He is not going to pardon rioters. That would clearly tell authorities he ordered it and T is in a boatload of legal trouble right now. I read he has told people to stop the violence because his lawyers told him to. He's kinda screwed cause the die hard supporters feel cheated and used (slowly waking up) and I read some supremacists want him executed because of the Peace video he sent out.
The chips are falling slowly.....but it will happen. Of that I am sure. Money talks and people are pulling out - don't want to be associated with seditionists.
@Jeanne Mayell
I thought that T is Nero's reencarnation. He is a weak man and an ineffectual leader under crisis (I believe he is the crisis, really), like Nero. And, while Rome was burning, Nero was playing the Lyre Harp; T is playing golf while people keep dying of Covid-19.
I'm going to have to look it up and watch it. Cooper has a way of looking at stupid people incredulously that is hilarious.
@tgraf66 I thought they are slow walking the conviction to see who he will pardon. Will he pardon the insurrectionists since they are saying they were following him? With over 200 arrested, how would he get all the names? Does he pardon some insurrectionists and not others? If he pardons some and not others, how do you think that will work out! Will he pardon the legislators as Cruz, Harley, Boebert & Greene which may implicate them in the insurrection? Then they can use the 14th amendment and remove them from congress. When a pardon is given the president has to use a specific name and crime or any acts associated with a crime. Apparently, if you accept a pardon then you are admitting that you are guilty of something. The one thing that almost everyone agrees on is that t**** cannot pardon himself. He just gave the courts the reason to agree with that premise. Imagine if a president could pardon himself. What would stop him from killing the democrats he hated and then just pardoning himself out of murder charges. I think the pardons he gives could speak volumes to his involvement in the insurrection if he abuses using the pardon power.
When a pardon is given the president has to use a specific name and crime or any acts associated with a crime. Apparently, if you accept a pardon then you are admitting that you are guilty of something.
Yes, he would have to give a specific name, but he would *not* have to specify the crimes. Look up Ford's pardon of Nixon. No crimes were specified, and he was in fact pardoned for things they hadn't even investigated or charged him with. Also, I know that I said in another post on here that granting/accepting a pardon is tacit admission that a crime was committed, but my comment was regarding the Orange One and his family, particularly if he tries to pardon them for crimes they either did or may have committed in helping him to commit his. I apologize if anyone was misled by that statement. Generally speaking, no, the granting or acceptance of a pardon before indictment or conviction does not mean the person was guilty or would have even been charged.
One other thing: a pardon does not expunge the pardonee's record. If they have already been charged/convicted, the record of the charge or crime still exists; they just don't have to do the punishment if already convicted, or if only charged, any trial is stopped in its tracks.
Meidas Touch has released a video of him talking about how Twitler will be president for the next fours years, the hand of God is on this, don't believe the fake news, ect...and then he talks about how his nieces were at the Capitol! ? He's so repulsive. I've noticed his commercials are running on TV almost non-stop. He must not be able to give his crap away.
I don't have a link for it, but if you google Meidas Touch my pillow twitter it's there.
@tgraf66 In Burdick V United States
A grand jury was investigating whether any Treasury Department employee was leaking information to the press. George Burdick, city editor of the New York Tribune, took the Fifth and refused to reveal the source of his information. He was handed a pardon by US President Woodrow Wilson in a maneuver to force him to testify, but Burdick refused to accept it or testify. He was fined $500 and jailed until he complied.
The Supreme Court ruled in Burdick that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt, acceptance a confession of it".[2]
After President Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, close friends said that the President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision, which stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt.[3] Ford made reference to the Burdick decision in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 17, 1974.[4] However, the reference related only to the portion of Burdick that supported the proposition that the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders.[5
Wikipedia
According to this accepting a pardon can mean you are guilty. CNN during one of its reports said there were staff members who did not want a pardon because they had done nothing wrong. I think so little has been challenged on the pardoning power of the prez that there is much to be ruled on by the SC. I think t* is going to give them the chance to think about it.
Ford gave Nixon a “blanket” pardon. So can we to assume that the t* family will all get blanket pardons. Or will everyone of the criminals in this administration get blanket pardons. I think so.
Now my question is if t**** gives a blanket pardon to an insurrectionists who was out on parole or awaiting trial for another crime, would that crime be pardoned too?
The Supreme Court ruled in Burdick that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt, acceptance a confession of it"
Wow...I can't believe I missed that! Thank you for providing that information. I suppose I was operating under the premise - and I have seen others I respect say this as well - that a pardon, if issued/accepted before any charges are brought (a "just in case" thing, maybe?), generally follows the same principle as the rest of the legal system in that the person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. As much as I would defend that principle, I have to admit that I'm oddly happy it doesn't apply in this situation.
Now my question is if t**** gives a blanket pardon to an insurrectionists who was out on parole or awaiting trial for another crime, would that crime be pardoned too?
If the other crime wasn't a federal issue, then no. If it was, and we use the time limitation in Ford's pardon as a guide, I would have to say that unless a specific time period is included in the pardon and that time period also encompasses the period when the other crime in question was committed/is alleged to have been committed, then no. I'm obviously not an expert, but I would think an unlimited blanket pardon for anything/everything the person has ever done (which it would have to be, since there would likely also be possible conspiracy charges related to planning the attack prior to the 6th that have not even been investigated much less charged) would simply not stand.
Having said that, however, I have no idea how it could or would be challenged, because 1) who would have standing, and 2) would the SCOTUS even hear the case since the Big C sets no limits on the pardon power, or would they hear the case specifically to reiterate the lack of Constitutional limits, or would they hear it to establish such limits? I can't imagine that last option happening because at least 4 of the 6 majority conservatives on the court have previously very firmly stated that they favor strict and direct interpretations of Constitutional issues, and there is nothing in any part of the Big C that could be interpreted to limit the pardon power.
With all the pardon talk going on right now, Agent Orange decided to keep it up and throw another wrench in the process. It is being reported that there is a $2M asking price on a pardon. Whether it is a single instance or not isn't know, but knowing Trump, he is assuredly trying to sell them since he know they are worth a lot.
Definitely not legal. Blagojevich went to prison for trying to sell Obama's senate seat. This is the same thing. That said, I doubt anything will be done about it. Its like 15th on the list of obnoxiously illegal things Trump and his cronies have done just in the last year
Here is what I found on the pardons:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/us/politics/trump-pardons.html
No mention of a fee to get pardoned, but Trump allies charging fees to give felons access to Trump for a pardon.
Giuliani associate told ex-CIA officer a Trump pardon would 'cost $2m’ – report | Rudy Giuliani | The Guardian
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/17/rudy-giuliani-associate-john-kiriakou-trump-pardon
I’ve seen this on several websites. My husband said that pardons cannot be sold or given as a favor. If that would be the case, the pardon is invalid and will be overturned.
@lenor which may be why the authorities are slow-walking investigations right now. The fewer he can pardon, the better.
Oh good, I was hoping they would slow down on that, for this very reason. It's too bad that they've released so many names already though....