President Biden and US politics catchall

[Biffer]

I know this is a rabbit hole - but if he hasn’t been convicted yet, what has he been pardoned for doing exactly? Is it specified anywhere in the process?

If it’s the wall campaign fraud thingy, admitting guilt could open him up for state level charges (state where the fund registered for example) or civil charges from those who’s cash was embezzled?

Yeah, I've seen a few statements that Bannon is still in trouble regardless.

[fishfoodie]

I know this is a rabbit hole - but if he hasn’t been convicted yet, what has he been pardoned for doing exactly? Is it specified anywhere in the process?

If it’s the wall campaign fraud thingy, admitting guilt could open him up for state level charges (state where the fund registered for example) or civil charges from those who’s cash was embezzled?

Yeah, I've seen a few statements that Bannon is still in trouble regardless.

I'd say so.

The fact he's pardoned Bannon, & done nothing for the three others, shows what a naked political act the pardon is.

The others will now put all the blame on Bannon, & hope they can appear like victims themseleves.

[Slick]

Different conversation, but it breaks my heart that these fuckers are getting pardoned and let out of jails when you have tens of thousands of people doing life sentences in the US for minor offences. Just a fucked place

[JM2K6]

You only need to have charged (ie accused) of a crime I believe. You don't need to have been convicted. But yes, the general theory is that accepting it is admission of guilt, and state-level charges are likely for the fat facist.

I must apologise to Rhubarb & Custard though, I was led astray by some lawyers on the whole "secret pardons" thing. It turns out that it may not matter that the DoJ isn't informed.

This article is largely in line with my thinking:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-can ... ns-1562790

but this one completely disagrees:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/23/opin ... index.html

both include opposing views from major legal types. What a mess. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Trump is able to backdate pardons - that doesn't appear to be legal - but there's certainly a chance that any pardons done on the final day don't need to be made public (and therefore don't need to be publicly accepted).

[Rinkals]

Ah.

Is this another "I'm not a Trump supporter, but Biden is worse or just as bad"?

I don't think Biden is the absolute best option, but, of the twenty-odd who put their hat in the ring, I'd say he was the most electable. Which, in retrospect and bearing in mind that Trump got over 74 million votes, was more important than fielding the perfect candidate, even if it was Bernie.

Frankly, Spongebob Squarepants would have made a better President than Trump, so it's less about perfection and more about who can get the vote.

Yeah, but it’s essential they do enough for another democratic victory next time up. Otherwise we might end up with someone as lunatic as Trump but with some competence, like Hawley.

Just as well Trump is as thick as two short planks: anyone with the smallest amount of intelligence and nefarious intentions could have done enormous damage. Putin must be cursing his dumb luck in managing to install a pliant stooge, only to find out he's a halfwit.

What is quite clear is that the so-called checks and balances are non-existent with a biddable Senate or Congress.

[Hal Jordan]

Jimmy Kimmel:

"Trump has the lowest approval rating of any President in the modern era.

The only President to leave the Oval Office with a lower approval rating than that was Kevin Spacey."

[Raggs]

You only need to have charged (ie accused) of a crime I believe. You don't need to have been convicted. But yes, the general theory is that accepting it is admission of guilt, and state-level charges are likely for the fat facist.

I must apologise to Rhubarb & Custard though, I was led astray by some lawyers on the whole "secret pardons" thing. It turns out that it may not matter that the DoJ isn't informed.

This article is largely in line with my thinking:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-can ... ns-1562790

but this one completely disagrees:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/23/opin ... index.html

both include opposing views from major legal types. What a mess. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Trump is able to backdate pardons - that doesn't appear to be legal - but there's certainly a chance that any pardons done on the final day don't need to be made public (and therefore don't need to be publicly accepted).

It does look like the only issue is proving that they were signed before he was kicked out. I have to say I suspect that video, postage stamps (post them on the day, they'll have the date on them then, leave it unopened etc), affidavits etc could all be used to help prove when they were written. And let's be honest, it's against honest men that these ideas are in place for, someone like Trump isn't going to let minor things like that get in the way if he doesn't have to. I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers etc out there happy to vouch that they witnessed him sign them beforehand etc, and then you've got to prove that everyone who says that is a liar etc.

[Kiwias]

Different conversation, but it breaks my heart that these fuckers are getting pardoned and let out of jails when you have tens of thousands of people doing life sentences in the US for minor offences. Just a fucked place

There are several of the pardonees who were just that -- life sentences for minor non-violent marijuana offences. Good to see them out of jail but sad that they had to spend 20~30 years inside.

[Woddy]

Is Trump issuing more pardons than is normal for an out-going President? Genuine question.

[Saint]

You only need to have charged (ie accused) of a crime I believe. You don't need to have been convicted. But yes, the general theory is that accepting it is admission of guilt, and state-level charges are likely for the fat facist.

I must apologise to Rhubarb & Custard though, I was led astray by some lawyers on the whole "secret pardons" thing. It turns out that it may not matter that the DoJ isn't informed.

This article is largely in line with my thinking:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-can ... ns-1562790

but this one completely disagrees:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/23/opin ... index.html

both include opposing views from major legal types. What a mess. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Trump is able to backdate pardons - that doesn't appear to be legal - but there's certainly a chance that any pardons done on the final day don't need to be made public (and therefore don't need to be publicly accepted).

Which seems to be more or less the points we were discussing

Re the whole admission of guilt thing, it has been tested in SCOTUS back it 1917 or 18 I think. It's the reason why a recipient can choose not to accept pardon, as SCOTUS ruled that as a pardon is in place, their 5th amendment rights against self incrimination become null and void. Implicit in that is the presumption of guilt, otherwise the 5th amendment wouldn;t apply anyway

[Kiwias]

Obama issued a massive 1,340 or so, apparently that is more than the past 13 presidents combined.

Full statistics are here.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-statistics

[Saint]

Obama issued a massive 1,340 or so, apparently that is more than the past 13 presidents combined.

Ummmmm???


Franklin D. Roosevelt: 2,819 pardons (3+ Terms)
Harry S. Truman: 1,913 pardons (2 Terms)
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1,110 pardons
Woodrow Wilson: 1,087 pardons
Lyndon Johnson: 960 pardons
Richard Nixon: 863 pardons
Calvin Coolidge: 773 pardons
Herbert Hoover: 672 pardons
Theodore Roosevelt: 668 pardons
Jimmy Carter: 534 pardons
John F. Kennedy: 472 pardons
Bill Clinton: 396 pardons
Ronald Reagan: 393 pardons
William H. Taft: 383 pardons
Gerald Ford: 382 pardons
Warren Harding: 386 pardons
William McKinley: 291 pardons
Barack Obama: 212 pardons
George W. Bush: 189 pardons
George H.W. Bush: 74 pardons

Obama commuted a lot of sentences, quite possibly more than any other President, but he didn't pardon many at all

[robmatic]

Obama issued a massive 1,340 or so, apparently that is more than the past 13 presidents combined.

Ummmmm???


Franklin D. Roosevelt: 2,819 pardons (3+ Terms)
Harry S. Truman: 1,913 pardons (2 Terms)
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1,110 pardons
Woodrow Wilson: 1,087 pardons
Lyndon Johnson: 960 pardons
Richard Nixon: 863 pardons
Calvin Coolidge: 773 pardons
Herbert Hoover: 672 pardons
Theodore Roosevelt: 668 pardons
Jimmy Carter: 534 pardons
John F. Kennedy: 472 pardons
Bill Clinton: 396 pardons
Ronald Reagan: 393 pardons
William H. Taft: 383 pardons
Gerald Ford: 382 pardons
Warren Harding: 386 pardons
William McKinley: 291 pardons
Barack Obama: 212 pardons
George W. Bush: 189 pardons
George H.W. Bush: 74 pardons

Obama commuted a lot of sentences, quite possibly more than any other President, but he didn't pardon many at all

He commuted a lot of sentences as part of a clemency initiative focused on non-violent drug offenders.

The monster.

[Kiwias]

Obama issued a massive 1,340 or so, apparently that is more than the past 13 presidents combined.

Ummmmm???


Franklin D. Roosevelt: 2,819 pardons (3+ Terms)
Harry S. Truman: 1,913 pardons (2 Terms)
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1,110 pardons
Woodrow Wilson: 1,087 pardons
Lyndon Johnson: 960 pardons
Richard Nixon: 863 pardons
Calvin Coolidge: 773 pardons
Herbert Hoover: 672 pardons
Theodore Roosevelt: 668 pardons
Jimmy Carter: 534 pardons
John F. Kennedy: 472 pardons
Bill Clinton: 396 pardons
Ronald Reagan: 393 pardons
William H. Taft: 383 pardons
Gerald Ford: 382 pardons
Warren Harding: 386 pardons
William McKinley: 291 pardons
Barack Obama: 212 pardons
George W. Bush: 189 pardons
George H.W. Bush: 74 pardons

Obama commuted a lot of sentences, quite possibly more than any other President, but he didn't pardon many at all

The initial figure I picked up included commutations., not that I made that clear at all.

[Saint]

Obama issued a massive 1,340 or so, apparently that is more than the past 13 presidents combined.

Ummmmm???


Franklin D. Roosevelt: 2,819 pardons (3+ Terms)
Harry S. Truman: 1,913 pardons (2 Terms)
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1,110 pardons
Woodrow Wilson: 1,087 pardons
Lyndon Johnson: 960 pardons
Richard Nixon: 863 pardons
Calvin Coolidge: 773 pardons
Herbert Hoover: 672 pardons
Theodore Roosevelt: 668 pardons
Jimmy Carter: 534 pardons
John F. Kennedy: 472 pardons
Bill Clinton: 396 pardons
Ronald Reagan: 393 pardons
William H. Taft: 383 pardons
Gerald Ford: 382 pardons
Warren Harding: 386 pardons
William McKinley: 291 pardons
Barack Obama: 212 pardons
George W. Bush: 189 pardons
George H.W. Bush: 74 pardons

Obama commuted a lot of sentences, quite possibly more than any other President, but he didn't pardon many at all

He commuted a lot of sentences as part of a clemency initiative focused on non-violent drug offenders.

The monster.

The most telling difference between Trump and most other Presidents is WHO he;s pardoned. Lots of political favour going on here, lots of perjury, obstruction of justice, fraud etc.

[Kiwias]

Bannon is rather pathetic. He raised $25m or so and skinned about $1m apparently, whereas his lord and master DJT raised around $200m for his Stop the Steal and kept $140m (about 70%) for paying his debts. He really is the master grifter.

[Biffer]

You only need to have charged (ie accused) of a crime I believe. You don't need to have been convicted. But yes, the general theory is that accepting it is admission of guilt, and state-level charges are likely for the fat facist.

I must apologise to Rhubarb & Custard though, I was led astray by some lawyers on the whole "secret pardons" thing. It turns out that it may not matter that the DoJ isn't informed.

This article is largely in line with my thinking:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-can ... ns-1562790

but this one completely disagrees:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/23/opin ... index.html

both include opposing views from major legal types. What a mess. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Trump is able to backdate pardons - that doesn't appear to be legal - but there's certainly a chance that any pardons done on the final day don't need to be made public (and therefore don't need to be publicly accepted).

Which seems to be more or less the points we were discussing

Re the whole admission of guilt thing, it has been tested in SCOTUS back it 1917 or 18 I think. It's the reason why a recipient can choose not to accept pardon, as SCOTUS ruled that as a pardon is in place, their 5th amendment rights against self incrimination become null and void. Implicit in that is the presumption of guilt, otherwise the 5th amendment wouldn;t apply anyway

Isn't it also right to say that pre-emptive pardons and blanket pardons, like the one Nixon got, have never actually been tested in court?

[fishfoodie]

I'd love it if the Feds arrested the shitgibbon & his odious offspring at 12:01 EST, & extradited the lot of them to NY, to face charges there. We already know that he was an unindicted co-conspirator there, & only wasn't charged because he was POTUS, & his children were running the giant fraud that was his Charity.

If nothing else; we'd know immediately if there are any of these shadow pardons out there for them.

In other news, the blow back from those who sought pardons, but didn't get them has already started.

Arizona Republican congressmen Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs reportedly asked President Trump for a pardon for their involvement in the U.S. Capitol insurrection.

They didn't get it. They weren't on the list of Trump's latest pardons.

But why would they ask for a preemptive pardon if they did nothing wrong?

The answer seems pretty straightforward. They clearly feel they did something so bad that it merits a presidential pardon.

Gosar and Biggs have been at the center of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol that left five people dead and led to dozens of arrests across the country.

Gosar and Biggs’ ties to the architect of the “Stop the Steal,” Ali Alexander, have been widely reported. In a video following the storming of the Capitol, Alexander alleges that Biggs and Gosar helped him plan the protest that preceded the riot.

Trump promised to drain the swamp and instead is leaving behind a bunch of insurrectionists now trembling at the thought of facing the force of the law for their actions.

Biggs and Gosar should drain the swamp of themselves and immediately resign.

[Saint]

You only need to have charged (ie accused) of a crime I believe. You don't need to have been convicted. But yes, the general theory is that accepting it is admission of guilt, and state-level charges are likely for the fat facist.

I must apologise to Rhubarb & Custard though, I was led astray by some lawyers on the whole "secret pardons" thing. It turns out that it may not matter that the DoJ isn't informed.

This article is largely in line with my thinking:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-can ... ns-1562790

but this one completely disagrees:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/23/opin ... index.html

both include opposing views from major legal types. What a mess. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Trump is able to backdate pardons - that doesn't appear to be legal - but there's certainly a chance that any pardons done on the final day don't need to be made public (and therefore don't need to be publicly accepted).

Which seems to be more or less the points we were discussing

Re the whole admission of guilt thing, it has been tested in SCOTUS back it 1917 or 18 I think. It's the reason why a recipient can choose not to accept pardon, as SCOTUS ruled that as a pardon is in place, their 5th amendment rights against self incrimination become null and void. Implicit in that is the presumption of guilt, otherwise the 5th amendment wouldn;t apply anyway

Isn't it also right to say that pre-emptive pardons and blanket pardons, like the one Nixon got, have never actually been tested in court?

Very little of the actual Presidential pardon has been tested in court


What is known for certain:

1 - You can only pardon someone for offenses that have already taken place
2 - Legal action, or even investigation of those offenses, doesn't need to have started
3 - A Pardon can be refused due to the constitutional issues regarding the 5th Amendment. A Commutation cannot be refused (2 SCOTUS cases for the Pardon, 1 for the Commutation)

Beyond that, nothing's really been tested. Ford's blanket pardon of any and all offenses Nixon made during his tenure as Presdient was designed to try and draw a line under the whole affair - no-one was really interested in challenging that, and the only agency that would have had standing to contest that would have been the DoJ
A self pardon is believed to be unconstitutional as no person can judge themselves, but that would need to be tested to be sure

[Blake]

I know this is a rabbit hole - but if he hasn’t been convicted yet, what has he been pardoned for doing exactly? Is it specified anywhere in the process?

If it’s the wall campaign fraud thingy, admitting guilt could open him up for state level charges (state where the fund registered for example) or civil charges from those who’s cash was embezzled?

I think this is where this flurry of "per-conviction pardons" is going to run into some legal challenges that might end up in the supreme court.
Logically one would think that a pardon only applies to cases where a trail has occurred, a sentence has been handed down, and crime is then pardoned.
One would think that is what the framers of the constitution had in mind, so that political political prisoners could be released when a new regime took power.

Gerald Ford kind of set this weird precedent when he pardoned Nixon in "the spirit of healing and unity" for any crimes related to Watergate, without a trial.
I wonder how specific that pardon was in its wording as to the crimes or time period of crimes.

I doubt that the Trump Administration has given this much thought and are just shotgunning these pardons while they have the power to issue them, knowing that legal challenges as to their validity will probably consume the courts for the next 5-10 years. It will be interesting to see what the conservative Supreme Court will rule on the idea of a President with the power to issue blanket amnesty to himself, his staff, his relatives and whoever pays him...without being specific which crimes are being pardoned.

But long as they have these flimsy pardons to use as grounds for appeal to keep gifting on the outside, I'm sure they'll use them. That's all they wanted at the end of the day.
Hopefully it will all come crumbling down around them, but for now they just want to kick the can down the road for a couple more years.

[Hal Jordan]

Trump now threatening to form a "Patriot Party" (originally a socialist party in the 60s, folks) which means one of the following:-

Cash grift
Ego
Threat to the GOP that if they vote to impeach, he will peel off the deplorable base and completely fuck them.

I wouldn't put it past him to do it anyway once they acquit him. It would be entirely in character given his spiteful nature and lifelong habit of discarding anyone or anything that's served its purpose to make him money.

[Saint]

I know this is a rabbit hole - but if he hasn’t been convicted yet, what has he been pardoned for doing exactly? Is it specified anywhere in the process?

If it’s the wall campaign fraud thingy, admitting guilt could open him up for state level charges (state where the fund registered for example) or civil charges from those who’s cash was embezzled?

I think this is where this flurry of "per-conviction pardons" is going to run into some legal challenges that might end up in the supreme court.
Logically one would think that a pardon only applies to cases where a trail has occurred, a sentence has been handed down, and crime is then pardoned.
One would think that is what the framers of the constitution had in mind, so that political political prisoners could be released when a new regime took power.

Gerald Ford kind of set this weird precedent when he pardoned Nixon in "the spirit of healing and unity" for any crimes related to Watergate, without a trial.
I wonder how specific that pardon was in its wording as to the crimes or time period of crimes.

I doubt that the Trump Administration has given this much thought and are just shotgunning these pardons while they have the power to issue them, knowing that legal challenges as to their validity will probably consume the courts for the next 5-10 years. It will be interesting to see what the conservative Supreme Court will rule on the idea of a President with the power to issue blanket amnesty to himself, his staff, his relatives and whoever pays him...without being specific which crimes are being pardoned.

But long as they have these flimsy pardons to use as grounds for appeal to keep gifting on the outside, I'm sure they'll use them. That's all they wanted at the end of the day.
Hopefully it will all come crumbling down around them, but for now they just want to kick the can down the road for a couple more years.

The Nixon pardon is both very specific in terms of time periods and very broad in terms of crimes committed:

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974

[fishfoodie]

I know this is a rabbit hole - but if he hasn’t been convicted yet, what has he been pardoned for doing exactly? Is it specified anywhere in the process?

If it’s the wall campaign fraud thingy, admitting guilt could open him up for state level charges (state where the fund registered for example) or civil charges from those who’s cash was embezzled?

I think this is where this flurry of "per-conviction pardons" is going to run into some legal challenges that might end up in the supreme court.
Logically one would think that a pardon only applies to cases where a trail has occurred, a sentence has been handed down, and crime is then pardoned.
One would think that is what the framers of the constitution had in mind, so that political political prisoners could be released when a new regime took power.

Gerald Ford kind of set this weird precedent when he pardoned Nixon in "the spirit of healing and unity" for any crimes related to Watergate, without a trial.
I wonder how specific that pardon was in its wording as to the crimes or time period of crimes.

I doubt that the Trump Administration has given this much thought and are just shotgunning these pardons while they have the power to issue them, knowing that legal challenges as to their validity will probably consume the courts for the next 5-10 years. It will be interesting to see what the conservative Supreme Court will rule on the idea of a President with the power to issue blanket amnesty to himself, his staff, his relatives and whoever pays him...without being specific which crimes are being pardoned.

But long as they have these flimsy pardons to use as grounds for appeal to keep gifting on the outside, I'm sure they'll use them. That's all they wanted at the end of the day.
Hopefully it will all come crumbling down around them, but for now they just want to kick the can down the road for a couple more years.

The Nixon pardon is both very specific in terms of time periods and very broad in terms of crimes committed:

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974

And as was pointed out; the pardon was never challenged; so it's legality never tested.

[Niegs]

Turner Classic Movies knows what day it is!

[Blake]

The Nixon pardon is both very specific in terms of time periods and very broad in terms of crimes committed:

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974

And as was pointed out; the pardon was never challenged; so it's legality never tested.

It was Saint that pointed that out

So yes, looking forward to that being challenged, because I'm sure it will be.
A Supreme Court ruling on this will be interested...particularly this Supreme Court.

[Saint]

Trump has left the building

[Hong Kong]

Trump has left the building

[Marylandolorian]

^ yep, has been this feeling too many times

4 more hours ! 4 more hours !
I live about 30 miles from Andrew air base

[tabascoboy]

Trump has left the building

Though sadly not in arm and foot restraints and a bag over his head.

[Saint]

Melania looks happy for some reason

[SaintK]

Trump has left the building

Though sadly not in arm and foot restraints and a bag over his head.

[Kiwias]

numbers will skyrocket downward

[Saint]

Christ, he still can't hold a single train of thought

[stemoc]

Melania looks happy for some reason

divorce soon lol

[fishfoodie]

Melania looks happy for some reason

She can divorce the disgusting cunt now.

[laurent]

Melania looks happy for some reason

She usually looks made of Wax like an escapee from Mme Tusseau.

[Slick]

Trump has left the building

I miss a morning laugh at his tweets

[Rinkals]

Is Trump issuing more pardons than is normal for an out-going President? Genuine question.

I don't think it's the quantity; Jimmy Carter had quite a few, but I doubt he did it in return for remuneration.

[Biffer]

[Sandstorm]