Trump Pardons... - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#14919728
In TRUMP OUTCLASSES OBAMA: PARDONS JACK JOHNSON, I noted that Trump had already pardoned a number of people--tweaking Obama in the process. Namely:

1. Joe Arpaio: Basically, "fuck you Obama and Holder for siding with illegal aliens over law abiding citizens and law enforcement"
2. Scooter Libby: Basically, "fuck you Comey and Patrick Fitzgerald for convicting someone who didn't leak any CIA names to the press"
3. Kristian Mark Saucier: Basically, "fuck you Obama, Holder, Comey, Hillary, et. al for heartless and ruthless double standards."
4. Joe Jackson: Basically, "Look! Obama really wasn't for black people. His role was to bail out Wall Street billionaires at the expense of the middle class."

Today, Trump pardoned Dinesh D'Souza for attempting to make illegal campaign contributions. Rush Limbaugh theorizes that Trump is going to pardon Rod Blagojevich (Democrat) and Martha Stewart (Democrat donor).

NBC is confirming this too

NBC suggests that Trump may only commute Blagojevich's sentence, but that would be welcome for him since he's in prison.

Trump is a fucking riot. So what do you folks think? Who else could Trump pardon?
User avatar
By quetzalcoatl
#14919779
There're uncounted thousands of people rotting in US prisons that did far less than the guys Trump has pardoned. And there are heinous criminals walking the corridors of investment banks and making the rounds of K Street, thanks to Obama. So I refuse to get upset about Frownie-the frown-clown pardoning a few minor scumbags.
By Decky
#14919780
Do Americans not mind the presidential pardon? I'm genuinely curious about how widely accepted it is as a good idea.

If the laws are wrong then you need the legislative to pass new laws, if people didn't break the law but are imprisoned anyway you need to reform the appeals system and the judiciary in general. If sentences are too high for certain crimes again that is an issue with the judiciary.

Just having the head of state arbitrarily pardoning people found guilty in a court is something you would expect in medieval Europe not a modern republic.
Last edited by Decky on 01 Jun 2018 02:04, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Zagadka
#14919825
Decky wrote:Do Americans not mind the presidential pardon? I'm genuinely curious about how widely accepted it is as a good idea.

I don't like it. I mean, it can be a great tool, such as freeing political prisoners from a previous administration, but it can also be a horrible one, so abused to free people convicted of being dangerous to the state by a radical power transfer. "Political prisoner" doesn't necessarily mean "good guy being repressed".

There was some question about congress or the courts overriding a pardon, but IIRC, there would need to be a constitutional amendment. (this was brought up earlier this year about Trump's team exploring pardons, especially for himself)

Literally, it says:

The President shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment

and that's it.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14919827
I am sure that Trump already has his own pardon signed and put away for when he needs it. Presidential pardons are a horrible idea.
User avatar
By jimjam
#14919861
blackjack21 wrote: So what do you folks think? Who else could Trump pardon?


Himself obviously. He's just practicing now.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14919866
Presidential pardons made with the advisement and OK of the Supreme court, would make more sense. Also, what @Zagadka said, regarding 'such as freeing political prisoners from a previous administration', makes sense.

How Trump uses them, is a travesty.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#14919873
Decky wrote:Do Americans not mind the presidential pardon? I'm genuinely curious about how widely accepted it is as a good idea.

It has often been used toward the end of presidential terms, and usually friends or contributors to the president's campaigns, or some sort of cause celebre gets a pardon. Trump has pardoned people in each year of his presidency so far. Arpaio's conviction was clearly political, so that was an easy one for him. Scooter Libby was wronged, but the pardon was tied right back to Comey and Fitzgerald. Kristian Mark Saucier was treated pretty harshly for an offense that was a tiny fraction of what Hillary Clinton did. So in pardoning Saucier, he's blasting the establishment for double standards. Joe Jackson was convicted for dating a white woman, and Obama didn't pardon him because he was dead--so Obama missed some symbolic opportunities.

The issue is that Trump is addressing the excessively harsh treatment of people convicted under the direction of James Comey.

Decky wrote:Just having the head of state arbitrarily pardoning people found guilty in a court is something you would expect in medieval Europe not a modern republic.

America is a modern Republic. The president is in effect an elected constitutional monarch with a limited term. It's a long-standing presidential power.

Trump is talking about pardoning Rod Blagojevich--the former Democratic Governor of Illinois. He was convicted on corruption charges, suggesting he was willing to receive a bribe. Yet, he never in fact took a bribe. He was prosecuted by Patrick Fitzgerald--Comey's personal attorney. Trump is also talking about pardoning Martha Stewart, a Democratic party donor. Comey prosecuted her directly. So this is kind of a "fuck you" to James Comey.

Kim Kardashian West (Kanye West's wife) is asking for a pardon for Alice Marie Johnson--a black woman, who requested a pardon from Obama, but was denied. She is serving a life sentence for being part of a cocaine ring. She's served 22 years of a life sentence, which seems a reasonable basis for a pardon.

Kim Kardashian asks Trump to pardon Alice Marie Johnson

It will be interesting to see what Trump does. I'm sure it will be very calculated to show how Comey was unfair, Obama not caring, etc.
By Decky
#14920209
You are missing my point though, if you think all of those people should actually not be in prison why not try to get actual reforms to the law and to sentencing? As opposed to having the head of state just letting people out of prison on a whim because the prosecutor who put them there was one of his political opponents? It is absolutely feudal. Is someone had told me such a system existed today in this century and I didn't already know that the US uses it I would think they were describing some Islamist theocracy or some South American military junta.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14920215
Decky wrote:It is absolutely feudal.

An excellent thought. It wasn't intended to be used this way, what else can I say.

Zam 8)
User avatar
By Ter
#14920218
I think it is a good thing that the President of the US can pardon people. It is often the only way that judicial misconduct can be rectified. It can also reflect on the changing morals in society.
There are also quite a number of people in prison serving lengthy sentences without having committed any crime except writing about it or talking about it. Each case can be considered on its own merit.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14920319
Ter wrote:I think it is a good thing that the President of the US can pardon people. It is often the only way that judicial misconduct can be rectified.

And that's a good thing.

It can also reflect on the changing morals in society.

Not so sure about that. Maybe, I don't think we should be freeing violent Nazis because "it works for Trump."

There are also quite a number of people in prison serving lengthy sentences without having committed any crime except writing about it or talking about it. Each case can be considered on its own merit.

Ok … That's a big ? for me … Could you name some names? If I promise not to jump down your throat in response ?

Zam
User avatar
By Ter
#14920323
Zamuel wrote:Not so sure about that. Maybe, I don't think we should be freeing violent Nazis because "it works for Trump."

Indeed, but maybe it would be for pardonning people who got convicted years ago for sodomy for instance.

Zamuel wrote: Could you name some names? If I promise not to jump down your throat in response ?

I could but I won't, it is controversial.
I will PM you.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14920348
Ter wrote:Indeed, but maybe it would be for pardonning people who got convicted years ago for sodomy for instance.

Well, I don't really need names for that sort of thing … But it would seem to be a reasonable grounds for pardon (if consensual). I wasn't aware anyone was still doing time for those old "Morals" charges. But I suppose even clearing someone's name who is now out might be a consideration.

I was more interested in the "writing /talking about it" you mentioned. What they call "prisoners of conscience."

Zam
User avatar
By MistyTiger
#14920479
Can he un-pardon people? I think he should un-pardon Scooter Libby. Scooter Libby is a major idiot. Enough said. :D

Trump does not need to pardon for the time being, besides it's not like he's bored. He's too busy causing mayhem and kissing up to the NRA.
By Decky
#14920692
Ter wrote:I think it is a good thing that the President of the US can pardon people. It is often the only way that judicial misconduct can be rectified.


In the developed world we have these things called appeals.
User avatar
By Beren
#14920697
Who'd be surprised if Trump meant to be an elected monarch?
User avatar
By blackjack21
#14920959
Decky wrote:You are missing my point though, if you think all of those people should actually not be in prison why not try to get actual reforms to the law and to sentencing?

That is a political question. For example, Barack Obama could have granted pardons for illegal aliens up to the his last moment in office, but no further. He chose not to do that. His reasons were political. Trump is choosing to pardon some people. His reasons are also political. Trump's pardons are potentially a prelude to FBI/DoJ reform. Hopefully, it will preclude them from behaving so ruthlessly.

Decky wrote:As opposed to having the head of state just letting people out of prison on a whim because the prosecutor who put them there was one of his political opponents?

The president is the chief law enforcement officer. He can override the actions of his inferiors any time he wants. There isn't anything feudal about that, unless you think hierarchical authority is a problem (which i'm sure you do).

Decky wrote:It is absolutely feudal.

There isn't anything hereditary here. There are no titles of nobility, no vassals, etc. It's just an exercise of executive power you don't particularly agree with.

Decky wrote:Is someone had told me such a system existed today in this century and I didn't already know that the US uses it I would think they were describing some Islamist theocracy or some South American military junta.

You need to get out more. From someone who lives under a Queen with a House of Lords, it's a bit rich. For example, in 2006 the UK pardoned all soldiers convicted of cowardice during WWI. Switzerland, South Africa, Russia, Poland, Italy, Israel, Ireland, Iran, India, Hong Kong, Greece, Germany and Canada all have pardons or executive clemency of some form. Islamic theocracies are not Christian, so clemency isn't something you'd likely find in an Islamist country.

Zamuel wrote:An excellent thought. It wasn't intended to be used this way, what else can I say.

You can say it's not feudal. The Founders debated the matter, and the main areas of debate against it were for presidential misconduct, for which they created the impeachment of a president; and, for cases of treason, which did not make it into the constitution--quite possibly since they were techically all guilty of treason against the Crown.

Ter wrote:It is often the only way that judicial misconduct can be rectified.

And at time, prosecutorial misconduct. The Scooter Libby case was a key example of misconduct.

Zamuel wrote:Not so sure about that. Maybe, I don't think we should be freeing violent Nazis because "it works for Trump."

Trump hasn't done that. Obama pardoned cop killers and Clinton pardoned terrorists. Why are you more concerned with what Trump might do, but not so troubled by what was already done?

MistyTiger wrote:Can he un-pardon people? I think he should un-pardon Scooter Libby. Scooter Libby is a major idiot. Enough said. :D

Being an idiot isn't a crime, which should bring you some relief. Scooter Libby didn't leak Plame's name to the press. Patrick Fitzgerald knew that before questioning Libby and finding a pretext to prosecute him. That is prosecutorial misconduct. Those types of cases should be reviewed and liberal dispensations granted in the absence of evidence of other suspected wrongdoing.

Decky wrote:In the developed world we have these things called appeals.

Pardons only exist for all practical purposes in Anglo-European societies--i.e., Christian countries. Iran and India are notable exceptions, and India used to be part of Britain.

Trump Flirts With Pardons and Prison Reform
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14920962
blackjack21 wrote:You can say it's not feudal. The Founders debated the matter, and the main areas of debate against it were for presidential misconduct, for which they created the impeachment of a president

@Decky's context related to Donald Trump's behavior as I recall, not to the history of the Presidential Pardon. I agreed, Trump's behavior inre: pardons -is- feudal.
Shall we try and stay in context? This isn't typical of you poor and mislead arguments.

Zam ;)
By Decky
#14921118
Zamuel wrote:Decky's context related to Donald Trump's behavior as I recall, not to the history of the Presidential Pardon. I agreed, Trump's behavior inre: pardons -is- feudal.
Shall we try and stay in context? This isn't typical of you poor and mislead arguments.

Zam ;)


Actually no, I was clearly talking about the whole idea of the presidential pardon in the first place. I don't care what centre right business stooge is exercising it, Bush, Obama, Trump, makes do difference to me. It's all a bad idea.

The president is the chief law enforcement officer. He can override the actions of his inferiors any time he wants. There isn't anything feudal about that, unless you think hierarchical authority is a problem (which i'm sure you do).


I know that he can do it, I am asking why he should be able to.

You need to get out more. From someone who lives under a Queen with a House of Lords, it's a bit rich.


That is exactly my point though, you would expect this kind of bullshit in the UK, we have state religions, we have a monarchy, we have a house of lords and all sorts of backwards bullshit. You would expect a republic to hold itself to a higher standard.

You can say it's not feudal. The Founders debated the matter, and the main areas of debate against it were for presidential misconduct, for which they created the impeachment of a president; and, for cases of treason, which did not make it into the constitution--quite possibly since they were techically all guilty of treason against the Crown.


Nothing feudal about the founding fathers, big land owners with a peasant class tied to the land to work their farms legally distinct from the rest of the population. :lol:

Image
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Yes, you are absolutely correct. The fact that […]

Likewise, the fact that Trump was unsuccessful at[…]

Virus Hysteria For Morons

@Godstud Ha, that’s different. But who is Greg […]

Oh, and for all you idiots who can’t be trusted t[…]