Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 19

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump Tweets

Democrats in the Great State of Nevada (Which, because of the Economy, Jobs, the Military & Vets, I will win in November), be careful of Russia, Russia, Russia. According to Corrupt politician Adam “Shifty” Schiff, they are pushing for Crazy Bernie Sanders to win. Vote!
 
Trump Retweeted

Sean Davis
@seanmdav
What a coincidence that Russia always happens to support whoever the Democrat party elites are trying to destroy at any given point in time. The seditious morons behind these idiotic leaks aren’t even trying anymore. It’s embarrassing.
 
JoeMorgue said:
In Trump world? Who knows? The standard caveat of "Trump can do anything he wants until someone stops him and nobody both wants to and is able to stop him" clause is still invokable. If Trump orders Assange seized and thrown in prison... he'll stay there while people scream "But you can't do that!"
Click to expand...

Increasingly, it seems to be "Trump and the GOP can do anything they want..." :( .
 
TragicMonkey said:
Can a pardon be revoked? I mean, could Assange testify Russia wasn't involved, get the pardon from Trump, then announce "Nah, they were totes involved LOL"? Is a "quid pro quo" for a pardon legally binding? Or is a pardon an irrevocable thing?
Click to expand...

A presidential pardon probably cannot be revoked. Some countries specifically allow pardons to be revoked. The U.S. Constitution does not provide for a pardon to be revoked.

The government could attempt to reconvict someone who has been pardoned, but that would likely be considered double jeopardy.

Grant rescinded a pardon issued by Johnson. The court allowed the pardon to be rescinded because the pardon had not been delivered. Johnson issued the pardon on his last day in office. It was conditional on the prisoner paying a fine that was part of his sentence, which he then paid. The pardon was sent to a marshal to be delivered to the prison warden. But a few days later Grant ordered the marshal to cancel the pardon. A federal court determined that the pardon had not been fulfilled and could be rescinded because it had not been delivered to the warden, the prisoner, or an agent of the prisoner.

There can be precedent or subsequent conditions attached to a pardon. A person may have to do something before the pardon goes into effect (pay a fine, take an oath, etc.). A pardon may stipulate that it becomes void if a person does something (using slave labor, taking up arms against the United States, etc.)

If the president issued a pardon in exchange for a personal benefit it would likely be considered an impeachable offense. When the provisions for pardon were considered for the constitution the question arose of what would prevent the president from directing people to commit crimes and then pardoning them, especially if those crimes were committed to cover up high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the president. Madison argued that such abuse would be impeachable and that congress could suspend presidential authority during impeachment to prevent those pardons. But that language isn’t in the constitution.

It is not clear if there are any conditions where a presidential pardon can be revoked (absent any conditions of the pardon that would make it void). I don’t think it has ever happened. What if a pardon was issued and delivered for John Smith inmate #1234 but was intended for John Smith inmate #1235? Or if a prisoner petitions for clemency with information justifying a pardon and receives a pardon but it is then discovered that the information provided was false? Those questions would surely fall to the Supreme Court and the decision would be likely be based on the unique circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
So if POTUS died today (I do not wish him harm, this is just a hypothetical).

Would it be somewhat safe to assume that there is nothing you could say or do to drive his approval rating below 40%? Even if every former and current cabinet member came out and said that he was an idiot, that he had neither the desire nor the ability to integrate new facts into his worldview, that his short attention span made every department’s job harder, that he had no idea what he was doing, that he really was trying to shake down Ukraine for personal reasons, that there were more than 300 instances of someone having to say “we can’t do that Mr. President because it violates the Constitution,” that the tariffs on China did not mean the Chinese were paying hundreds of millions of dollars directly into the US treasury; even then his supporters would ignore those claims and insist that he was a wonderful president?

Or am I way off base here?

ETA that his tax returns and business records showed he had close ties to Russia and Saudi Arabia, that he charged the USSS double the going rate on golf cart rentals and rooms.
Click to expand...


Yes. Even if.

Trump supporters, much like anti-vaxxers and other true believers, are not locked in merely by their support for Trump. A far more compelling and pernicious motive is that to change their stance they would have to admit that they had been wrong all this time

... and that would be untenable.
 
quadraginta said:
Yes. Even if.

Trump supporters, much like anti-vaxxers and other true believers, are not locked in merely by their support for Trump. A far more compelling and pernicious motive is that to change their stance they would have to admit that they had been wrong all this time

... and that would be untenable.
Click to expand...

The economy is roaring, wages are going up, unemployment is at all-time lows, were dialing down the wars, and the Democrats want to trade that for socialism and unconstitutional gun grabbing, which may very well lead to civil war. No thanks. I'll go with peace and prosperity.
 
With that awesome economy, surely there is money to provide Universal Heathcare, right?
Or at least reduce the deficit?
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
In a sane world? That would probably be legally double jeopardy or some other similar legal concept. So know if Ted tears the tag off a mattress, is pardoned for that one act of tearing that tag of the mattress, he probably (not a legal expert here obviously) not face legal consequences for that same act of mattress tag tearing again.

Functionally? You just wait to until Ted breaks another law, no matter how manner, no matter on how slight of a technicality, and throw the absolute maximum allowable book at him. I kind of get the feeling that if the powers that be have a "Oh crap we shouldn't have pardoned you!" moment they won't have to strain to hard to find something to after you for.

In Trump world? Who knows? The standard caveat of "Trump can do anything he wants until someone stops him and nobody both wants to and is able to stop him" clause is still invokable. If Trump orders Assange seized and thrown in prison... he'll stay there while people scream "But you can't do that!"
Click to expand...

Isn’t there a step missing in all this though? Julian Assange hasn’t been convicted of anything so how can he be pardoned? If what he and his lawyer are saying has any substance to it isn’t it more about ‘we’re not going to pursue a conviction.’ Which effectively means keep with it or we’re still coming after you.

Can you be pardoned for something you haven’t been convicted of in the US?
 
Last edited:
BigFace42 said:
Isn’t there a step missing in all this though? Julian Assange hasn’t been convicted of anything so how can he be pardoned? If what he and his lawyer are saying has any substance to it isn’t it more about ‘we’re not going to pursue a conviction.’ Which effectively means keep with it or we’re still coming after you.

Can you be pardoned for something you haven’t been convicted of in the US?
Click to expand...

Ford pardoned Nixon and Nixon had not actually been charged with anything.
 
Doubt said:
Ford pardoned Nixon and Nixon had not actually been charged with anything.
Click to expand...
Yeah, on follow up reading on this I see it’s the go to example, although there doesn’t seem to be any others, would truly be interested in any examples. A truly special case I think, although it sets a precedence for the current president.

As I’m typing the ‘could you really pardon a foreign national for crimes against the US before conviction’ I guess I’m landing in the same place that others have, whatever serves Trump seems to work.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom