Ok so who’s getting a Pardon?

[Thekri]

Congressional veto by 2/3 vote maybe.

Perhaps. Or at least some form of review process, I am not sure if the Legislative Branch is the right place for it. Quite a few major pardons would have been probably overturned with that standard, notably Andrew Johnson's pardons and Buchanan's pardon of the Mormons. Now I am pretty ok with both of those cases being overturned, but I am not really sure I want unpopular pardons to be immediately overturned.

[PACOX]

Who should be pardoned?

The COVID dashboard lady deserves a pardon.

There's felons who voted thinking their rights were restored, jailed because of. They deserve pardons.

None violent drug offenders. I would say even nonviolent dealers (hard drugs) deserve a second chance.

People jailed for defacing/toppling Confederate monuments.

People jailed for in the process of hiding being visa over stays Including crimes related to forgery to hide their illegal status.

I can think of others but unfortunately they were killed before they even got a court date.

[Edge-]

I guess the Joe Exotic crew brought a...stretch Dodge Ram? With gull wing doors? And a full bed? And party lights? to his lawyers office.

Seriously, if Trump pardons him it's gonna be such a fantastically pathetic final action in what has been two months of pathetic final actions.

[beanman12345]

I haven’t read any news on who the pardons went to, so I’m assuming it was secret pardons?

If there are secret pardon's, they will be for pre-emptive criminal charges. So his kids, maybe Giuliani.


There will be a list of people who have already been charged or convicted who will be on the list when it's released tonight or tomorrow morning.

[Ripster42]

Perhaps. Or at least some form of review process, I am not sure if the Legislative Branch is the right place for it.

It'd be a check on the executive's check on the judicial. What else is left besides those two? Just the legislative.

- - - Updated - - -

If there are secret pardon's, they will be for pre-emptive criminal charges. So his kids, maybe Giuliani.


There will be a list of people who have already been charged or convicted who will be on the list when it's released tonight or tomorrow morning.

For all this nonsense about "secret pardons" all the legal opinions I've seen essentially say there's no way they'd actually be workable. How would you authenticate a secret pardon? How do you know the "pardon" wasn't granted after the president left office?

[beanman12345]

It'd be a check on the executive's check on the judicial. What else is left besides those two? Just the legislative.

- - - Updated - - -



For all this nonsense about "secret pardons" all the legal opinions I've seen essentially say there's no way they'd actually be workable. How would you authenticate a secret pardon? How do you know the "pardon" wasn't granted after the president left office?

Do you have any sources there is no way they'd be workable? I can link a few sources that secret pardons are very workable if you like, already did in another thread. Obviously it would need certified, witnessed, but nothing says anything about making it public.

[Ripster42]

Do you have any sources there is no way they'd be workable? I can link a few sources that secret pardons are very workable if you like, already did in another thread. Obviously it would need certified, witnessed, but nothing says anything about making it public.

Tweets from former prosecutors is about all.

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/stat...84902446264330

https://twitter.com/Delavegalaw/stat...92086671691779

[beanman12345]

Tweets from former prosecutors is about all.

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/stat...84902446264330

https://twitter.com/Delavegalaw/stat...92086671691779

here ya go

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...ardons-1562790

- - - Updated - - -

Tweets from former prosecutors is about all.

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/stat...84902446264330

https://twitter.com/Delavegalaw/stat...92086671691779

Yeah even your guys say it's possible. And it's Trump, if he can try you don't think he will? what's he got to lose?

[Ripster42]

here ya go

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...ardons-1562790

He's not a lawyer. Gonna go with the former solicitor general and a former federal prosecutor over a tv host.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah even your guys say it's possible. And it's Trump, if he can try you don't think he will? what's he got to lose?

Neal says even if they are legal (edit: and, to be clear, he says it constitutionally dubious), at noon tomorrow they'd be public. de la Vega says they're only theoretically possible, but not actually workable.

Double Edit: and the linked article has the guy who wrote the book on con law (tribe) saying that it's murky if it's constitutional at all, but also not workable, for the same reason as de la Vega.

[beanman12345]

He's not a lawyer. Gonna go with the former solicitor general and a former federal prosecutor over a tv host.

- - - Updated - - -



Neal says even if they are legal (edit: and, to be clear, he says it constitutionally dubious), at noon tomorrow they'd be public. de la Vega says they're only theoretically possible, but not actually workable.

okay, you can believe whatever you want. i'm not here to convince ya of anything. Trump has spent 4 years shitting on the constitution, and gotten away with it. 4 years of "he can't do that" and done it. but okay.

[Ripster42]

okay, you can believe whatever you want. i'm not here to convince ya of anything. Trump has spent 4 years shitting on the constitution, and gotten away with it. 4 years of "he can't do that" and done it. but okay.

A republican controlled senate is the only thing that prevented trump from facing the consequences of his actions earlier. The arena he now enters does not offer that protection.

[beanman12345]

A republican controlled senate is the only thing that prevented trump from facing the consequences of his actions earlier. The arena he now enters does not offer that protection.

I suggest reading the whole factcheck i posted, before just writing it off. But i'm not debating it, i don't trust trump, and unless he's actually charged with anything, we will never know if he secret pardoned himself anyways.

[Egomaniac]

I think the whole Pardon power of the President should be re-thought a bit.

Because even if the President cannot pardon himself...he can always just Pardon his VP, resign, and accept a Pardon from his Vice President. That seems like a horrible abuse of Power.

[Ripster42]

I suggest reading the whole factcheck i posted, before just writing it off. But i'm not debating it, i don't trust trump, and unless he's actually charged with anything, we will never know if he secret pardoned himself anyways.

Okay:

"We have never had secret pardons and the whole idea of a pardon is that it is a public document," Love said. She mentioned that President Regan issued two pardons after the assassination attempt on his life that did not become public until two weeks later.

"I certainly can't say that they are clearly impermissible, but I can say that I think that there is at least a Constitutional cloud over them," Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe said.

For one thing, they would be difficult to authenticate.

"There would be no way to prove it was issued on a certain date in an official capacity," Tribe said. "If invoked at the time an indictment or prosecution is brought, that would open the possibility for a Constitutional test of whether secret pardons are permitted."

Those are the only two legal opinions given in the fact check. That the article then goes on to state that secret pardons are legal is frankly bananas.

[Egomaniac]

A republican controlled senate is the only thing that prevented trump from facing the consequences of his actions earlier. The arena he now enters does not offer that protection.

They still need at least 17 Republicans to vote to convict to get that 2/3 majority.

It's likely they'll get more than just Romney this time but it's still a question if they can get enough

[Ripster42]

They still need at least 17 Republicans to vote to convict to get that 2/3 majority.

It's likely they'll get more than just Romney this time but it's still a question if they can get enough

No, they wouldn't. The senate has nothing to do with actual criminal trials except for passing the laws that are enforced in the courts.

[beanman12345]

Okay:





Those are the only two legal opinions given in the fact check. That the article then goes on to state that secret pardons are legal is frankly bananas.

As I said, you can believe Neil, I'll believe Tribe, and we won't know until he's federally charged, if he's federally charged. None of this is tested, it's all opinions at this point. If he did, and he's charged, it'll get tested, and hopefully fuck him hard.

[Ripster42]

As I said, you can believe Neil, I'll believe Tribe, and we won't know until he's federally charged, if he's federally charged. None of this is tested, it's all opinions at this point. If he did, and he's charged, it'll get tested, and hopefully fuck him hard.

Yeah, tribe says the same thing as de la Vega. He doesn't think they're permitted, and if trump tried it'd be challenged in court. That's tribe's stance.

[beanman12345]

Yeah, tribe says the same thing as de la Vega. He doesn't think they're permitted, and if trump tried it'd be challenged in court. That's tribe's stance.

Right, tribe doesn't think it'll hold up in court. That doesn't mean trump will not try it.

[Ripster42]

Right, tribe doesn't think it'll hold up in court. That doesn't mean trump will not try it.

Just going to repost what I wrote:

For all this nonsense about "secret pardons" all the legal opinions I've seen essentially say there's no way they'd actually be workable. How would you authenticate a secret pardon? How do you know the "pardon" wasn't granted after the president left office?

I'm not saying trump wouldn't try it. I'm saying they wouldn't be workable.