7 ms·

We in the US also thought the president was bound by convention to use it rarely. Trump has ignored the convention without any consequences.

rsynnott 6y ago
I mean, even presidents before Trump often used it rather arbitrarily, but Trump is definitely a new low in recent history. I think you could divide uses of this power into a few categories: - Righting past wrongs; pardoning people convicted under old laws now repealed and considered immoral - this is the primary use in most countries that retain a pardon. - Influencing policy; pardoning people convicted under existing laws that the pardoner is personally opposed to - this happens in the US a bit. - Electoral franchise; pardoning people to restore their right to vote - this one is mostly only US relevant, as most developed democracies (including large parts of the US) don't remove the franchise for this reason. - Patronage - Pardoning personal friends/contributors/etc. This historically happened quite a lot in the US. - Quid pro quo - Trump seems to be the main offender here.
- fortran77 6y ago
  Is Wikipedia wrong about Obama's 1200+ pardons vs Trump's 25? If you have a source, please correct it. (This isn't a political statement. I liked Obama, and I don't like Trump.)
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517807
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
krapp 6y ago
Literally no one who voted for Trump wanted or expected him to be bound by the conventions of the office, rather the opposite.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Some people definitely voted for him on the basis that he would become "presidential" (imagine that) and be neutered by Pence etc.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Have you ever met anyone who supports Pence? I haven't, and I live in southern Missouri.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      The people I'm referring to are the "I'm alright jack" Trump supporters who basically will do anything if it means owning the libs. Also people who thought he would be non-interventionist (I have seen this on HN this year i.e. after Soleimani) despite "I'd bomb the shit out of ISIS"
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        You're talking about two different sets of people, neither of whom intersect with the (empty) set referenced above. Of course it's a mistake to believe a presidential candidate who promises peace. In my lifetime, maybe Carter (if one squints hard enough to obscure Iran) and maybe Clinton (if one squints hard enough to obscure Africa) kept that promise. The "lib-owners" couldn't care less about that issue. The idea that Pence would rein in either partisan nastiness or stupid wars, if he even could, is still risible.
        newen 6y ago
        Point of order, there are no sets that intersect with an empty set ;)
        jessaustin 6y ago
        Well, it wasn't wrong to say that particular sets don't intersect it... b^)
nlitened 6y ago
Wikipedia says that Obama pardoned 1927 individuals [0], while Trump pardoned 25 [1]. Am I reading it wrong somehow? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Barack_Obama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executi... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executi...
- rsynnott 6y ago
  If you look at those, there's a significant difference in the _sort_ of pardons given, though. Most of the Obama ones seem to be retroactive pardons of mostly rather severe sentences, for random people (note how none of the names are links). This is essentially the traditional use of the power; random person appeals, says their sentence was unjust, his majesty/mr president/the committee agrees and issues a retroactive pardon. Most of Trump's appear to be pardons of notable people, often aligned with Trump, currently serving their sentence, and in the case of Stone actually convicted for activity relating to Trump. There are a few more traditional cases (eg Jack Johnson), but all in all they're two very different lists, showing a very different use of the power. To be clear, I'm of the opinion that both are bad and that the power should be restricted to a judicial committee or similar, as elsewhere, but I do think these two cases are _different_.
  - buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
    Even if "most" of Obama's pardons were "good ones", the fact that he pardoned 77x more people than trump leaves a lot of room for more than 25 "bad ones". I'm not saying this is for sure the case.. just that your comment smells of bias to me.
    - rsynnott 6y ago
      Who on Obama's list of pardonees was a witness in a criminal investigation of Obama? By the way, at the end of his first term, Obama had pardoned _17_ people. Expect a flood of pardons from Donald in January (or, if he's re-elected, in January 2025) as is traditional.

rsynnott 6y ago

I mean, even presidents before Trump often used it rather arbitrarily, but Trump is definitely a new low in recent history. I think you could divide uses of this power into a few categories: - Righting past wrongs; pardoning people convicted under old laws now repealed and considered immoral - this is the primary use in most countries that retain a pardon. - Influencing policy; pardoning people convicted under existing laws that the pardoner is personally opposed to - this happens in the US a bit. - Electoral franchise; pardoning people to restore their right to vote - this one is mostly only US relevant, as most developed democracies (including large parts of the US) don't remove the franchise for this reason. - Patronage - Pardoning personal friends/contributors/etc. This historically happened quite a lot in the US. - Quid pro quo - Trump seems to be the main offender here.

fortran77 6y ago
Is Wikipedia wrong about Obama's 1200+ pardons vs Trump's 25? If you have a source, please correct it. (This isn't a political statement. I liked Obama, and I don't like Trump.)
- rsynnott 6y ago
  Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517807
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

krapp 6y ago

Literally no one who voted for Trump wanted or expected him to be bound by the conventions of the office, rather the opposite.

mhh__ 6y ago
Some people definitely voted for him on the basis that he would become "presidential" (imagine that) and be neutered by Pence etc.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Have you ever met anyone who supports Pence? I haven't, and I live in southern Missouri.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    The people I'm referring to are the "I'm alright jack" Trump supporters who basically will do anything if it means owning the libs. Also people who thought he would be non-interventionist (I have seen this on HN this year i.e. after Soleimani) despite "I'd bomb the shit out of ISIS"
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      You're talking about two different sets of people, neither of whom intersect with the (empty) set referenced above. Of course it's a mistake to believe a presidential candidate who promises peace. In my lifetime, maybe Carter (if one squints hard enough to obscure Iran) and maybe Clinton (if one squints hard enough to obscure Africa) kept that promise. The "lib-owners" couldn't care less about that issue. The idea that Pence would rein in either partisan nastiness or stupid wars, if he even could, is still risible.
      - newen 6y ago
        Point of order, there are no sets that intersect with an empty set ;)
        jessaustin 6y ago
        Well, it wasn't wrong to say that particular sets don't intersect it... b^)

nlitened 6y ago

Wikipedia says that Obama pardoned 1927 individuals [0], while Trump pardoned 25 [1]. Am I reading it wrong somehow? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Barack_Obama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executi... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executi...

rsynnott 6y ago
If you look at those, there's a significant difference in the _sort_ of pardons given, though. Most of the Obama ones seem to be retroactive pardons of mostly rather severe sentences, for random people (note how none of the names are links). This is essentially the traditional use of the power; random person appeals, says their sentence was unjust, his majesty/mr president/the committee agrees and issues a retroactive pardon. Most of Trump's appear to be pardons of notable people, often aligned with Trump, currently serving their sentence, and in the case of Stone actually convicted for activity relating to Trump. There are a few more traditional cases (eg Jack Johnson), but all in all they're two very different lists, showing a very different use of the power. To be clear, I'm of the opinion that both are bad and that the power should be restricted to a judicial committee or similar, as elsewhere, but I do think these two cases are _different_.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  Even if "most" of Obama's pardons were "good ones", the fact that he pardoned 77x more people than trump leaves a lot of room for more than 25 "bad ones". I'm not saying this is for sure the case.. just that your comment smells of bias to me.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    Who on Obama's list of pardonees was a witness in a criminal investigation of Obama? By the way, at the end of his first term, Obama had pardoned _17_ people. Expect a flood of pardons from Donald in January (or, if he's re-elected, in January 2025) as is traditional.