Trump reported to have discussed granting 'pre-emptive pardons' for his family
Giuliani tweets denial after New York Times publishes story, as Trump is concerned that his children and son-in-law may be prosecuted
www.theguardian.com
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Trump reported to have discussed granting 'pre-emptive pardons' for his family (Donald Trump Jr, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner)
- Thread starter SilentPanda
- Start date
- News
www.theguardian.com
I'm sure this will happen and framed as "The RADICAL LEFT WILL NEVER STOP HARASSING MY FAMILY SO I MUST DO THIS!"
So many laws have to be scrapped, changed and introduced to stop the next Trump-like figure from succeeding where Trump has failed.
Yes, this is precisely how innocent people are expected to act. Absolutely nothing to see here.
[/s]
[/s]
Do they just pardon people or do they pardon them for specific crimes? Like, if you get pardoned do you also get rid of your parking tickets? Just wondering, because in this case they haven't been accused or anything (to my knowledge) so the pardon would be like a confession, right?
(I understand that this might be too logical for it to be the actual system).
(I understand that this might be too logical for it to be the actual system).
Sounds to me like Trump wants to manufacture pardons similar to what Gerald Ford did for Nixon in the 70's.
blanket pardon for any and all actions performed while in x role of government during the course and prior to the completion of the term.
Fucking bullshit but unfortunately legal.
the real hurdle is if Trump does it for himself or if he resigns with the hope that pence does it for him
blanket pardon for any and all actions performed while in x role of government during the course and prior to the completion of the term.
Fucking bullshit but unfortunately legal.
the real hurdle is if Trump does it for himself or if he resigns with the hope that pence does it for him
Pardons by President are for federal crimes only. So if you commit murder and are found guilty in a state court, the President wouldn't be able to pardon you.
Nothing to be done about it.
However, anyone Trump pardons had better be ready to testify - truthfully - about the crimes of anyone Trump does not pardon.
However, anyone Trump pardons had better be ready to testify - truthfully - about the crimes of anyone Trump does not pardon.
This will probably blow up in their faces legally, especially due to state crime violations.
A corrupt pardon probably won't hold up in court.
Blanket pardons are untested in courts and could potentially be overturned.
The Flynn pardon, for example, deletes his ability to plead the fifth. His son was a co-conspirator with him, by all accounts. Couldn't the DoJ simply prosecute his son and force him to testify? What about the Trump kids when fighting off state crimes if a broad pardon removes their ability to plead the fifth?
I don't trust Trump's legal teams to think this all through.
A corrupt pardon probably won't hold up in court.
Blanket pardons are untested in courts and could potentially be overturned.
The Flynn pardon, for example, deletes his ability to plead the fifth. His son was a co-conspirator with him, by all accounts. Couldn't the DoJ simply prosecute his son and force him to testify? What about the Trump kids when fighting off state crimes if a broad pardon removes their ability to plead the fifth?
I don't trust Trump's legal teams to think this all through.
It's once again Trump showing just how poorly thought out some Presidential powers are. It should be obvious that a President shouldn't be allowed to pardon family, friends or associates.
It only effects federal crimes, which is why New York's states attorney's and the legal charges they are preparing against trump are so interesting
but aren't federal crimes generally more severe? none of this makes any sense to me.
It's so weird that the founding fathers never considered that someone would become President purely to enrich themselves and commit crimes
Rich people have more power and political influence. Also, rich people do rich people crimes, which tend to go under federal law. Tax crimes, corruption, fraud, what have you. This doesn't make sense if you expect people to be equal before the law, but sadly that's not how the world works.
I'm pretty sure you it's not legal. The bullshit Gerald Ford pulled the Nixon just never been challenged in court.
It's unlikely the Biden administration would be eager to have their entire term consumed by the shitstorm that the DOJ going after the Trump clan would initiate. (and Democrats currently don't have the numbers to spare to safely weather that shitstorm) Biden's people would probably be fine hanging back and watching New York State tear Trump a few new ones.
Ironically, Trump granting himself a pardon might be the one thing that might actually force Biden's DOJ's hand. After all, if they don't challenge a self-pardon, that sets a precedent that nobody wants.
Ironically, Trump granting himself a pardon might be the one thing that might actually force Biden's DOJ's hand. After all, if they don't challenge a self-pardon, that sets a precedent that nobody wants.
They shouldn't trust a pardon. It's almost too obvious these are 'deep state pardons' that actually convict you sight unseen.
Being the patriots they are, they should, and without fear, refuse any and all pardons and continue to observe faith in their innocence.
Being the patriots they are, they should, and without fear, refuse any and all pardons and continue to observe faith in their innocence.
I mean, they also have slaves. so more of a feature instead of bug I think
Come on everyone, let's be fair here. Here is the list of every innocent person who has ever received a pre-emptive presidential pardon:
There's no way a preemptive pardon would hold in court. Just like companies forcing you to sign a tos that says "lol you can't sue us" didn't hold when someone actually sued them.
He would have to "Shield" it essentially let them confess every federal crime Theyve committed to him, record it and pardon them after. That might hold.
He would have to "Shield" it essentially let them confess every federal crime Theyve committed to him, record it and pardon them after. That might hold.
Just another huge blind spot some of the founders had. Many opposed giving the Executive Branch the ability to issue pardons because of the potential for corruption but they were told that Corrupt Pardons would be able to be dealt with by Impeaching a President for such abuse of power. Doesn't really work if the Shitstain is on his way out of the White House.
The pardon has no check or balance. However, it can only cover past deeds, and federal crimes.
Nepotism in...T H E S W A M P
His apologist cult will say, "Well that just makes him smrt!"
While we say, "I'm going to throw up!"
Consequences When? Maybe Never! Tune in Next Week To Find Out!
His apologist cult will say, "Well that just makes him smrt!"
While we say, "I'm going to throw up!"
Consequences When? Maybe Never! Tune in Next Week To Find Out!
I think you can only pardon crimes up to current day/time? But he could have them do something and then sign a broad pardon directly after the crime was committed.
Not American but I mean they kind of did have a plan to handle shit like that, namely the electoral college should have done as they were created to do and stopped such a clearly unsuitable person being president, and then when he was president Congress should have fully done it's job and followed through with removal from office, the main issue isn't the president being a crook not seen by the founding fathers of America, seems to me from the outside what they didn't plan for was the fact that one of the major power holders in their planned checks and balances would be so corrupt they they would throw off their actual constitutional duties of holding the president to account with said checks and balances, and instead would jump full in with all the crooked shit the corrupt president did. Also doesn't help that the way the usa works in modern times is very different politically to when they designed the system and the fact that their whole design has spent decades now being corrupted and changed at the whims of corrupt political hacks via methods such as supreme court decisions that don't really make sense at all with the constitution etc.
Also I imagine that the final check and balance they planned for any an issue would have sadly been the 2nd amendment and the power for the people to hold the corrupt to account if needed, which of course doesn't work when the corrupt party is actually supported and elected despite the clear corruption etc by the people from the states they come from, the usa constitution basically is a show to every other country that has one that not making sure it stays with the times as things change completely breaks the very thing that's meant to hold the country together.
No, they did. That's what impeachment is for. They just never expected half the senate to collaborate with such a person but there's a limit to what you can do about abuse in a democracy once too many parts of the system have been corrupted. If the answer to "who watches the watchmen" is "corrupt buddies of the watchmen" then the system will inevitably collapse.
The EC was created to cement the power of the slaveholder states, its power was heavily restricted after the civil war so now it can't just override the vote.
I mean I totally can guess that was why it was made with slavery stuff in mind based on the awful history of it, but just on the 2nd part, I'm pretty sure they can still in fact override the vote, the supreme court even had a ruling a while back saying faithless electors are totally allowed and it's up to states to pass laws saying they have to follow the vote with their EC vote, so even with the slavery issue, it still could have been used to stop such a situation if it was needed to be, it wasn't because some states allow such a thing and some don't, i don't know the break up of that situation but it wouldn't have been enough probably, but if they aren't there to do that which is what everyone claims the last decade or so, then there is no point to them at all which again shows how outdated and shitty the whole usa constitution is because it's been left without enough updates to modern times.