7 ms·

This is all so hilariously corrupt. I'm not sure I can even muster anger for this, just laughter. (I'll reserve the anger for the pandemic and this administrati

This is all so hilariously corrupt. I'm not sure I can even muster anger for this, just laughter. (I'll reserve the anger for the pandemic and this administration's callous, frankly criminal handling of it). (So Levandowski and Jared are going to launch a venture fund soon, right?)

dvaun 6y ago
Don't forget to have the additionally-pardoned Michael Liberty join the efforts to attract investors. Over $50 million defrauded [0][2] from investors, and it wasn't his first rodeo with the SEC[1]. [0]: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2018/lr24092.htm https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2018/lr24092.htm [1]: https://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/30/sec-charges-ex-maine-developer-liberty-hid-funds-to-slash-size-of-settlement-fine/ https://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/30/sec-charges-ex-maine-... [2]: https://www.pressherald.com/2018/04/02/liberty-in-sec-crosshairs-again/ https://www.pressherald.com/2018/04/02/liberty-in-sec-crossh...
- salawat 6y ago
  ...is a Presidential pardon final come the next Administration? Or has that not really been tested in court?
  - wahern 6y ago
    A pardon requires delivery and acceptance. (Actually, I think delivery is incomplete without acceptance.) Theoretically an incoming president could recall the pardon if it hasn't been delivered. Not sure what may constitute as delivery; or acceptance, for that matter. I don't think the manner of delivery or acceptance has been tested, let alone enumerated. If it's as simple as a phone call, then presumably nothing could be done. I think a more interesting question is whether there's a specificity requirement. AFAIU, that hasn't been answered, either.
    - marmaduke 6y ago
      There was an even more interesting question raised on r/NeutralPolitics about whether the pardon has to even be made public. It seems there's an interpretation of the law where the pardon only becomes public when the recipient makes use of it in a public court.
      - gonesilent 6y ago
        Also talk of putting it on the secret computer for national security until use.
      - craftinator 6y ago
        Is that before or after the coifing of the sacrificial goat?
      - koheripbal 6y ago
        Why would it need to be public? The Constitution does not stipulate that limitation. This is literally all it says... > he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
        gowld 6y ago
        Because "pardon" is not defined anywhere so the nation has to decide what it means.
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      This is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the pardon power of the Constitution. What gives you the impression pardons are limited to those that are "delivered" and/or "accepted". How would that even be legally demonstrated to a court.
      - dagw 6y ago
        What gives you the impression pardons are limited to those that are "delivered" and/or "accepted". The Supreme Court apparently ruled that way in a case a long time ago and that precedence has never been challenged (or come up again for that matter) See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9IRZ9FzWEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9IRZ9FzWEA But realistically if they tried to revoke a pardon today it would certainly go to the Supreme Court again and they would almost certainly rule the other way.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    There's a short from Legal Eagle about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9IRZ9FzWEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9IRZ9FzWEA There's also a difference between state and federal charges - even if they've been pardoned, they can still be charged for related crimes.
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      One thing to note - they cannot be charged with the SAME exact crime in state court (that would run afoul of double-jeopardy). As you said, though it's not clear, it need to be a different (though potentially related) crime.
      - ModernMech 6y ago
        This is not true -- double jeopardy applies to the same jurisdiction. You can certainly be charged in state and federal court for the same crime.
        koheripbal 6y ago
        Actually, you are correct. https://www.wklaw.com/double-jeopardy-federal/ https://www.wklaw.com/double-jeopardy-federal/ Of course, there's still the limitation that the State would need to find it's own law that the accused violated - they have no jurisdiction over Federal law (and vice-versa). Still... it doesn't sit quite right with me. If someone is acquitted by a jury in, let's say, Rhode Island for murder. It doesn't seem right that the Federal government could step in and hold an entirely new trial thereafter. Seems to fly in the face of what Double-Jeopardy is supposed to prevent.
        saalweachter 6y ago
        Isn't that exactly why federal hate-crime legislation exists? To allow a do-over in federal court if juries in some jurisdictions ignore crimes against some victims?
        ghaff 6y ago
  - amatix 6y ago
    https://davidallengreen.com/2021/01/can-a-presidential-pardon-be-revoked/ https://davidallengreen.com/2021/01/can-a-presidential-pardo... discusses — in 1869 one got rescinded because the original was never delivered (but according to the post that isn't binding).
- Proven 6y ago
  Reminds me of Clinton's (that guy who escaped to Swiss) and Obama's pardons. Sad, all of them!
LatteLazy 6y ago
My second thought on this was "I wonder how much he paid".
hypervisorxxx 6y ago
The most interesting pardons are the no name ones. Pardoned restaurant chain fraud for an italian not even charged in NY. Sounds like mafia related crime to me. The other no name money laundering criminals are all related to either his gambling businesses or his place of living in Florida. He's basically pardoning people he's been doing crimes with for a long time and then if course some big names. I'm happy to see some rappers pardoned though tbh. Their music has influenced my life, they've done great deal of good outside of music and none of them were in the can for things like harming women or animals etc.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Many pardons are recommended to the President by the Justice department for various reasons. A lot are for non-violent drug crimes that someone in the department felt was too harsh/etc... It's not like they are all Trump's friends. But obviously conspiracy theories will prevail, sadly.
  - gowld 6y ago
    The "conspiracy theories" were in Trump's pardon documents, like the "Russia hoax".
    - yonaguska 6y ago
      You must have missed the declass on the origins of the Russia hoax, where Steele admitted that he intentionally leaked information and engaged in info-laundering because he saw Trump as being potentially damaging to UK/US relations. And where he admits that he leaked info in order to counter the effect of Hillary's emails on the 2016 election. So, literal foreign interference in an election. You may have also missed the declass that showed Fiona Hill perjured herself when she stated she had no idea who Christopher Steele was- yet actually met with him while he was compiling his dossier.
      - lern_too_spel 6y ago
        Nobody was convicted on the basis of Steele's dossier.
eplanit 6y ago
It was criminal to enable pharma to fast track development of vaccines, in half the most optimistic forecasts of how long that would take? It was criminal to invoke the defense production act to make ventilators -- far more than we needed? Building those field hospitals (that were never needed)... the ships? That's my kind of criminal, if so.
- paulgb 6y ago
  It was deeply irresponsible to play into political divisions rather than promoting mask use. It was deeply irresponsible to undermine states’ efforts to mitigate spread, to the point of encouraging “lock her up” chants about Gretchen Whitmer that encouraged a kidnapping plot. He did a few things right, but let’s not pretend the last year hasn’t been mostly political theatre rather than leadership and one man could have led with a different tone.
JeremyNT 6y ago
Not to "both sides" this too much, because I do feel like there's a new, special level of corruption and self-dealing on display with this administration, but it's not uncommon for these guys to use pardons for personal gain or the benefits of their friends. For a little context and flavor, remember that Clinton pardoned some real winners on his last day too, including some guy who paid $200k to Hillary Clinton's brother for the pardon [0], Bill Clinton's own brother (codename: "headache" [3]) and a Democratic party loyalist who was convicted of child porn and sexual assault with a minor [2]. p.s. - if you wonder why the Clintons are especially hated in some circles, and if you wonder why people are so quick to believe those Q conspiracy theories, the kernels of truth exist and originate in simple corruption like this [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almon_Glenn_Braswell#Unsubstantiated_treatment_for_baldness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almon_Glenn_Braswell#Unsubstan... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal#Whitewater_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal#Whitewater_affa... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Reynolds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Reynolds [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clinton,_Jr.#Conviction_and_pardon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clinton,_Jr.#Conviction_...
- jmull 6y ago
  > Not to "both sides" What do you think you just did?
  - preommr 6y ago
    They framed a relevant point that furthers the discussion in a way that was less ambiguous and less likely to do harm. For me personally, it's frustrating to see comments about things like whataboutism when they're obviously just to deflect and distract. At the very least, with caveats like saying "I don't support this, but..." there's some level of acknowledgement of, "yes, this might be veering into sketchy waters".
  - unishark 6y ago
    hence the "...but".
  - jimbokun 6y ago

dvaun 6y ago

Don't forget to have the additionally-pardoned Michael Liberty join the efforts to attract investors. Over $50 million defrauded [0][2] from investors, and it wasn't his first rodeo with the SEC[1]. [0]: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2018/lr24092.htm https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2018/lr24092.htm [1]: https://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/30/sec-charges-ex-maine-developer-liberty-hid-funds-to-slash-size-of-settlement-fine/ https://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/30/sec-charges-ex-maine-... [2]: https://www.pressherald.com/2018/04/02/liberty-in-sec-crosshairs-again/ https://www.pressherald.com/2018/04/02/liberty-in-sec-crossh...

salawat 6y ago
...is a Presidential pardon final come the next Administration? Or has that not really been tested in court?
- wahern 6y ago
  A pardon requires delivery and acceptance. (Actually, I think delivery is incomplete without acceptance.) Theoretically an incoming president could recall the pardon if it hasn't been delivered. Not sure what may constitute as delivery; or acceptance, for that matter. I don't think the manner of delivery or acceptance has been tested, let alone enumerated. If it's as simple as a phone call, then presumably nothing could be done. I think a more interesting question is whether there's a specificity requirement. AFAIU, that hasn't been answered, either.
  - marmaduke 6y ago
    There was an even more interesting question raised on r/NeutralPolitics about whether the pardon has to even be made public. It seems there's an interpretation of the law where the pardon only becomes public when the recipient makes use of it in a public court.
    - gonesilent 6y ago
      Also talk of putting it on the secret computer for national security until use.
    - craftinator 6y ago
      Is that before or after the coifing of the sacrificial goat?
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      Why would it need to be public? The Constitution does not stipulate that limitation. This is literally all it says... > he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
      - gowld 6y ago
        Because "pardon" is not defined anywhere so the nation has to decide what it means.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    This is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the pardon power of the Constitution. What gives you the impression pardons are limited to those that are "delivered" and/or "accepted". How would that even be legally demonstrated to a court.
    - dagw 6y ago
      What gives you the impression pardons are limited to those that are "delivered" and/or "accepted". The Supreme Court apparently ruled that way in a case a long time ago and that precedence has never been challenged (or come up again for that matter) See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9IRZ9FzWEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9IRZ9FzWEA But realistically if they tried to revoke a pardon today it would certainly go to the Supreme Court again and they would almost certainly rule the other way.
- viraptor 6y ago
  There's a short from Legal Eagle about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9IRZ9FzWEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9IRZ9FzWEA There's also a difference between state and federal charges - even if they've been pardoned, they can still be charged for related crimes.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    One thing to note - they cannot be charged with the SAME exact crime in state court (that would run afoul of double-jeopardy). As you said, though it's not clear, it need to be a different (though potentially related) crime.
    - ModernMech 6y ago
      This is not true -- double jeopardy applies to the same jurisdiction. You can certainly be charged in state and federal court for the same crime.
      - koheripbal 6y ago
        Actually, you are correct. https://www.wklaw.com/double-jeopardy-federal/ https://www.wklaw.com/double-jeopardy-federal/ Of course, there's still the limitation that the State would need to find it's own law that the accused violated - they have no jurisdiction over Federal law (and vice-versa). Still... it doesn't sit quite right with me. If someone is acquitted by a jury in, let's say, Rhode Island for murder. It doesn't seem right that the Federal government could step in and hold an entirely new trial thereafter. Seems to fly in the face of what Double-Jeopardy is supposed to prevent.
        saalweachter 6y ago
        Isn't that exactly why federal hate-crime legislation exists? To allow a do-over in federal court if juries in some jurisdictions ignore crimes against some victims?
        ghaff 6y ago
- amatix 6y ago
  https://davidallengreen.com/2021/01/can-a-presidential-pardon-be-revoked/ https://davidallengreen.com/2021/01/can-a-presidential-pardo... discusses — in 1869 one got rescinded because the original was never delivered (but according to the post that isn't binding).
Proven 6y ago
Reminds me of Clinton's (that guy who escaped to Swiss) and Obama's pardons. Sad, all of them!

LatteLazy 6y ago

My second thought on this was "I wonder how much he paid".

hypervisorxxx 6y ago

The most interesting pardons are the no name ones. Pardoned restaurant chain fraud for an italian not even charged in NY. Sounds like mafia related crime to me. The other no name money laundering criminals are all related to either his gambling businesses or his place of living in Florida. He's basically pardoning people he's been doing crimes with for a long time and then if course some big names. I'm happy to see some rappers pardoned though tbh. Their music has influenced my life, they've done great deal of good outside of music and none of them were in the can for things like harming women or animals etc.

koheripbal 6y ago
Many pardons are recommended to the President by the Justice department for various reasons. A lot are for non-violent drug crimes that someone in the department felt was too harsh/etc... It's not like they are all Trump's friends. But obviously conspiracy theories will prevail, sadly.
- gowld 6y ago
  The "conspiracy theories" were in Trump's pardon documents, like the "Russia hoax".
  - yonaguska 6y ago
    You must have missed the declass on the origins of the Russia hoax, where Steele admitted that he intentionally leaked information and engaged in info-laundering because he saw Trump as being potentially damaging to UK/US relations. And where he admits that he leaked info in order to counter the effect of Hillary's emails on the 2016 election. So, literal foreign interference in an election. You may have also missed the declass that showed Fiona Hill perjured herself when she stated she had no idea who Christopher Steele was- yet actually met with him while he was compiling his dossier.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      Nobody was convicted on the basis of Steele's dossier.

eplanit 6y ago

It was criminal to enable pharma to fast track development of vaccines, in half the most optimistic forecasts of how long that would take? It was criminal to invoke the defense production act to make ventilators -- far more than we needed? Building those field hospitals (that were never needed)... the ships? That's my kind of criminal, if so.

paulgb 6y ago
It was deeply irresponsible to play into political divisions rather than promoting mask use. It was deeply irresponsible to undermine states’ efforts to mitigate spread, to the point of encouraging “lock her up” chants about Gretchen Whitmer that encouraged a kidnapping plot. He did a few things right, but let’s not pretend the last year hasn’t been mostly political theatre rather than leadership and one man could have led with a different tone.

JeremyNT 6y ago

Not to "both sides" this too much, because I do feel like there's a new, special level of corruption and self-dealing on display with this administration, but it's not uncommon for these guys to use pardons for personal gain or the benefits of their friends. For a little context and flavor, remember that Clinton pardoned some real winners on his last day too, including some guy who paid $200k to Hillary Clinton's brother for the pardon [0], Bill Clinton's own brother (codename: "headache" [3]) and a Democratic party loyalist who was convicted of child porn and sexual assault with a minor [2]. p.s. - if you wonder why the Clintons are especially hated in some circles, and if you wonder why people are so quick to believe those Q conspiracy theories, the kernels of truth exist and originate in simple corruption like this [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almon_Glenn_Braswell#Unsubstantiated_treatment_for_baldness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almon_Glenn_Braswell#Unsubstan... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal#Whitewater_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal#Whitewater_affa... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Reynolds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Reynolds [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clinton,_Jr.#Conviction_and_pardon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clinton,_Jr.#Conviction_...

jmull 6y ago
> Not to "both sides" What do you think you just did?
- preommr 6y ago
  They framed a relevant point that furthers the discussion in a way that was less ambiguous and less likely to do harm. For me personally, it's frustrating to see comments about things like whataboutism when they're obviously just to deflect and distract. At the very least, with caveats like saying "I don't support this, but..." there's some level of acknowledgement of, "yes, this might be veering into sketchy waters".
- unishark 6y ago
  hence the "...but".
- jimbokun 6y ago