, quick snapshot of the major events, both highlights and lowlights, of their Presidency the word "pardon" would even show up at all. Maybe Carter's mass pardon of draft avoiders is a borderline case, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that pops into people's heads when you mention Jimmy Carter the same way the pardon of Nixon does if you mention Gerald Ford.

But pardoning a President (to say nothing of your immediate predecessor) after the biggest scandal in American political history as pretty much your first act and then having a, let's be fair, rather short, boring and milquetoast placeholder Presidency after that makes for a rather extreme example. Not helped by Gerald Ford not exactly being a ball of fiery charisma so he doesn't really have any place in America's pop-culture psyche. Which to his credit is what American needed after Nixon. In way him pardoning Nixon being the most dramatic thing he did speaks well of the man. I actually think I had a good finger on the pulse of country, for better or worse.

There's plenty of things that could have happened during Ford's Presidency that would have overshadowed his pardoning of Nixon but just didn't. Ford's more a case of just nothing else about his Presidency being interesting then the pardon itself being all that interesting, although again I will admit it is by far the most interesting pardon from a political perspective.

Thermal 20th January 2021 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 13367677)
I agree with both of those statements.
As a rule, conservative judges/justices don't actually have a sweeping view of executive power. At least not based on their stated philosophies, mostly because with a few exceptions, like pardons, the constitution doesn't take a sweeping view of executive power. They typically have a fairly dim view of Chevron Deference for instance. People being who we are, I'm sure they can find a work around.

And for as lockstep as the conservative justices are perceived, they told the President to go pound sand in the recent electoral challenges. They do adhere to principles of law when the mood strikes.

Suddenly 20th January 2021 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13367654)
Good thing we don't have a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS that takes a sweeping view of executive power.

Oh wait.

As of about ten minutes ago conservatism switched to being wary of both the power of the executive and also deficits.

Nessie 20th January 2021 10:13 AM

I get the President pardoning a turkey at Thanksgiving. Otherwise, it is corruption in plain site.

Craig4 20th January 2021 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 13367819)
I get the President pardoning a turkey at Thanksgiving. Otherwise, it is corruption in plain site.

I'd like to see the power modified so it could only be used if someone had been found guilty. If the intent is to right a miscarriage of justice, we should give justice a chance to be miscarried.

JoeMorgue 20th January 2021 10:52 AM

That's why I proposed earlier the idea of replacing pardon power in its current from with the ability of the President to just order a "do over" if he thinks justice wasn't served.

Person A is found guilty of a crime and the President thinks this is a miscarriage of justice. For a second backburner the discussion of whether or not the President should be able to act on this (not to say it's not a valid question, we'll just shelve it for now) the President could have the ability to just null and void that trial and make it have to be done again; perhaps with some (well within legal framework) modifications like change of venue. The trial would then just happen again, the legal system would still make the final say. The President would just be limited to, basically, going "Are sure that's your final answer?"

Purely symbolic pardons done after the person has died and many years have passed I could still see being retained.

Segnosaur 20th January 2021 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 13367875)
I'd like to see the power modified so it could only be used if someone had been found guilty. If the intent is to right a miscarriage of justice, we should give justice a chance to be miscarried.

So, in the case of something like the Vietnam War draft dodgers... you would want to see them live the rest of their lives with the threat of prosecution over their heads, just because "We can only pardon you if you are found guilty"?

BobTheCoward 20th January 2021 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13367909)
So, in the case of something like the Vietnam War draft dodgers... you would want to see them live the rest of their lives with the threat of prosecution over their heads, just because "We can only pardon you if you are found guilty"?

Yes. They should have all been prosecuted.

Mader Levap 20th January 2021 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13367909)
So, in the case of something like the Vietnam War draft dodgers... you would want to see them live the rest of their lives with the threat of prosecution over their heads, just because "We can only pardon you if you are found guilty"?

Implying blanket pardon is only way to deal with draft dodgers. I think it is wrong.

You always could make law/bill/whatever that decriminalizes draft dodging from that period. I guess blanket pardon was simply easiest solution with least amount of hassle.

Segnosaur 20th January 2021 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mader Levap (Post 13367947)
Quote:

So, in the case of something like the Vietnam War draft dodgers... you would want to see them live the rest of their lives with the threat of prosecution over their heads, just because "We can only pardon you if you are found guilty"?
Implying blanket pardon is only way to deal with draft dodgers. I think it is wrong.

You always could make law/bill/whatever that decriminalizes draft dodging from that period.

And if the senate or house is currently under the control of a party that opposes those actions?

Quote:

I guess blanket pardon was simply easiest solution with least amount of hassle.
In general, I think pardons are an imperfect solution to a problem, for which all alternatives are even more imperfect.

(Not that I wouldn't be opposed to seeing them modify the rules...)

Skeptic Ginger 20th January 2021 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate (Post 13367412)
No. See my post above about court rulings on whether a pardon can be revoked before it is delivered. That is all we have.

The rest would be up to the courts. A secret pardon would almost certainly be considered not valid. A self pardon would almost certainly be considered not valid whether secret or not.

I think if Trump had pardoned himself or his kids we'd have heard by now. And now it's too late.

I suspect Trump either took it seriously that pardoning himself would be evidence for state charges, it would show knowledge of guilt.

Or, he such a sick narcissist he simply doesn't believe they can convict him. He's always gotten away with things before.

Giuliani made a point of saying no pardon because he hadn't broken any laws. That might be true and might have also influenced Dump's decision.


As for Bannon, I copied this from a search rather than bothering to read the article:
Quote:

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-pardo...harges-1562984
Despite Donald Trump Pardon, Steve Bannon Could Still Face State ...
5 hours ago ... "What Bannon did likely violated state financial crime laws so he may still face criminal charges in multiple states as well as civil lawsuits for his ...
He's still toast.

dudalb 20th January 2021 11:32 AM

Trump's pardon of Bannon is a professonal from one Grifter to another.

Craig4 20th January 2021 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13367909)
So, in the case of something like the Vietnam War draft dodgers... you would want to see them live the rest of their lives with the threat of prosecution over their heads, just because "We can only pardon you if you are found guilty"?

It's the statute of limitations. You can also modify prosecution guidelines to not pursue such charges.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.