4 ms·

Biden pardons Trump. Outrage mitigated. Base can’t rage. Biden easily wins re-election.

stuckinhell 4y ago
One can hope, but doubtful. Braggs ignored many democrats advice on this and went rogue.
xpe 4y ago
Perhaps. There would also be justifiable outrage by reasonable people. Pardoning Trump would continue the example set by Gerald Ford in pardoning Nixon. "Helping the country heal" seems hollow to me. To use a few metaphors: 1. Physical healing can't properly happen until the foreign object is cleared and infection removed from the body. 2. Mental healing doesn't fully happen until person comes to terms with what's happened. Burying the trauma is a risky time-bomb of a "solution". If injustice goes unpunished or unaddressed, victims typically don't have closure. They lose confidence in the rule of law. Some take it into their own hands. Large portions of the American public have been traumatized by Trump's behavior. We are seeking justice. And any temporary comfort from pardoning Trump would be undermined by the uneven application of justice.
- hrunt 4y ago
  Trump and Nixon are also two very different situations. When Ford pardoned Nixon, Nixon was done with politics. He had no chance of coming back as a politician. If he had not resigned, he was going to be impeached and he was going to be removed from office. There was bipartisan support for his removal. Ford spent his political capital to pardon Nixon and heal the nation, but he also knew that Nixon would not be a factor going forward. The same is not true for Trump today. Even if Biden pardoned Trump, establishment politics would continue to have to deal with him moving forward. He has shown no indication that he would stop attacking everything around him.
  - vl 4y ago
    Currently Trump is devisive candidate for republican party. Ironically dems would benefit if he is around and party is fractured.
- logicchains 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - xpe 4y ago
    >> Large portions of the American public have been traumatized by Trump's behavior. We are seeking justice. > And a large portion of the American public have been traumatized by Biden forcing them to take a medical treatment they didn't want or lose their jobs, in violation of the Nuremberg code. I take the point that what people think is trauma can be subjective. If people come to believe what Fox News is saying about Biden, they actually can and do become upset. The difference is a matter of truth. When Tucker Carlson and Fox News lie in order to generate outrage, we are in a different ballgame. Also, there is considerable historical precedent and rationality for vaccinations. Furthermore, there are checks and balances on this kind of executive decision. Some of Bidens executive orders have been blocked by the courts, but not the vaccination policy. I think one deeper underlying question here is "what is truth and justice and how do we get closer to it?" Trump has shown few or no indications that he seeks truth or justice. The preponderance of evidence suggests that Trump is all about himself. Whatever flaws Biden may have, he demonstrates broader goals than aggrandizing himself. Let's say I grant (for the sake of argument, not because I have seen convincing evidence) that Biden did make poor decisions regarding Hunter: it is a still a step forward to do something for your son rather than yourself. If those things were unethical or illegal, at least they were in the service of someone else. Trump's obvious nepotism is for his own benefit, not his children. He demands loyalty like an autocrat. I see no indications of an ethical code.
    - xpe 4y ago
      See also: "U.S. court upholds block on Biden's vaccine order for federal workers" https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-court-upholds-block-bidens-vaccine-order-federal-workers-2023-03-24/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-court-upholds-block-bidens-...
zarzavat 4y ago
I believe that since these are state charges, the pardon would need to come from the governor of New York.
meragrin_ 4y ago
This isn't a federal charge. Biden can't pardon anything.
- speedylight 4y ago
  They’re saying the charge is related to campaign finance violations, isn’t that a federal crime?
  - skissane 4y ago
    This is a state prosecutor. In the US system, state prosecutors can’t charge federal crimes, only state ones. Unlike some other countries-here in Australia, state prosecutors can charge federal crimes and federal prosecutors can charge state ones. Australia doesn’t have the hard separation between state and federal legal systems that the US has
    - zarzavat 4y ago
      The speculation has been that he is being charged with a state crime of falsifying documents. Usually this is just a misdemeanor and the statue of limitations has long since expired, however if combined with violating federal election laws then it becomes state felony. The question asked is: can the President pardon Trump for the federal part of the crime, thus reducing the charge to a misdemeanor. The answer is “No”, because he has not been convicted in federal court, there is nothing to pardon him of. However it does raise the question: Is it proper to convict someone of a state crime based on “criminality” where the criminality is a federal crime that they have not been convicted of in federal court? It seems unlikely. In any case, I believe all of this is just media speculation and presumably there will be more clear-cut charges in the real indictment.
      - skissane 4y ago
        > The answer is “No”, because he has not been convicted in federal court, there is nothing to pardon him of. I don't think that's right – the US President can pardon someone for a federal crime which they haven't even been charged with yet. Ford pardoned Nixon even though he hadn't been charged with any federal crime, and that was sufficient to bar any future federal prosecution of Nixon for the crimes to which the pardon applied. However, from what I understand, the state charge is not that he violated federal election laws, but rather he committed the state crime with the intention of violating federal election laws. So, they don't need to prove he actually committed a federal crime, only that he committed a state crime with the intention of committing a federal crime, even if he never actually committed the federal crime which (they allege) he was intending to commit. Which is probably why any federal pardon would be legally irrelevant. However, it likely does give the federal courts greater grounds on which to hear an appeal than they normally would in a state criminal case – if a state court concludes that Trump intended to do X, and that X is a federal crime, federal appellate courts could always rule that X is not a federal crime (whether or not Trump did it), thereby destroying the legal theory behind the state conviction. > However it does raise the question: Is it proper to convict someone of a state crime based on “criminality” where the criminality is a federal crime that they have not been convicted of in federal court? It seems unlikely. Personally, I think people are going to look back on this as a big mistake on Alvin Bragg's part – charging Trump on what appears to be a highly technical and complex legal theory, for acts which in themselves were on the low end of criminal severity. Trump is likely to beat this one way or another, which will help his narrative of "I'm being persecuted by left-wing prosecutors". If you believe Trump is guilty of far worse offences (such as trying to overturn the result of a democratic election), you don't want to see that narrative being given legs, since it may make it harder for prosecutors to win if they bring those more serious charges. It is even possible that this might lead to the Republican party uniting behind Trump and guaranteeing him the nomination–what happens if Trump wins in 2024 (whether fairly or unfairly)? Future historians may come to see this as a key event in helping make that happen. In hindsight, people might come to see Alvin Bragg as having unintentionally done Trump a big favour. > In any case, I believe all of this is just media speculation and presumably there will be more clear-cut charges in the real indictment. My impression this is not mere "speculation", rather leaks coming from insiders who know what is in the sealed indictment, making it more likely to be true – but of course, with any leaks, there is always the chance they are inaccurate in some way. We'll see.
rstuart4133 4y ago
I could see that happening for this charge. In the scheme of things, paying off a sex worker is a petty transgression. Many will have done worse at some point. Showing forgiveness will be a win for everyone. But if one of the insurrection prosecutions makes it up - then it's hard to see it being pardoned. "Petty" is not a word that springs to mind when describing the events of Jan 6th.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
uptownfunk 4y ago
Interesting. This could be a power play for Biden if he can arrange it. The problem is that Biden is unfit to be president even today, what to speak for a second term. He is hanging on by a very thin thread.

One can hope, but doubtful. Braggs ignored many democrats advice on this and went rogue.

xpe 4y ago

Perhaps. There would also be justifiable outrage by reasonable people. Pardoning Trump would continue the example set by Gerald Ford in pardoning Nixon. "Helping the country heal" seems hollow to me. To use a few metaphors: 1. Physical healing can't properly happen until the foreign object is cleared and infection removed from the body. 2. Mental healing doesn't fully happen until person comes to terms with what's happened. Burying the trauma is a risky time-bomb of a "solution". If injustice goes unpunished or unaddressed, victims typically don't have closure. They lose confidence in the rule of law. Some take it into their own hands. Large portions of the American public have been traumatized by Trump's behavior. We are seeking justice. And any temporary comfort from pardoning Trump would be undermined by the uneven application of justice.

hrunt 4y ago
Trump and Nixon are also two very different situations. When Ford pardoned Nixon, Nixon was done with politics. He had no chance of coming back as a politician. If he had not resigned, he was going to be impeached and he was going to be removed from office. There was bipartisan support for his removal. Ford spent his political capital to pardon Nixon and heal the nation, but he also knew that Nixon would not be a factor going forward. The same is not true for Trump today. Even if Biden pardoned Trump, establishment politics would continue to have to deal with him moving forward. He has shown no indication that he would stop attacking everything around him.
- vl 4y ago
  Currently Trump is devisive candidate for republican party. Ironically dems would benefit if he is around and party is fractured.
logicchains 4y ago
[flagged]
- xpe 4y ago
  >> Large portions of the American public have been traumatized by Trump's behavior. We are seeking justice. > And a large portion of the American public have been traumatized by Biden forcing them to take a medical treatment they didn't want or lose their jobs, in violation of the Nuremberg code. I take the point that what people think is trauma can be subjective. If people come to believe what Fox News is saying about Biden, they actually can and do become upset. The difference is a matter of truth. When Tucker Carlson and Fox News lie in order to generate outrage, we are in a different ballgame. Also, there is considerable historical precedent and rationality for vaccinations. Furthermore, there are checks and balances on this kind of executive decision. Some of Bidens executive orders have been blocked by the courts, but not the vaccination policy. I think one deeper underlying question here is "what is truth and justice and how do we get closer to it?" Trump has shown few or no indications that he seeks truth or justice. The preponderance of evidence suggests that Trump is all about himself. Whatever flaws Biden may have, he demonstrates broader goals than aggrandizing himself. Let's say I grant (for the sake of argument, not because I have seen convincing evidence) that Biden did make poor decisions regarding Hunter: it is a still a step forward to do something for your son rather than yourself. If those things were unethical or illegal, at least they were in the service of someone else. Trump's obvious nepotism is for his own benefit, not his children. He demands loyalty like an autocrat. I see no indications of an ethical code.
  - xpe 4y ago
    See also: "U.S. court upholds block on Biden's vaccine order for federal workers" https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-court-upholds-block-bidens-vaccine-order-federal-workers-2023-03-24/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-court-upholds-block-bidens-...

zarzavat 4y ago

I believe that since these are state charges, the pardon would need to come from the governor of New York.

meragrin_ 4y ago

This isn't a federal charge. Biden can't pardon anything.

speedylight 4y ago
They’re saying the charge is related to campaign finance violations, isn’t that a federal crime?
- skissane 4y ago
  This is a state prosecutor. In the US system, state prosecutors can’t charge federal crimes, only state ones. Unlike some other countries-here in Australia, state prosecutors can charge federal crimes and federal prosecutors can charge state ones. Australia doesn’t have the hard separation between state and federal legal systems that the US has
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    The speculation has been that he is being charged with a state crime of falsifying documents. Usually this is just a misdemeanor and the statue of limitations has long since expired, however if combined with violating federal election laws then it becomes state felony. The question asked is: can the President pardon Trump for the federal part of the crime, thus reducing the charge to a misdemeanor. The answer is “No”, because he has not been convicted in federal court, there is nothing to pardon him of. However it does raise the question: Is it proper to convict someone of a state crime based on “criminality” where the criminality is a federal crime that they have not been convicted of in federal court? It seems unlikely. In any case, I believe all of this is just media speculation and presumably there will be more clear-cut charges in the real indictment.
    - skissane 4y ago
      > The answer is “No”, because he has not been convicted in federal court, there is nothing to pardon him of. I don't think that's right – the US President can pardon someone for a federal crime which they haven't even been charged with yet. Ford pardoned Nixon even though he hadn't been charged with any federal crime, and that was sufficient to bar any future federal prosecution of Nixon for the crimes to which the pardon applied. However, from what I understand, the state charge is not that he violated federal election laws, but rather he committed the state crime with the intention of violating federal election laws. So, they don't need to prove he actually committed a federal crime, only that he committed a state crime with the intention of committing a federal crime, even if he never actually committed the federal crime which (they allege) he was intending to commit. Which is probably why any federal pardon would be legally irrelevant. However, it likely does give the federal courts greater grounds on which to hear an appeal than they normally would in a state criminal case – if a state court concludes that Trump intended to do X, and that X is a federal crime, federal appellate courts could always rule that X is not a federal crime (whether or not Trump did it), thereby destroying the legal theory behind the state conviction. > However it does raise the question: Is it proper to convict someone of a state crime based on “criminality” where the criminality is a federal crime that they have not been convicted of in federal court? It seems unlikely. Personally, I think people are going to look back on this as a big mistake on Alvin Bragg's part – charging Trump on what appears to be a highly technical and complex legal theory, for acts which in themselves were on the low end of criminal severity. Trump is likely to beat this one way or another, which will help his narrative of "I'm being persecuted by left-wing prosecutors". If you believe Trump is guilty of far worse offences (such as trying to overturn the result of a democratic election), you don't want to see that narrative being given legs, since it may make it harder for prosecutors to win if they bring those more serious charges. It is even possible that this might lead to the Republican party uniting behind Trump and guaranteeing him the nomination–what happens if Trump wins in 2024 (whether fairly or unfairly)? Future historians may come to see this as a key event in helping make that happen. In hindsight, people might come to see Alvin Bragg as having unintentionally done Trump a big favour. > In any case, I believe all of this is just media speculation and presumably there will be more clear-cut charges in the real indictment. My impression this is not mere "speculation", rather leaks coming from insiders who know what is in the sealed indictment, making it more likely to be true – but of course, with any leaks, there is always the chance they are inaccurate in some way. We'll see.

rstuart4133 4y ago

I could see that happening for this charge. In the scheme of things, paying off a sex worker is a petty transgression. Many will have done worse at some point. Showing forgiveness will be a win for everyone. But if one of the insurrection prosecutions makes it up - then it's hard to see it being pardoned. "Petty" is not a word that springs to mind when describing the events of Jan 6th.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

uptownfunk 4y ago

Interesting. This could be a power play for Biden if he can arrange it. The problem is that Biden is unfit to be president even today, what to speak for a second term. He is hanging on by a very thin thread.