4 ms·

Don't discount the possibility that she'll have her sentence commuted by a future President. Look at the roster of political heavyweights that she was able to a

Don't discount the possibility that she'll have her sentence commuted by a future President. Look at the roster of political heavyweights that she was able to attract to the company. It wouldn't surprise me if one or more of these people still have an affinity for her and, at the right time, throw some good words in the President's ears on her behalf.

rsynnott 5y ago
She'd want to get on with it; they're mostly fairly elderly. And the optics would be _awful_; no sensible president would do it in the first place.
- wedowhatwedo 5y ago
  In America, we can no longer count on a sensible president.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  > And the optics would be _awful_; no sensible president would do it in the first place. That's obviously no longer a constraint. The optics of pardoning Anthony Lewandowski (among many, many others) looked awful and he was still pardoned.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    I suspect that was peak Ridiculous President Behaviour, tbh. Any future president that venal will take care to hide it a _little_ better. And I think that was a little different; in that highly polarized environment it was possibly a little easier to sell corrupt pardons if they were of people on the president's 'team'; at least some of his supporters would put up with it on that basis. Holmes wouldn't qualify; she's just a generic wealthy criminal.
  - mythrwy 5y ago
    Marc Rich? This pardon abuse has been going on for awhile.
runeks 5y ago
This disgusts me. The president should not have the power to free anyone from prison. If the laws are broken then (attempt to) change those, but otherwise you’re just saying “yeah, you’re guilty, but I like you so you don’t need to serve your time like everyone else”.
- nikanj 5y ago
  I believe it was originally designed to be a safety valve in the system. A person can be found guilty because the laws are blind, but if a (loud) majority of the population thinks it was a misjustice, the president can fix the situation. I don't think any of the founding fathers foresaw presidents using their power to pardon their friends. The whole system is extremely vulnerable to an insider attack - very few tools are in place to work around corrupt leaders.
  - azernik 5y ago
    That was only one of the reasons given in the Federalist Papers for its inclusion; the other is the need to be able to throw around pardons as a bargaining chip in quelling rebellions and civil disorders. The post-Civil-War pardons are a classic example - getting people off the hook for death-penalty treason stuff in order to keep them from going into a new rebellion in a few years - as are the post-Vietnam blanket pardons for draft dodgers.
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    It's a power Kings have. "The Royal Prerogative of Mercy". That's why the President has it, there weren't a lot of other examples for the Executive to be modelled on. However of course in modern constitutional monarchies the King doesn't operate this power any more, for example Liz's pardon power is operated by her government and ordinarily via some dusty committee looking into injustices (the government occasionally has used it directly e.g. some guy years into his life sentence for murder tackled a terrorist who was stabbing people at an event in London, the Pardon power was used to reduce his sentence in recognition of this bravery) The US President should have handed this power over to a similarly dusty committee resolving real injustice years ago. This would be less corrupting and more effective because a President is busy whereas the committee would be doing nothing else except investigating the circumstances of potential injustice and choosing how to resolve them (new trial, pardon, etc.)
thegreatdukd 5y ago
George Schultz is already dead, and Kissinger is 99 years old. By the time a future president is elect I doubt she will have someone to call.
rgallagher27 5y ago
Doubt it, she humiliated these people.
magicroot75 5y ago
With how public facing this trial has been, it'd be political suicide to pardon her. Unless new evidence exonerating her were to surface.

rsynnott 5y ago

She'd want to get on with it; they're mostly fairly elderly. And the optics would be _awful_; no sensible president would do it in the first place.

wedowhatwedo 5y ago
In America, we can no longer count on a sensible president.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
> And the optics would be _awful_; no sensible president would do it in the first place. That's obviously no longer a constraint. The optics of pardoning Anthony Lewandowski (among many, many others) looked awful and he was still pardoned.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  I suspect that was peak Ridiculous President Behaviour, tbh. Any future president that venal will take care to hide it a _little_ better. And I think that was a little different; in that highly polarized environment it was possibly a little easier to sell corrupt pardons if they were of people on the president's 'team'; at least some of his supporters would put up with it on that basis. Holmes wouldn't qualify; she's just a generic wealthy criminal.
- mythrwy 5y ago
  Marc Rich? This pardon abuse has been going on for awhile.

runeks 5y ago

This disgusts me. The president should not have the power to free anyone from prison. If the laws are broken then (attempt to) change those, but otherwise you’re just saying “yeah, you’re guilty, but I like you so you don’t need to serve your time like everyone else”.

nikanj 5y ago
I believe it was originally designed to be a safety valve in the system. A person can be found guilty because the laws are blind, but if a (loud) majority of the population thinks it was a misjustice, the president can fix the situation. I don't think any of the founding fathers foresaw presidents using their power to pardon their friends. The whole system is extremely vulnerable to an insider attack - very few tools are in place to work around corrupt leaders.
- azernik 5y ago
  That was only one of the reasons given in the Federalist Papers for its inclusion; the other is the need to be able to throw around pardons as a bargaining chip in quelling rebellions and civil disorders. The post-Civil-War pardons are a classic example - getting people off the hook for death-penalty treason stuff in order to keep them from going into a new rebellion in a few years - as are the post-Vietnam blanket pardons for draft dodgers.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  It's a power Kings have. "The Royal Prerogative of Mercy". That's why the President has it, there weren't a lot of other examples for the Executive to be modelled on. However of course in modern constitutional monarchies the King doesn't operate this power any more, for example Liz's pardon power is operated by her government and ordinarily via some dusty committee looking into injustices (the government occasionally has used it directly e.g. some guy years into his life sentence for murder tackled a terrorist who was stabbing people at an event in London, the Pardon power was used to reduce his sentence in recognition of this bravery) The US President should have handed this power over to a similarly dusty committee resolving real injustice years ago. This would be less corrupting and more effective because a President is busy whereas the committee would be doing nothing else except investigating the circumstances of potential injustice and choosing how to resolve them (new trial, pardon, etc.)

thegreatdukd 5y ago

George Schultz is already dead, and Kissinger is 99 years old. By the time a future president is elect I doubt she will have someone to call.

rgallagher27 5y ago

Doubt it, she humiliated these people.

magicroot75 5y ago

With how public facing this trial has been, it'd be political suicide to pardon her. Unless new evidence exonerating her were to surface.