Rudy Giuliani reported discussion of a pardon from President Trump could force the White House to reveal some more details about what exactly the President’s lawyer has been up to.
The Trump Clown Car spilleth over…
The problem is simple: how do you issue a pardon without giving away the act for which you’re providing clemency?
The answer, too, is simple: Pardon all acts committed within a specific period, just as Ford pardoned Nixon for everything he did while president.
[Brian] Kalt, the Michigan law professor, pointed out that accepting a pardon doesn’t constitute an admission of guilt.
Correct, never mind what bits of guilt-relieving confusion Ford carried around in his pocket.
Why would Trump care about the politics of anything? After 4 years are people still putting eggs in the appearances basket? The dude, a serial adulterer that thinks his daughter is hot, became the evangelical pope! If anything he’s shown that politics and appearances don’t matter at all if you keep your supporters happy. There’s a lesson to learn there - but only one party appears to be learning about that.
I think that even these supremes will have a problem with universalizing the pardon power during a democratic administration.
In addition, you should bear in mind that a presidential pardon is ordinarily a sign of forgiveness and is granted in recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or release from confinement. A pardon is not a sign of vindication and does not connote or establish innocence.
Office of the Pardon Attorney | Pardon After Completion of Sentence
I’m curious about how quickly DOJ guidelines, essentially treated like scripture regarding presidential indictments, will suddenly become just minor suggestions regarding pardons.
Can you elaborate? (Thanks.)
Sean Hannity, a Trump ally and perpetually enraged supporter
Haha! Is that his twitter bio?
Sure, but that party has no interest in actually governing and prefers to give passes to anyone they think can own the libs (regardless of the fact that they themselves are the ones getting owned). Democrats want our officials to work legally to improve lives, so they don’t get the same pass that republicans do for shitting in the punch bowl.
Well, to be fair, the stuff about pardons, even the stuff you just now quoted, is written in terms that are less categorical (“should bear in mind,” “ordinarily”) than the stuff about never-not-ever-don’t-you-dare-ever-be-indicting a sitting president.
That, or his raison d’état…
Three words: We. Go. High.
The Democrats always turn the other cheek. When was the last time we fought back with the same fervor as the GOP? How many Benghazi hearings did we have to sit through? And we get one watered down impeachment trial that intentionally limited the scope for who-know-what reasons. How many subpoenas were ignored without consequence?
Thanks for clarifying. It’s what I thought you meant.
I don’t fault Michelle Obama for saying that — it’s what you want to say, sometimes — but anyone who thought it was good strategy needed their head examined.
True, but it clearly leans toward assuming that the petitioner is guilty of a crime. Also, has it been clearly established that the DOJ actually had the authority to make a president unindictable while in office, or was that just one more pseudo-boundary created when no one thought a donald could be elected?
I don’t fault her - I suspect she’s more of a fighter than most. But that overall philosophy needs to go. We don’t have to be cretins and assholes. But we need to throw more punches.
Yes, because some are, and those are the people discussed in that passage.
They are not the only people who receive pardons.
If Biden accomplished one thing in office - turning those pseudo-boundaries into actual boundaries, his presidency will have been a massive success.
Whatever Trump pardons himself for, there will be plenty of other acts for which he can be prosecuted, going back many years and going forward the day after he walks out of the WH. The Trump Organization has more than 500 licensed subsidiaries. That’s lots of opportunities for criming. The money trail runs all over the place.
There can be perfectly valid tactical reasons for a fighter to “go high”. For example, higher elevation often gets you a much better field of fire.
Well, here’s another way to ask the question: Does the DOJ have the authority to set its own policies?
And if it does set its own policies, what happens when no one challenges said policies?
We had from 1973 until (say) 2016 to mount a challenge. That’s more than four decades.
Now we again have a new DOJ. What will it do?