7 ms·
We should at least ban the "preemptive" pardon if not all pardons. Pardon means forgiveness for a specific convicted crime, not a means to grant blanket immuni
by siliconc0w 6mo ago
We should at least ban the "preemptive" pardon if not all pardons. Pardon means forgiveness for a specific convicted crime, not a means to grant blanket immunity.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6mo agoThe preemptive pardon is ridiculous. Pardon for what? What if it comes out someone is a child cannibal? Are they pardoned for that?
- conception 6mo agoThere’s no /s so I’m assuming you didn’t know that child cannibalism was in the Epstein files https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fact-check-breaking-down-mentions-140000640.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fact-check-breaking-down... So to answer your question, seems like Yes, pardons for all!
- fwipsy 6mo agoFrom the article you linked, child sacrifice allegations came from an anonymous FBI interview in 2019 and are not confirmed by any credible evidence. There are no cannibalism allegations; the word "cannibal" only appears in innocuous contexts. So child sacrifice and cannibalism are only technically "in the Epstein files;" there's very little evidence that anyone did those things. For other readers, if you hadn't heard about this, that's probably why.
- royaltjames 6mo agoLittle evidence that I was abused as a child too, must not have happened.
- OtomotO 6mo agoI am deeply sorry for your experience and I totally understand that it triggers something, but let's be ice cold logical for a moment. If there is no evidence of a crime, you cannot prosecute someone in a constitutional democracy. If you could you could just make up any claims and get rid of people you simply despise. Which happens in various regimes... So although it's certainly a possibility that such cases happened, as long as there is no evidence that they happened, they didn't for all legal matters.
- gbacon 6mo agoWe are discussing the pardon power, an explicitly anti-democratic measure that is unilateral and unreviewable. The constitution defines a federal republic, not a democracy.
- senderista 6mo agoNot everything originally in the Constitution is a good idea, or at least isn't anymore. That's why it specifies an amendment process.
- gbacon 6mo agoI wish detractors would follow the Article V process rather than amendment by usurpation, as George Washington condemned it.
- fwipsy 6mo agoI'm sorry that you experienced that. I understand the importance of listening to abuse victims. However, if child sacrifice did happen, it seems unlikely to ever be proven. I do not think that the case against Epstein or his associates is strengthened by assuming every accusation is true. For people who are not thinking about the subject carefully, learning that some accusations are inflated may cast others into doubt. What is provable is heinous enough.
- mdni007 6mo ago[flagged]
- b00ty4breakfast 6mo agoThere is no universe where any pardon is abolished unless there is a massive political shakeup. The entrenched political class is terrified of endangering their power and privilege even if individual players are ready to do it.
- bloppe 6mo agoI've often wondered what would happen if a president explicitly offers to pardon anybody who murders members of Congress. Would they settle on reigning in the pardon power with an amendment? We're sort of already there. A lot of the Jan 6 rioters were openly trying to murder congressmen. The fact they weren't successful isn't super reassuring.
- aexer0e 6mo agoPardons only stop the federal government from prosecuting someone, the states would still go after those individuals
- dawnerd 6mo agoAnd in theory a future administration could do something like threaten to withhold funding to states that don’t prosecute.
- Spooky23 6mo agoDon’t worry, Trump 47 already thought of this, specifically threatening a state until the governor pardoned someone. https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-threatened-colorado-funding-as-punishment-over-tina-peters-judge-finds/ https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-threatened...
- dawnerd 6mo agoYep exactly, goes both ways.
- 6mo ago
- jmyeet 6mo agoSo I have mixed feeling on this. I'm thinking of Carter fulfilling a campaign pledge to pardon draft dodgers. Whether you support that or not, he did what he said he was going to do and I'm sure only some of them had actually been charged in any way. I think that's a perfectly fine use for the pardon power. Some will point to the Hunter Biden pardon. So two things can be true at once here: it was absolutely political prosecution AND Joe Biden was completely selfish with his action. At least do something for the people by, say, pardoning a whole bunch of low level drug offenders and decriminalize cannabis at the Federal level. But no, it was completely self-serving but his brain was pretty much gone by this point. Here's the problem: Federal prosecutors have a ton of power. Conviction rates are 98-99%. But it goes beyond that. Federal prosecutors will intentionally bankrupt you to force you to take a plea. They might charge you with 15 felonies, 12 of which are basically bogus. You still have to defend those bogus felonies and that costs you money. And as soon as you run out of money, they'll offer you a plea where you're looking at 25 years on the 3 remaining felonies or you can just take 10. The power imbalance is insane and the wealthy are essentially immune. If a US attorney decides to make an example of you, you're going to have a bad time, regardless of the facts. Millions were spent dredging up some crimes for Hunter Biden and pretty much all they could come up with was doing crack and filling out a form incorrectly. Do you think anyone else would get that level of attention? A very recent example of this is the Karen Read trial or, as I call it, the most expensive DUI prosecution in history. If you didn't follow the case, don't worry, there'll be any number of true crime documentaries. Millions were spent prosecuting Karen Read for killing JOhn O'Keefe with a completely ridiculous theory of the case and all sorts of evidence that went missing (including police officers disposing of their cell phones on a military base the day before an electronics preservation order was issued). I don't know what we do about this power imbalance and selective prosecution.
- mullingitover 6mo ago> Federal prosecutors have a ton of power. Conviction rates are 98-99%. This always gets thrown around, but the fact is they should be that high. Prosecutors shouldn't bring cases unless they have evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and DOJ prosectors don't (normally) screw around. When you see lower rates of conviction, as in the current ethically bankrupt administration, it's often malicious prosecution, aka "You'll beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."
- lateforwork 6mo agoThere are two types here: (1) Pardons for crimes not yet committed. (2) Pardons for crimes committed, but not yet convicted. The first type will allow the pardoned to commit a crime in the future for free, which obviously should not be allowed. The second should be allowed if we have this pardon system at all. The second type became a political necessity, for example to protect Liz Cheney from a vengeful administration.
- elAhmo 6mo agoThe notion itself that someone needs to be protected by a 'vengeful administration', while judicial system should be not politically affiliated is telling how broken the whole separation of powers is. Everyone who is a ruling party puts candidates they know aligned with their views, resulting in 'just wait until my turn comes and I will do as much as damage as possible' cycle.
- foobarchu 6mo ago> puts candidates they know aligned with their views, resulting in 'just wait until my turn comes and I will do as much as damage as possible' cycle. There is exactly one party in the US that does this, and it's because they have dedicated themselves to blocking the other party from accomplishing much of anything when they get power.
- mattmaroon 6mo agoNo. While I don’t like Trump and never did, several of the prosecutions against him were political. By political, I mean they would not have happened if he had not become a politician, in fact, they didn’t until he became one and an unpopular one at that. And he’s doing much worse now so that’s two.
- miltonlost 6mo agoWhich of the prosecutions were political hit jobs? Enumerate which of the federal and state crimes that Trump was convicted were actually politcal hit jobs. Your definition of political ("not happening if he wasn't a politician") is not what that definition is.
- giancarlostoro 6mo agoI agree. I dont care if “my guy” or “your guy” does it, it should not be allowed.
- LocalH 6mo agoWe should go as far as to preemptively ban and sanction any POTUS who says "I'm going to pardon these people before I leave office". There's no reason to say that unless you know they're actively committing federal crimes in the present day.
- flowerlad 6mo agoNot true. Liz Cheney hasn’t committed any crimes (as far as we know).
- nullsanity 6mo ago[dead]
- torben-friis 6mo ago>There's no reason to say that unless you know they're actively committing federal crimes in the present day. There are reasons. For example, you feel the justice system is going to be misused against them. Protection against future witch hunts basically. I don't think this is what's happening here, and trump is on record talking very explicitly about weaponising the state against his enemies himself, but it's probably an excuse that will be used.
- sanex 6mo agoThat's what Biden did for Hunter right?
- whattheheckheck 6mo agoWhich side is likely to be petty and target family members in bad faith?
- frumplestlatz 6mo ago[dead]
- harimau777 6mo agoAs long as that ban doesn't go into effect until after the next non-Republican administration. We need to be able to right the scales after MAGA's abuse of power.
- jibal 6mo agoWe "should" do many things that aren't feasible, like this or anything else that requires a Constitutional amendment.
- dlev_pika 6mo agoModifying pardon powers requires a constitutional amendment? That’s wild.
- jibal 6mo agoIt's wild that anyone doesn't know that. It's less surprising than the fact that disallowing someone with 34 felony convictions from being President would also require a Constitutional amendment. Both the pardon power and the qualifications for President are specified by the Constitution, so of course the Constitution must be amended to change them.
- dlev_pika 6mo ago> It's wild that anyone doesn't know that. Lots of assumptions here, friend
- jibal 6mo agoI made no assumptions. Or if my "It's wild" makes assumptions, then surely your "That's wild" does as well. But really, neither do--they are simply expressions of a disparity between fact and expectation or desire.
- gbacon 6mo agoCase law agrees with your reading only in part, namely that the pardon power may be exercised at any time after its commission, that is, not preemptive as in being granted before the act being pardoned has taken place. However, the broader context reads The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control. Ex parte Garland, 371 U.S. 333, 380 (1866) https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep071/usrep071333/usrep071333.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep... Changing it would require not a mere legislative act but a constitutional amendment. To the executive alone is intrusted the power of pardon; and it is granted without limit. United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128, 147 (1871) https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep080/usrep080128/usrep080128.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...