Forgot about this

[watu05]

Secret pardons? Somehow it reminds me of Animal House and double secret probation. Cohen claims Rudy has one

Secret Pardons: What If Giuliani Has One? - Above the Law

It would, of course, break presidential norms for a president to hand out secret pardons. But, no matter what you think of Trump, he surely wasn’t a president who respected the norms.

abovethelaw.com

 

[lawpoke87]

Public record and must be filed while issuing President in office

Frequently Asked Questions

www.justice.gov

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Should be pretty cut and dried in court. If there is no public record issued while he was in office, then the pardon is null and void.

 

[HuffyCane]

Disagree. Those are Justice Department regulations and merely internal policies designed to strengthen the public’s perception of the process and perform a bureaucratic function the Executive Office of the President is ill suited to perform (criminal history checks, court record verification, etc.).

There is no such requirement in the Constitution for a written pardon, and Congress and the courts do not have the power to rewrite the plenary powers of the President. No matter how much that may seem to be a good idea at the time. Though receipt of such a written instrument by the Secretary of State would certainly be the best evidence it actually occurred. If I was the one receiving it, I would certainly want it written down. There is a excellent, if not legally impregnable argument that if the pardon was issued orally in the presence of another person, and affirmatively accepted with acknowledgement of guilt, it is effective.

It seems like an absurd result, but there are plenty of examples supporting that conclusion by inference. First, the Constitution does not specify that you have to be a lawyer or graduate from law school to be nominated by the President to be a Supreme Court justice. And indeed we’ve had a few of those. Congress, can establish guidelines for evaluating candidates as qualified, but cannot disqualify candidates on that basis and could have voted Ivanka on to the Supreme Court for life in a strict party vote. Potentially, even a President could nominate himselfIf confirmed, the oath on to the court would serve as a resignation of the Presidency. Just because we have created a huge bureaucratic apparatus around a constitutional function does not mean that it is valid, that can infringe upon the silences or absolutes in the Constitution, or the only way for the authority to be exercised. Prior presidents assent to convention does not require sitting a sitting President to follow it.

The War Powers Act, of dubious constitutionality, can’t order troops home. No matter how much the Congress or DOD wants to come home, the President commands the troops. They can’t say the conditions under which he exercises those powers. The WPA simply says comply with our requests and curb your constitutional power or we stop exercising our constitutional discretion to fund your troop action without a congressional declaration of war.

Both the constitution and its amendments specifically require certain instruments to be in writing. For instance, search warrants. By omitting the requirement of a written instrument when referencing pardons but requiring it elsewhere, an inference can be drawn that the body understood the distinction and assented to the difference. Even if the author/sponsor subsequently asserts that was never intended.

Finally, as the left likes to point out when it’s convenient, the Justice Department isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, was actually originally an Article III creation within the court system and likes to set itself up as separate from the President on a variety of topics. Such a posture is inconsistent with the position that they possess the power to constrain the President’s plenary pardon power through procedures or requirements.

I’m open to other persuasive arguments but it would appear any competent and substantial evidence supporting the existence of a pardon is sufficient for any court reviewing a defendant’s claim of a pardon. This could include an oral pardon which could necessarily also be concealed by those who heard it. Though one could argue and the government would, that the lack of contemporaneous evidence of the pardon at the time it was made is a factor that can be considered when determining that the pardon was issued while the President had the authority to confer it. Whether it would survive the deaths of those who heard it is a different story and would create all types of problems once the President is dead.

Problems which can and should only be corrected through the Amendment process.

 

[astonmartin708]

Disagree. Those are Justice Department regulations and merely internal policies designed to strengthen the public’s perception of the process and perform a bureaucratic function the Executive Office of the President is ill suited to perform (criminal history checks, court record verification, etc.).

There is no such requirement in the Constitution for a written pardon, and Congress and the courts do not have the power to rewrite the plenary powers of the President. No matter how much that may seem to be a good idea at the time. Though receipt of such a written instrument by the Secretary of State would certainly be the best evidence it actually occurred. If I was the one receiving it, I would certainly want it written down. There is a excellent, if not legally impregnable argument that if the pardon was issued orally in the presence of another person, and affirmatively accepted with acknowledgement of guilt, it is effective.

It seems like an absurd result, but there are plenty of examples supporting that conclusion by inference. First, the Constitution does not specify that you have to be a lawyer or graduate from law school to be nominated by the President to be a Supreme Court justice. And indeed we’ve had a few of those. Congress, can establish guidelines for evaluating candidates as qualified, but cannot disqualify candidates on that basis and could have voted Ivanka on to the Supreme Court for life in a strict party vote. Potentially, even a President could nominate himselfIf confirmed, the oath on to the court would serve as a resignation of the Presidency. Just because we have created a huge bureaucratic apparatus around a constitutional function does not mean that it is valid, that can infringe upon the silences or absolutes in the Constitution, or the only way for the authority to be exercised. Prior presidents assent to convention does not require sitting a sitting President to follow it.

The War Powers Act, of dubious constitutionality, can’t order troops home. No matter how much the Congress or DOD wants to come home, the President commands the troops. They can’t say the conditions under which he exercises those powers. The WPA simply says comply with our requests and curb your constitutional power or we stop exercising our constitutional discretion to fund your troop action without a congressional declaration of war.

Both the constitution and its amendments specifically require certain instruments to be in writing. For instance, search warrants. By omitting the requirement of a written instrument when referencing pardons but requiring it elsewhere, an inference can be drawn that the body understood the distinction and assented to the difference. Even if the author/sponsor subsequently asserts that was never intended.

Finally, as the left likes to point out when it’s convenient, the Justice Department isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, was actually originally an Article III creation within the court system and likes to set itself up as separate from the President on a variety of topics. Such a posture is inconsistent with the position that they possess the power to constrain the President’s plenary pardon power through procedures or requirements.

I’m open to other persuasive arguments but it would appear any competent and substantial evidence supporting the existence of a pardon is sufficient for any court reviewing a defendant’s claim of a pardon. This could include an oral pardon which could necessarily also be concealed by those who heard it. Though one could argue and the government would, that the lack of contemporaneous evidence of the pardon at the time it was made is a factor that can be considered when determining that the pardon was issued while the President had the authority to confer it. Whether it would survive the deaths of those who heard it is a different story and would create all types of problems once the President is dead.

Problems which can and should only be corrected through the Amendment process.

The fundamental assertion of this post is bollucks. The President can’t, with the help of a conspirator, provide pardons - ad Infinitum - long after his time in office has run out. The constitution does not allow for life long pardoning power which is essentially what your are arguing it allows. There is no precedent for this power being exercised in this way, nor should one be created and any court that does so should be dissolved by the people. Extending the powers of the presidency beyond their time in office is an extremely dangerous game to play. Theoretically you could extend your line of logic to allow for Bill Clinton to pardon Jeffrey Epstein simply because there is nowhere in the constitution that says the crimes pardoned have to have been committed during the president’s term. A President in your flawed governmental system could hand out blanket verbal pardons for actions yet to occur.

 

[HuffyCane]

You are misreading the post because you’ve decided before you were reading you weren’t going to accept any argument from the writer.

I never said the power extended after a Presidents term has ended. Only that the effectiveness of a pardon, once accepted, extends beyond a presidents term has ended, regardless of the form of the pardon, since the constitution does not specify the form required for an effective pardon. Indeed I quite clearly discuss at the end the evidentiary limitations at proving that an oral pardon was conferred while the President had the power to grant it.

And it’s “bollocks” btw.

 

[HuffyCane]

Also I forgot to mention, the best argument that oral pardons are effective is that Presidents have done it before. Gerald Ford, without going through the formal DOJ process, gave Richard Nixon an oral pardon on national television. The exact text of the speech contains this clear and conclusive language:

“Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July 20, 1969, through August 9, 1974.”

He had already granted it when Nixon agreed to accept it by telephone. That’s why it says “have granted”

His error on the start date was later corrected in writing but even that document tells us that pardoning can be oral and memorialized in writing. After reciting the Presidents considerations for the pardon, it repeats the paragraph above, corrects the date error, and adds this telling paragraph:

“In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.”

If the document itself was required to make the pardon effective, then it would not be “in witness whereof”.

This is no different than an oral pronouncement on the record from the bench of a judges order. The absence of a subsequent written order does not make the decision any less effective.

 

[astonmartin708]

You are misreading the post because you’ve decided before you were reading you weren’t going to accept any argument from the writer.

I never said the power extended after a Presidents term has ended. Only that the effectiveness of a pardon, once accepted, extends beyond a presidents term has ended, regardless of the form of the pardon, since the constitution does not specify the form required for an effective pardon. Indeed I quite clearly discuss at the end the evidentiary limitations at proving that an oral pardon was conferred while the President had the power to grant it.

I didn’t misread anything... the fact that the constitution does not specify the form required for a pardon does not allow literally any avenue for pardons to be acceptable. I’m so tired of strict constructionalists arguing that we’re inherently and inseverably bound by a few historical interpretations of a few key phrases written 200+ years ago in certain circumstances (arguing that the intent of the framers and their common understanding of how the constitution would act at the time it was written is of paramount importance) but then, as soon as something ISN’T specifically written, the framer’s intents and understanding for their constitutional rules are suddenly thrown out the window and we can have these “anything goes / air bud” assertions by the same people that argue about the historical significance of the term “well-regulated militia”.

You can’t be on a side that argues that on one hand historical interpretation and precedent are of utmost importance and an evolving interpretation of the document is incorrect while arguing that an evolving interpretation of a few phrases mistakenly left out of the document due to human oversight is acceptable. If we’re going to do that then the constitution isn’t worth the paper that it was written on.

 

[astonmartin708]

Also I forgot to mention, the best argument that oral pardons are effective is that Presidents have done it before. Gerald Ford, without going through the formal DOJ process, gave Richard Nixon an oral pardon on national television. The exact text of the speech contains this clear and conclusive language:

“Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July 20, 1969, through August 9, 1974.”

He had already granted it when Nixon agreed to accept it by telephone. That’s why it says “have granted”

His error on the start date was later corrected in writing but even that document tells us that pardoning can be oral and memorialized in writing. After reciting the Presidents considerations for the pardon, it repeats the paragraph above, corrects the date error, and adds this telling paragraph:

“In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.”

If the document itself was required to make the pardon effective, then it would not be “in witness whereof”.

This is no different than an oral pronouncement on the record from the bench of a judges order. The absence of a subsequent written order does not make the decision any less effective.

That pardons can be made orally is fine to some limit. but they have to be made DURING THE PRESIDENT WHO GIVES THE PARDON’S TERM, and it must be publicly disclosed as such. That has been the precedent for 200+ years and any deviation from that precedent would be of extreme detriment to the trust the people put into the office. If any changes are made to this precedent I would hope the people would consider their options as far as maintaining liberty goes. Such an act would be of equal magnitude and grievousness as any of those listed against King George and Parliament in the Declaration of Independence.

Also, giving Ford’s pardon of Nixon as a shining example of how the president’s pardon power should be used, is probably not the best idea. It was never seriously challenged, but it certainly disgruntled a large swath of the country. Pushing that precedent even further over the cliff might lead to pitchforks.

 

[HuffyCane]

That pardons can be made orally is fine to some limit. but they have to be made DURING THE PRESIDENT WHO GIVES THE PARDON’S TERM, and it must be publicly disclosed as such. That has been the precedent for 200+ years and any deviation from that precedent would be of extreme detriment to the trust the people put into the office. If any changes are made to this precedent I would hope the people would consider their options as far as maintaining liberty goes. Such an act would be of equal magnitude and grievousness as any of those listed against King George and Parliament in the Declaration of Independence.

Who’s going to decide that limit, you? Color me nervous.

And who’s to say President Trump didn’t execute a full pardon both orally and in writing and disclosed it to a third party member of the public who can unimpeachably testify to the authenticity of the pardon and that it was granted while the President was in office. Maybe that person is staying silent. There’s nothing in the power that requires it to be reported to the courts or Congress, much less the public or whatever media you agree with.

Or maybe it’s just more game theory from Rudy’s people and none of it matters at all.

But make no mistake anybody that tells you it has to be in writing is making that stuff up. Even the lawyers in the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, future Supreme Court justices, that get paid to write memos about topics they admit from the start, like this one, don’t have any clear answers, will ultimately admit, the power is plenary and unrestrained in the text.

 

[astonmartin708]

Who’s going to decide that limit, you? Color me nervous.

And who’s to say President Trump didn’t execute a full pardon both orally and in writing and disclosed it to a third party member of the public who can unimpeachably testify to the authenticity of the pardon and that it was granted while the President was in office. Maybe that person is staying silent. There’s nothing in the power that requires it to be reported to the courts or Congress, much less the public or whatever media you agree with.

Or maybe it’s just more game theory from Rudy’s people and none of it matters at all.

But make no mistake anybody that tell you it has to be in writing is making that stuff up. Even the lawyers in the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel that get paid to write memos about topics they admit from the start, like this one, don’t have any clear answers.

Go figure that a document that set up a system where one individual gets to assign the judges who will decide if he gets to secretly pardon his cronies for offenses that he directed them to commit (or to theoretically pardon himself for offenses he committed) and for those secret get-out-of-jail free cards to be accessible to him until the end of time, might be seriously flawed. As I’ve said for a long time the constitution has turned into toilet paper that certain people use to wipe their arses with; using omissions that were never meant to be utilized in the way they have been for their own personal protection/ gain.

You ask me, “who will decide what the limits on a presidents power are?” and I would argue that I or many other people who see the logical, ethical, and liberal problems are capable of doing so. (After all, as you pointed out, you don’t need a law degree to be on the Supreme Court) furthermore, I will rhetorically ask you, “Who were the members of the constitutional convention, to decide what the powers of the president should or shouldn’t be?” Among them were farmers and businessmen. People who certainly weren’t legal scholars, but they still debated and decided upon what those powers should be. If anything, I would argue that I, along with others, who have been given a few centuries of hindsight to observe the flaws and legal holes that their document perpetuated might now be better suited than they were then.

 

[HuffyCane]

If we’re going to do that then the constitution isn’t worth the paper that it was written on.

Well, we went down that path in the 1960s and the constitution lost.

The Democratic Party and unaffiliated allies on the left made a decision that certain social changes were necessary when neither Congress, nor direct action marches nor sporadic low intensity violence resulted in the policy changes they desired.

At that point, the Democratic Party changed its tactics from seeking policy change in Congress. Today, the modern Democratic Party leadership views a majority of Congress necessary to maintain control over budget appropriations and by extension the bureaucracy in the federal executive. If you think Congress never gets anything done on policy like they should, it’s because they aren’t trying. By design. Those policy changes now happen in the court system thanks to Chief Justice Warren and his colleagues and Article I has never recovered and likely never will. Strict constructionists are merely attempting to delay or roll back the decisions of political questions by judges and legislating from the bench.

 

[HuffyCane]

Go figure that a document that set up a system where one individual gets to assign the judges who will decide if he gets to secretly pardon his cronies for offenses that he directed them to commit (or to theoretically pardon himself for offenses he committed) and for those secret get-out-of-jail free cards to be accessible to him until the end of time, might be seriously flawed. As I’ve said for a long time the constitution has turned into toilet paper that certain people use to wipe their arses with; using omissions that were never meant to be utilized in the way they have been for their own personal protection/ gain.

You ask me, “who will decide what the limits on a presidents power are?” and I would argue that I or many other people who see the logical, ethical, and liberal problems are capable of doing so. (After all, as you pointed out, you don’t need a law degree to be on the Supreme Court) furthermore, I will rhetorically ask you, “Who were the members of the constitutional convention, to decide what the powers of the president should or shouldn’t be?” Among them were farmers and businessmen. People who certainly weren’t legal scholars, but they still debated and decided upon what those powers should be. If anything, I would argue that I, along with others, who have been given a few centuries of hindsight to observe the flaws and legal holes that their document perpetuated might now be better suited than they were then.

Well, they won the war. You didn’t. That gives them a big up on authority. Second, they created a way for you to change what they did. But your ideas are so bad or so self interested, your changes would never be adopted by a supermajority of the individual states. So moderate your views or find yourself a power drunk federal judge to create the law you want. We’ve seen which of those two the Democratic Party has chosen lately.

 

[astonmartin708]

Well, they won the war. You didn’t. That gives them a big up on authority. Second, they created a way for you to change what they did. But your ideas are so bad or so self interested, your changes would never be adopted by a supermajority in the individual states. So moderate your views or find yourself a power drunk federal judge to create the law you want. We’ve seen which of those two the Democratic Party has chosen lately.

My ideas are bad? You’re saying that a president should be able to granted the power to have pardons be effective long after they have left office. You don’t see the opportunity that creates for them to further subvert justice by forging documents or lying under oath without a realistic possibility of repercussion? You also don’t see the effects that the possibility (and eventually the assured existence of) a faked pardon could have on the efficacy of the government?

Moreover the founding fathers winning their war had more to do with the support of France and the distance from Britain than anything else. It would be like the USA establishing a colony on Mars and the colonists separating from the USA with the financial and military aid of Russia / China. Many of the founding members of the constitutional convention contributed few of any ideas and their ability as members of the public were questionable at best. Take Robert Morris for example. He was offered the role of the first Treasury Secretary prior to it being given to Hamilton but turned it down. The last few years of his life were spent losing immense amounts of money to speculation, and eventually being arrested and thrown into debtors prison. He died in poverty and obscurity. You’re telling me that he was of greater understanding of logical and practical consequences than I or many other modern people who give a damn (even -*Gasp* - Democrats?) You can’t prove that and the simple fact that I and many others haven’t squandered our livelihoods as he did would be evidence to the contrary.

Finally, the founders method of “changing what they did” is ineffectual, impractical, and in most cases downright unusable until long after the changes were necessary. Evidence: The Civil War, Civil Rights Movement, Women Voting. So many of the amendments have happened long after they should have and the delay was of significant detriment to millions of citizens (or non citizen slaves) in the country.

The founding fathers did the best they could with the knowledge they had at the time. Unfortunately, so did the people that made the Titanic. Luckily we’ve learned from our mistakes in one of those situations.

 

[HuffyCane]

Relax. I never said any of those things.

 

[watu05]

Many thanks to you all for the debate. Very helpful to a layman. One question though, for a pardon to be effective, does there have to be an admission of guilt? Did Nixon make one?

My guess is that we may see this debate in public. One reason that Trump didn't hand out gobs of pardons to his family and inner circle in public could have been his concern that it would have influenced the Georgia elections. Might also be his excuse for stiffing Rudy on his fees? Who wants to admit that they needed a debatable pardon.

 

[HuffyCane]

You're welcome.

The acceptance of a pardon is not an admission of guilt, but it must be accepted. In a famous court case, Burdick v. United States, the court observed that for a pardon to be valid, the President must believe that a crime occurred and because the pardon must be accepted, then such an acceptance is by its very nature an implication that the person has confessed to the crime. This was not the specific holding of the court, merely an observation that lawyers call dictum. An observation that did not consider many different factors, such as someone who accepts a pardon out of convenience, such as someone who believes they cannot receive a fair trial for whatever reason or because the facts to establish their guilt or innocence are murky.

Nixon never made an admission of guilt. The closest he ever came was during the Frost/Nixon interviews where any reasonable viewer would conclude that the interviewer led him into coming to grips with the consequences of his conduct. For a brief moment, his facial expression, loss of eye contact, and short answer drifting down to silence appeared to most viewers as the moment when Nixon publicly came to grips with what he had done.

Ford carried a copy of the Burdick decision in his wallet and would frequently produce it to friends and reporters who questioned his decision.

Your observation about the Trump family may prove to be correct. I do not know. Given the volume of litigation the family faces, a public admission of wrong doing would seem to invite additional litigation, both deserved and undeserved, related and unrelated to their period of public service.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

You're welcome.

The acceptance of a pardon is not an admission of guilt, but it must be accepted. In a famous court case, Burdick v. United States, the court observed that for a pardon to be valid, the President must believe that a crime occurred and because the pardon must be accepted, then such an acceptance is by its very nature an implication that the person has confessed to the crime. This was not the specific holding of the court, merely an observation that lawyers call dictum. An observation that did not consider many different factors, such as someone who accepts a pardon out of convenience, such as someone who believes they cannot receive a fair trial for whatever reason or because the facts to establish their guilt or innocence are murky.

Nixon never made an admission of guilt. The closest he ever came was during the Frost/Nixon interviews where any reasonable viewer would conclude that the interviewer led him into coming to grips with the consequences of his conduct. For a brief moment, his facial expression, loss of eye contact, and short answer drifting down to silence appeared to most viewers as the moment when Nixon publicly came to grips with what he had done.

Ford carried a copy of the Burdick decision in his wallet and would frequently produce it to friends and reporters who questioned his decision.

Your observation about the Trump family may prove to be correct. I do not know. Given the volume of litigation the family faces, a public admission of wrong doing would seem to invite additional litigation, both deserved and undeserved, related and unrelated to their period of public service.

Thank you for helping to raise the level of debate. It has been in the gutter over here for the past year or so.

 

[HuffyCane]

No problem. I’ll chime in from time to time on things I know a little about, like National security, Chinese atrocities, and executive powers. Some stuff I can’t comment on. Those who know me know why. I’ll leave the rest to you guys. It’s fun to sit back and watch the outer manifestations of Aston’s inner struggle between his urges to obey his programming that he must believe certain things to be a good liberal and avoid bad labels put on him, while the other side of his brain knows a lot of that stuff is unworkable or flat stupid and he tries to right the ship by telling himself a little moderation is fine if that’s what it takes to make it work. I’d say he’s one bad Presidency or 8 years away from voting Republican. Whichever comes first.

 

[TUMe]

Nothing is ever solved here. This is entertainment. Sometimes at a higher level and often at a lower level. It frequently turns into a clash of egos.

 

[astonmartin708]

No problem. I’ll chime in from time to time on things I know a little about, like National security, Chinese atrocities, and executive powers. Some stuff I can’t comment on. Those who know me know why. I’ll leave the rest to you guys. It’s fun to sit back and watch the outer manifestations of Aston’s inner struggle between his urges to obey his programming that he must believe certain things to be a good liberal and avoid bad labels put on him, while the other side of his brain knows a lot of that stuff is unworkable or flat stupid and he tries to right the ship by telling himself a little moderation is fine if that’s what it takes to make it work. I’d say he’s one bad Presidency or 8 years away from voting Republican. Whichever comes first.

I’d say you’re inane and that your critical thinking skills are on the level of my dog.

The fact that Nixon was pardoned at all was a misuse of the power that was given to the president. Using it as precedent for further subversions of justice is just making things worse. The power was never, ever meant to be used to pardon the personal political allies of the president.

 

[HuffyCane]

Well, I guess my skills as a dog explains why I have so many friends in Washington.

 

[astonmartin708]

Well, I guess my skills as a dog explains why I have so many friends in Washington.

I have friends in Washington too. So does Ted Cruz. It doesn’t mean you have the ability to reason just because you have friends in Washington.

 

[HuffyCane]

I was word playing the old phrase “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog”

 

[HuffyCane]

I’d say you’re inane and that your critical thinking skills are on the level of my dog.

The fact that Nixon was pardoned at all was a misuse of the power that was given to the president. Using it as precedent for further subversions of justice is just making things worse. The power was never, ever meant to be used to pardon the personal political allies of the president.

I’m glad you agree that Jimmy Carter should have been impeached and removed in disgrace for pardoning all those draft dodgers who voted for him by absentee ballot from Canada.

 

[HuffyCane]

I’d say you’re inane and that your critical thinking skills are on the level of my dog.

The fact that Nixon was pardoned at all was a misuse of the power that was given to the president. Using it as precedent for further subversions of justice is just making things worse. The power was never, ever meant to be used to pardon the personal political allies of the president.

If you studied political science at TU, you spent too much time in the international relations courses.

The pardon power dates to feudal England and once here in America has always been about either dispensing individual justice or restoring the public’s confidence in government to build institutional integrity. Washington and Lincoln used the pardon power to quiet insurrection and induce surrender, even amongst their supporters. Ford and Carter both used the power to close chapters in history that were the source of unnecessary and unproductive social friction, including their supporters from the same party.

But also since the founding, the use of its power to set aside politically motivated attacks on the President’s supporters has been acceptable. If a President cannot pardon persons of limited means who work low paying jobs at high levels of government and are unable to defend themselves from the attacks of prosecutors who belong to the opposite party, are goaded by other party supporters and sympathetic media, and view the use of their considerable power against a President is their best method of personal advancement as they appear in front of judges appointed by Presidents of their own party and not the current President‘s, I think you’ll see a lot less people go into government. There are plenty of other great examples why Presidents should be able to pardon their supporters. What you likely mean is that you don’t believe that the pardon power should be used as a scheme to avoid prosecution. And the limit of that is impeachment and the ballot box. Our founders were flawed, as all men, but served us well.

 

[astonmartin708]

If you studied political science at TU, you spent too much time in the international relations courses.

The pardon power dates to feudal England and once here in America has always been about either dispensing individual justice or restoring the public’s confidence in government to build institutional integrity. Washington and Lincoln used the pardon power to quiet insurrection and induce surrender, even amongst their supporters. Ford and Carter both used the power to close chapters in history that were the source of unnecessary and unproductive social friction, including their supporters from the same party.

But also since the founding, the use of its power to set aside politically motivated attacks on the President’s supporters has been acceptable. If a President cannot pardon persons of limited means who work low paying jobs at high levels of government and are unable to defend themselves from the attacks of prosecutors who belong to the opposite party, are goaded by other party supporters and sympathetic media, and view the use of their considerable power against a President is their best method of personal advancement as they appear in front of judges appointed by Presidents of their own party and not the current President‘s, I think you’ll see a lot less people go into government. There are plenty of other great examples why Presidents should be able to pardon their supporters. What you likely mean is that you don’t believe that the pardon power should be used as a scheme to avoid prosecution. And the limit of that is impeachment and the ballot box. Our founders were flawed, as all men, but served us well.

As we’ve seen in the past few years, the impeachment process is a joke. It’s ineffectual and a wast of time. It’s essentially impossible to remove a president from office if their party controls the senate no matter to what extent the crimes they commit go. If you’re telling me that impeachment is the answer to the misuse of pardon power, then you need to tell that to the Republicans in Congress who were of the opinion that unless a specific crime was committed by the President that they weren’t willing to even hear evidence.

You talk about pardons for people who aren’t in a position to adequately combat charges, but we’ve had pardons for high ups in government, several millionaires like Roger Stone, etc... all of whom mounted rousing defenses yet were still found guilty of significant crimes. When I say, don’t allow pardons for political supporters I mean, don’t allow pardons for the president’s inner circle who have committed crimes for the benefit of the president or his personal office. The pardon wasn’t meant as an exculpatory measure to be used almost strictly for the executive branch or members of the president’s political campaign staff / advisors.

How often do we see congressional or judiciary staffers pardoned?

 

[HuffyCane]

I wouldn’t say it’s a joke. Using it for political purposes is definitely something that should be examined. Nixon resigned rather than face a vote on the merits. That’s the sign of either a very healthy constitutional process expurgating a guilty person or someone who believes the process is totally unfair and refusing to participate.

In his case, not only did several people go to prison, more than a few offered to testify against him and the alleged crime was caught on tape. That’s a pretty healthy reason to impeach.

The only thing on tape with Bill Clinton was him talking about what the definition of “is” is to avoid admitting a sex act, as defined by the laws of all 53 jurisdictions in the United States, was actually “sex” within the meaning of a question posed to him under oath and not just missionary style intercourse. He was of course attempting to explain and cover up his perjury, something he later admitted to and was disbarred.

Both men committed felonies and abused the legal process for their own political ends. Whether impeachment in his case was appropriate is subject to good faith debate.

I think it’s too early and we may never know whether the Trump impeachments were a right and just result. Even if Trump, or any other President, was/is guilty of conduct that meets the standards of high crimes and misdemeanors, it should not be discounted that the Senate holds a pardon power in voting to acquit, even on a party line vote. A party line vote could be seen as fixing the result, but it can also be viewed as "yes, there was misconduct here, its time to move the country along without starting a civil war or crashing the stock market". And the requirement of a two-thirds vote is there for a reason. To deter the opportunistic and reserve the action for provable egregious conduct.

Perhaps the least known thing by the public is the institutional nature of the impeachment machine. Every President since FDR has had impeachment articles filed against him. The House, the Senate, the Executive Office of the President and the White House Counsel's office all have paid bureaucrats working on these issues constantly. Not to mention the army of people who are out of power waiting around until the next election who have raised funds to beat the impeachment drum. Law firms advertise their expertise in this area. And finally, the deeply personal nature of the process. Dozens and dozens of Democrats began their political careers during Watergate and used their bit roles in the early days of their career as proof of their political bona fides to vault them into elected and appointed offices of real influence. Hillary Clinton being a good example. Fred Thomson another on the R side. For some of them, they reached peak influence and the excitement they crave at 25. And couldn't find anything that suited them afterwards. They clamor for another impeachment fight to get back into the game and get paid. All of those people started their careers competing against and in some cases hating the other side. They know each other. Personally. And they will spend the rest of their careers, some of them, seeking to block and frustrate them. It does little to help the Republic to have people in major areas of responsibility wanting to settle a score over slights felt when Nixon was President. But that was the landscape during the Reagan and Clinton years. And I fear in ten years or so, we will be back there with a new generation of Trump Impeachment veterans.

We do know that the second impeachment articles contained information that was demonstrably false and the House leadership knew or should have known it was false but allowed the articles to move forward (that a police officer had been killed using a fire extinguisher). So that certainly doesn’t speak well for the integrity of the process you are complaining about. I’d stop posting here and call Nancy and tell her you’ve had enough of her pandering to left leaning radicals and the Squad.

 

[bluegold70]

Nothing is ever solved here. This is entertainment. Sometimes at a higher level and often at a lower level. It frequently turns into a clash of egos.

Soooo.....let me get this straight....you're sayin this is just a bunch of bull!! Now I understand!! Many thanks old friend!!!

 

[astonmartin708]

I wouldn’t say it’s a joke. Using it for political purposes is definitely something that should be examined. Nixon resigned rather than face a vote on the merits. That’s the sign of either a very healthy constitutional process expurgating a guilty person or someone who believes the process is totally unfair and refusing to participate.

In his case, not only did several people go to prison, more than a few offered to testify against him and the alleged crime was caught on tape. That’s a pretty healthy reason to impeach.

The only thing on tape with Bill Clinton was him talking about what the definition of “is” is to avoid admitting a sex act, as defined by the laws of all 53 jurisdictions in the United States, was actually “sex” within the meaning of a question posed to him under oath and not just missionary style intercourse. He was of course attempting to explain and cover up his perjury, something he later admitted to and was disbarred.

Both men committed felonies and abused the legal process for their own political ends. Whether impeachment in his case was appropriate is subject to good faith debate.

I think it’s too early and we may never know whether the Trump impeachments were a right and just result. Even if Trump, or any other President, was/is guilty of conduct that meets the standards of high crimes and misdemeanors, it should not be discounted that the Senate holds a pardon power in voting to acquit, even on a party line vote. A party line vote could be seen as fixing the result, but it can also be viewed as "yes, there was misconduct here, its time to move the country along without starting a civil war or crashing the stock market". And the requirement of a two-thirds vote is there for a reason. To deter the opportunistic and reserve the action for provable egregious conduct.

Perhaps the least known thing by the public is the institutional nature of the impeachment machine. Every President since FDR has had impeachment articles filed against him. The House, the Senate, the Executive Office of the President and the White House Counsel's office all have paid bureaucrats working on these issues constantly. Not to mention the army of people who are out of power waiting around until the next election who have raised funds to beat the impeachment drum. Law firms advertise their expertise in this area. And finally, the deeply personal nature of the process. Dozens and dozens of Democrats began their political careers during Watergate and used their bit roles in the early days of their career as proof of their political bona fides to vault them into elected and appointed offices of real influence. Hillary Clinton being a good example. Fred Thomson another on the R side. For some of them, they reached peak influence and the excitement they crave at 25. And couldn't find anything that suited them afterwards. They clamor for another impeachment fight to get back into the game and get paid. All of those people started their careers competing against and in some cases hating the other side. They know each other. Personally. And they will spend the rest of their careers, some of them, seeking to block and frustrate them. It does little to help the Republic to have people in major areas of responsibility wanting to settle a score over slights felt when Nixon was President. But that was the landscape during the Reagan and Clinton years. And I fear in ten years or so, we will be back there with a new generation of Trump Impeachment veterans.

We do know that the second impeachment articles contained information that was demonstrably false and the House leadership knew or should have known it was false but allowed the articles to move forward (that a police officer had been killed using a fire extinguisher). So that certainly doesn’t speak well for the integrity of the process you are complaining about. I’d stop posting here and call Nancy and tell her you’ve had enough of her pandering to left leaning radicals and the Squad.

The existence of a single charge that is false in an entire slew of charges does not mean that the entire trial should be invalidated. If you’re charged with killing your wife with a hammer but it was actually a baseball bat... who cares? Or, if you’re a mass murderer who has killed 15 people but you are charged with a 16th that you can prove you didn’t kill that doesn’t exculpate you from killing 15.

The man directed an assault on the capitol to swing the legitimate results of an election. This wasn’t him spying on his opponents or asking for dirt from a foreign power (things that are already bad enough) and Republicans let him get off Scott free. Just like they let Nixon get off Scott free. Both of those men should have been in jail until they died for abusing their powers of office for their own benefit.

Accountability of the highest levels of the executive branch simply doesn’t exist, and it’s largely due to the system of unrestricted pardons and sham impeachment trials set up by the constitution. In no way does it benefit the country to give one person and his cronies unchecked powers to commit crimes of subvert the duties of their oath of office.

 

[HuffyCane]

In every court room in the United States except Congress apparently, prosecutors who lie about one thing are presumed to be lying about everything.

 

[astonmartin708]

In every court room in the United States except Congress apparently, prosecutors who lie about one thing are presumed to be lying about everything.

There is a difference between knowingly charging someone with something false and mistakenly charging someone with something that is false. If the evidence you have to present, points to a certain conclusion, then you present it.

The prosecution in this case did not have time to wait for the cause of death due to the nature of the rules they had to work with. (Those being the rules set forth by the constitution regarding impeachment). In any case, an officer still died as a result of the riot that Trump fomented. It just turns out that it was due to an allergic reaction to being pepper sprayed multiple times in the face (an event that occurred due to the riot - caused by Trump- he was having to put down) rather than being bludgeoned to death.

Even if there had been no deaths in January and all that had happened was that the congressional counting of votes / constitutionally mandated process was interrupted under the direction of the president, he should have still been tried and found guilty simply for violating his oath to protect the constitution.

 

[watu05]

In his (Nixon's) case, not only did several people go to prison, more than a few offered to testify against him and he alleged crime was caught on tape. That’s a pretty healthy reason to impeach.

The only thing on tape with Bill Clinton was him talking about what the definition of “is” is to avoid admitting a sex act, as defined by the laws of all 53 jurisdictions in the United States, was actually “sex” within the meaning of a question posed to him under oath and not just missionary style intercourse.

Both men committed felonies and abused the legal process for their own political ends. Whether impeachment in his case was appropriate is subject to good faith debate.

Comparing consensual sex between two adults with the seriousness of the Nixon coverup or Trump's Russian involvement and post election lies is off the mark. The latter two threaten faith in and operation of our democracy, which is exactly what a president swears to protect.

 

[TUMe]

Soooo.....let me get this straight....you're sayin this is just a bunch of bull!! Now I understand!! Many thanks old friend!!!

The term "Old Friend" gets truer every day.

 

[HuffyCane]

Comparing consensual sex between two adults with the seriousness of the Nixon coverup or Trump's Russian involvement and post election lies is off the mark. The latter two threaten faith in and operation of our democracy, which is exactly what a president swears to protect.

I think in most jurisdictions, you’ll find that having sex with an intern is not consensual in civil court and lying about anything under oath is a crime.

 

[HuffyCane]

There is a difference between knowingly charging someone with something false and mistakenly charging someone with something that is false. If the evidence you have to present, points to a certain conclusion, then you present it.

The prosecution in this case did not have time to wait for the cause of death due to the nature of the rules they had to work with. (Those being the rules set forth by the constitution regarding impeachment). In any case, an officer still died as a result of the riot that Trump fomented. It just turns out that it was due to an allergic reaction to being pepper sprayed multiple times in the face (an event that occurred due to the riot - caused by Trump- he was having to put down) rather than being bludgeoned to death.

Even if there had been no deaths in January and all that had happened was that the congressional counting of votes / constitutionally mandated process was interrupted under the direction of the president, he should have still been tried and found guilty simply for violating his oath to protect the constitution.

Negative. They had the autopsy results before the articles were drawn up. They knew it was a lie and left it in there. The pepper spray argument is a desperate attempt to hang on to a narrative that has been debunked. The chief medical examiner of DC ruled the death natural causes and specifically stated that natural causes does not include events like pepper spray aggravating pre existing conditions or vulnerabilities. Don’t believe me? call the Washington Post. It was on their front page. Everything people tell you on MSNBC and Twitter isn’t true.

 

[watu05]

I think in most jurisdictions, you’ll find that having sex with an intern is not consensual in civil court and lying about anything under oath is a crime.

Regardless. Nixon and Trump violated their oaths and endangered the country‘s democractic institutions. To compare that with consensual sex with an adult intern diminishes the concept of impeachment. The framers of the constitution would recognized the difference.

 

[astonmartin708]

Negative. They had the autopsy results before the articles were drawn up. They knew it was a lie and left it in there. The pepper spray argument is a desperate attempt to hang on to a narrative that has been debunked. The chief medical examiner of DC ruled the death natural causes and specifically stated that natural causes does not include events like pepper spray aggravating pre existing conditions or vulnerabilities. Don’t believe me? call the Washington Post. It was on their front page. Everything people tell you on MSNBC and Twitter isn’t true.

As I’ve said. I don’t do anything with MSNBC. Everything that Fox News tells you isn’t true either.

 

[HuffyCane]

As I’ve said. I don’t do anything with MSNBC. Everything that Fox News tells you isn’t true either.

It’s been years since I’ve watched Fox News for more than 5 minutes. Unlike MSNBC, they do admit they are a news channel during the day and an entertainment channel at night. I’d say I’ve watched France 24, Sputnik, RT, and al-Jezeera more over the last year than any American news source regardless of medium except the Washington Post. If I want the news it’s the BBC World Service. It’s been putting me to sleep for forty years.

 

[TUMe]

BBC is good. The main things that I don't like are old stories mixed in with current ones. (That is to keep people up to speed, but you can be reading about something that happened this morning and they also have an article from October to click on.) My other concern is that they don't have have a huge number of people who ever get out of Washington and New York. But on the positive side, they don't seem to be pushing an agenda, other than environmental. Three and a half Stars. *** or ****

They cover science more than US mainstream media.