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)

Squeegee Beckenheim 23rd January 2021 02:47 AM

Tuesday's Opening Arguments podcast will go over all the pardons. I don't imagine it will cover every pardon individually in detail, but host Andrew Torrez has read every single one in preperation.

Vixen 23rd January 2021 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13367944)
Yes. They should have all been prosecuted.

No, many draft dodgers had conscientious and reasonable objections to fighting in Vietnam. It spawned the 'flower power' movement. I read one account of MY LAY IN MAI LAI by a typical GI 'patriot', 'Heck man, we were all six feet tall, the gooks were only four foot six - not a fair fight'.

So, IMV a pardon for the Vietnam draft dodgers was an ethical and sound one.

erwinl 23rd January 2021 05:40 AM

Are these pardons generic ‘this person is pardoned for his crimes’, or more specific ‘this person is pardoned for crime x, y, z)?

Knowing Trump it would be too funny if something crucial was forgotten in the pardon and the end result would still be prison.

gypsyjackson 23rd January 2021 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susheel (Post 13370106)
Was surprised Ghislaine Maxwell wasn't on the list. Also, how was Joe Exotic so sure about his probable pardon? Were certain monetary considerations in play?

I imagine Trump calling him and saying ĎIím sorry, Joe, I just ran out of time before the pile of pardons got down to Xí.

BobTheCoward 23rd January 2021 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13371290)
No, many draft dodgers had conscientious and reasonable objections to fighting in Vietnam. It spawned the 'flower power' movement. I read one account of MY LAY IN MAI LAI by a typical GI 'patriot', 'Heck man, we were all six feet tall, the gooks were only four foot six - not a fair fight'.

So, IMV a pardon for the Vietnam draft dodgers was an ethical and sound one.

What is the point of doing the right thing against an unjust law if you are just going to get out of the punishment?

The punishment is the point to the choice you made.

dirtywick 23rd January 2021 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13371343)
What is the point of doing the right thing against an unjust law if you are just going to get out of the punishment?

The punishment is the point to the choice you made.

thatís quite the hot take

Darat 23rd January 2021 06:59 AM

I think Trump’s pardoning was interrupted and knocked-off course by two events, one being told he couldn’t pardon himself and him losing the election and his betrayal by the criminals of the insurrection (by looking low class) and the fallout from that - apparently staff being warned about interacting with him.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the final pardons were all drawn up prior to those events so the paperwork had already been done.

Dave Rogers 23rd January 2021 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13371343)
What is the point of doing the right thing against an unjust law if you are just going to get out of the punishment?

The point is to have done the right thing. And if the prospect of punishing someone for doing the right thing is enough to convince the state to rescind both the unjust law and the punishment it mandates, then the moral victory is undiminished.

Dave

BobTheCoward 23rd January 2021 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 13371435)
The point is to have done the right thing. And if the prospect of punishing someone for doing the right thing is enough to convince the state to rescind both the unjust law and the punishment it mandates, then the moral victory is undiminished.

Dave

That seems like a massive diminishment.

zooterkin 23rd January 2021 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13371436)
That seems like a massive diminishment.

No, it doesn't.

BobTheCoward 23rd January 2021 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zooterkin (Post 13371446)
No, it doesn't.

Agree to disagree

Beelzebuddy 23rd January 2021 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13371351)
thatís quite the hot take

Read the recent Snowden thread and you'll see Bob's not alone in that sentiment.

Thor 2 23rd January 2021 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13371290)
No, many draft dodgers had conscientious and reasonable objections to fighting in Vietnam. It spawned the 'flower power' movement. I read one account of MY LAY IN MAI LAI by a typical GI 'patriot', 'Heck man, we were all six feet tall, the gooks were only four foot six - not a fair fight'.

So, IMV a pardon for the Vietnam draft dodgers was an ethical and sound one.


No argument with that although it shouldn't be at the discretion of a President, Governor, Prime Minister, or King. It should be something resulting from legal argument within the legal system.

Something highlighting the unfairness and stupidity of pardons, is that one person may be set free and another stay behind bars, when they have committed the same crime.

SteveAitch 25th January 2021 01:57 AM

I came across a reference to this on another board - I don't think it's been mentioned here - are such prosecutions likely?

Segnosaur 25th January 2021 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor 2 (Post 13371755)



Something highlighting the unfairness and stupidity of pardons, is that one person may be set free and another stay behind bars, when they have committed the same crime.

Let's assume for a second the president granting the pardons is acting with integrity when they pardon or commute sentences, and there are reasons to think a pardon is a good idea....

Yes even in that case you will get situations where one person goes to jail while another goes free... But if (for whatever reason) both people should have gone free, then keeping both in jail (because there is no ability to pardon anymore) seems kind of foolish.



Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

JoeMorgue 25th January 2021 07:23 AM

So the newest... I don't know whether to call it a conspiracy theory or not, floating around is the idea that Trump might have done... SECRET PARDONS! *Music sting*

The Don 25th January 2021 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13373243)
So the newest... I don't know whether to call it a conspiracy theory or not, floating around is the idea that Trump might have done... SECRET PARDONS! *Music sting*

The idea of secret pardons have already been mentioned upthread - secret pardons being those where neither the public nor congress have been informed (but presumably the justice department has).

Michael Cohen thinks he has:

Quote:

"I kind of think I figured it out," he said to MSNBC host Alex Witt. "I think Donald Trump actually has given himself the pardon. I think he also has pocket pardons for his children and for Rudy and it's already stashed somewhere that, if and when they do get indicted and that there's a criminal conviction, federal criminal conviction brought against him, that he already has the pardons in hand."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1792085.html

A Washington Post opinion piece thinks that secret pardons wouldn't work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...dons-validity/

I wouldn't put it past him to do such a thing. I also wouldn't put it past him to do it so ineptly that it doesn't work.

Beelzebuddy 25th January 2021 07:57 AM

I don't think there's any secret pardons, not because I don't think they'd work, but because I don't think Trump is capable of keeping them secret. He would have blabbed.

Which doesn't mesh with my other thought, that there is no way in hell Trump would leave office without pardoning himself. It would have been the best and bigliest pardon anyone has ever received.

I can only conclude there was a minor mutiny of his office drones at the end, where they gave him the paperwork to do the pardons for himself and unsurprisingly it never got done.

Segnosaur 25th January 2021 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveAitch (Post 13373100)
I came across a reference to this on another board - I don't think it's been mentioned here - are such prosecutions likely?

To anyone who hasn't read the referenced article...

Basically, it was suggesting that some of the people who received pardons from Trump at the last minute could still be prosecuted by the DoJ, because of the way the pardons were written.

For example, Manafort was pardoned specifically for crimes he was convicted of (instead of a blanket "all possible crimes".) However, some of the things he was initially charged with resulted in a hung jury... Because he was never convicted on several bank fraud charges, he could be retried on those. (And, because of elements of earlier plea agreements as well as the pardon, conviction might be easier this time around.) Another example is Bannon, who was pardoned for "Offences charged"... But there were other potential crimes that were overlooked (such as wire fraud), because prosecutors sometimes want to avoid "piling on" charges because it can overwhelm juries. Now that he's been pardoned on the main crimes, prosecutors can start looking into these other crimes.

I hope that the DOJ does start looking at these people that were pardoned to see if there are ways they can be convicted. However, I am skeptical that it will end up going anywhere... it depends on 1) the Biden administration taking a hard-line stance (which I am not convinced they will), 2) the charges actually being successful (there are enough MAGAchuds around that jury pools could be tainted.)

Thor 2 27th January 2021 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13373234)
Let's assume for a second the president granting the pardons is acting with integrity when they pardon or commute sentences, and there are reasons to think a pardon is a good idea....

Yes even in that case you will get situations where one person goes to jail while another goes free... But if (for whatever reason) both people should have gone free, then keeping both in jail (because there is no ability to pardon anymore) seems kind of foolish.



Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk


Let's assume that a law is unjust and many folk are being punished for breaking said law.

I am suggesting that a bill should be generated to rescind that law. This passes through the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, and then stamped by the president.

In consequence all who have been convicted of breaking that law are pardoned by the courts. This is the way it should work in my opinion.

The Don 29th January 2021 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor 2 (Post 13375715)
Let's assume that a law is unjust and many folk are being punished for breaking said law.

I am suggesting that a bill should be generated to rescind that law. This passes through the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, and then stamped by the president.

In consequence all who have been convicted of breaking that law are pardoned by the courts. This is the way it should work in my opinion.

If you've got an obstructionist party in the Senate and/or House that bill may never see the light of day no matter how justified.

It may also take months or even years to get the bill passed even if it makes it onto the legislative agenda. Why force people to stay in prison while the bill meanders its way through the legislature ?

Suddenly 29th January 2021 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 13377396)
If you've got an obstructionist party in the Senate and/or House that bill may never see the light of day no matter how justified.

It may also take months or even years to get the bill passed even if it makes it onto the legislative agenda. Why force people to stay in prison while the bill meanders its way through the legislature ?

Right.

In a carceral state removing one of the few avenues for redress of injustice is a bad move no matter how corruptly that power can be used.

In the US, actual innocence isn't always a grounds to have a settled conviction/sentence overturned. There is a patchwork of post conviction law the meanders so much that even when it works out it takes years. Things like pardons can be a valuable short circuit.

Legislatures, when they repeal crimes or reduce sentences usually do not make that retroactive to past convictions.

The last thing the US needs is to remove this. Bad pardons aren't worth making the system even harsher.

Dr. Keith 29th January 2021 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly (Post 13377566)
The last thing the US needs is to remove this. Bad pardons aren't worth making the system even harsher.

I agree with you, but there is some value to everyone playing by the same rules. An overly harsh system is never corrected if the people who could correct it are instead allowed to sidestep it.

If a law is overly harsh and a rich person is impacted they have two means of redress: advocate for a change in the law or advocate for a pardon. One of those is quicker and cheaper and does nothing to make society as a whole better.

I'm reminded of proposed laws to make all recipients of welfare subject to random drug testing. A counter argument was that if we were worried about druggies getting government money then we should be drug testing all college students receiving financial aid. Make the harsh aspects of an unjust law apply to more people and their harshness becomes more evident and less tolerable.

And to repeat, I am only talking about theory. Practically, there have been too many good uses of the pardon to let a few bad ones spoil the idea.

Suddenly 29th January 2021 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13377864)
I agree with you, but there is some value to everyone playing by the same rules. An overly harsh system is never corrected if the people who could correct it are instead allowed to sidestep it.

If a law is overly harsh and a rich person is impacted they have two means of redress: advocate for a change in the law or advocate for a pardon. One of those is quicker and cheaper and does nothing to make society as a whole better.

I'm reminded of proposed laws to make all recipients of welfare subject to random drug testing. A counter argument was that if we were worried about druggies getting government money then we should be drug testing all college students receiving financial aid. Make the harsh aspects of an unjust law apply to more people and their harshness becomes more evident and less tolerable.

And to repeat, I am only talking about theory. Practically, there have been too many good uses of the pardon to let a few bad ones spoil the idea.

I'm not big on that theory because these people aren't in the same universe when it comes to the criminal justice system.

Rich people rarely have laws enforced against them in the first place, and when they do it is because they beyond deserve it. Or they are getting rung up by the SEC or some other crime of the privileged.

The poor suffer mostly in terms of procedure rather than what is or is not criminal. At least as to offenses dire enough so that a pardon is relevant. Some rich guy who was so blatant as to stock manipulation to eat a conviction isn't going to react to not getting a pardon by wanting reform in the area of police interrogation or advocating for better funded indigent defense. Let 100 of those jokers go if it means rectifying one real injustice.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:36 PM.

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