Pondering pardons

[John Smith]

Innocent people need none.

[TomF]

If a POTUS has essentially unlimited pardon power, does that include the power to revoke one?

[John Smith]

If a POTUS has essentially unlimited pardon power, does that include the power to revoke one?

I don't think so. I'd like to think specific crimes should be listed, but it seems as if that's not the case, but I'm not sure it's been challenged in court.

The point I HOPE the more right leaning people will realize is people need pardons because they've broken some laws. The more people in Trump's circle he pardons, the more corrupt his administration looks.

If his kids, Rudy, Pence, and others, and Trump himself, end up with pardons, it will be hard for anyone to claim this group was not breaking laws.

[Old Dryfoot]

I'm reading that Rudy has been sniffing around the White House for a preemptive pardon.

[hawkeye54]

I just saw a mention on MSNBC of a judge releasing a redacted transcript of some 'pay-for-pardon' scheme - I don't have the details yet ( had to walk the dogs )

*** Note : TomF beat me to it - see thread "Re: Barr throws Trump ......" post # 31 ****

[John Smith]

I just saw a mention on MSNBC of a judge releasing a redacted transcript of some 'pay-for-pardon' scheme - I don't have the details yet ( had to walk the dogs )

*** Note : TomF beat me to it - see thread "Re: Barr throws Trump ......" post # 31 ****

I saw that to. Begs the question: is a bought pardon still valid? If the president's power to pardon is absolute, why can he not sell them?

[StevenBauer]

There are emails. Probably Roger Stone. Is this what Barr met with trump* about today?

[StevenBauer]

Justice Department Investigating Possible Bribery-For-Pardon Scheme



https://www.npr.org/2020/12/01/940960089/justice-department-investigating-possible-bribery-for-pardon-scheme

The Justice Department is investigating a possible secret scheme involving a bribe in exchange for a presidential pardon, according to court documents unsealed Tuesday.
The 18-page court opinion is heavily redacted, and the names of the individuals under investigation are blacked out as is the identity of the person to be pardoned under the alleged plan. Still, the filings provide a glimpse into what investigators are probing.
The federal court order, signed by Chief Judge Beryl Howell in Washington, D.C., is dated Aug. 28. It stems from her review of a government request to access certain communications believed to document a secret lobbying scheme and a related bribery-for-pardon scheme.
The filing says a government filter team was sorting through more than 50 digital devices such as iPhones and laptops as part of an investigation when they came across emails pointing to the two alleged schemes.
The secret lobbying scheme, the document says, allegedly involved two individuals whose names are redacted who lobbied senior White House officials to try to secure clemency for a third individual whose name is blacked out.
The related bribery conspiracy allegedly involved the offer of "a substantial political contribution in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve of sentence" for an individual whose identity is redacted.


News of the investigation was first reported by CNN.
A Justice Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "no government official was or is currently a subject or target of the investigation disclosed in this filing."
The fight over the communications revolved around whether the emails were covered by attorney-client privilege, which would shield them from the government.
Chief Judge Howell ultimately found that the emails were not privileged materials because each of the emails in question was sent to an individual who is not a lawyer.
"The attorney-client privilege applies only when the participants in the communication are the client and the client's attorney, who is a 'member of the bar,' " Howell wrote.
The decision means prosecutors can use the materials to confront the subjects of the investigation

[Rich Jones]

There are emails. Probably Roger Stone. Is this what Barr met with trump* about today?

If Barr meets with Trump (a possible subject of the investigation)about this issue wouldn't that be illegal?

[John Smith]

A lot of blanket pardons MIGHT make Trump supporters wonder what crimes were committed.

Now we see people trying to buy pardons. Why not if the power is absolute?

If I ran things, the pardon would have to list specific crimes. But that seems not to be necessary.

Maybe some of this will be tested in courts.

[Osborne Russell]

Innocent people need none.

Constitutional amendment:

1. Pardons only for charged crimes.

2. No pardons of the President or any ex-President.

[Osborne Russell]

I saw that to. Begs the question: is a bought pardon still valid? If the president's power to pardon is absolute, why can he not sell them?

Good question.

Selling a pardon may violate any number of principles but none of those violations goes to the validity of the pardon. The Prez could pin a sheet of candidates to a dartboard and throw darts. Pick names out of a hat.

Nor does anything limit the quantity.

AFAIK.

[TomF]

Constitutional amendment:

1. Pardons only for charged crimes.

2. No pardons of the President or any ex-President.

100%, but it would never make it through the process. Because MAGA.

[skuthorp]

Selling pardons?
There is a historic precedent in the Catholic church selling indulgences for yet to be committed sins…………………
What's the market rate for mass manslaughter by neglect of your duty of care as President?

[TomF]

Selling pardons?
There is a historic precedent in the Catholic church selling indulgences for yet to be committed sins…………………
What's the market rate for mass manslaughter by neglect of your duty of care as President?

That eventually led to the Reformation, though that wasn't Luther's original hope. Maybe this time it could merely lead to a Constitutional Amendment...

[John Smith]

The power is either absolute or it is not. This may be when challenges are brought, to a Trump packed court.

How many can he give without showing how corrupt his administration was?

[skuthorp]

Amy was put in there to do a job, either this election or after the next. Be interesting to see if she delivers.

[John Smith]

A thought: If one is pardoned, can one still be tried and convicted, just not sentenced?

[skuthorp]

To determine if theparty is actually guilty of the crime?
An idea, but expensive and wasteful.

[TomF]

To determine if theparty is actually guilty of the crime?
An idea, but expensive and wasteful.

Less wasteful than letting the country go completely to hell.

[John Smith]

To determine if theparty is actually guilty of the crime?
An idea, but expensive and wasteful.

If a person has been pardoned, suppose that person is asked if his pardon covered "x" crime. He could admit he did 'x' crime and the pardon covered it. Then he'd be on record as admitting to that crime.

If he says the pardon did NOT cover "x", then I'd expect he'd be open to prosecution for a crime he has not been pardoned for.

[leikec]

A thought: If one is pardoned, can one still be tried and convicted, just not sentenced?

What could happen is that a person could be called as a material witness in a federal criminal proceeding and if uncooperative (or if deemed a flight risk), the person could still be arrested and detained, subject to bail consideration, until submitting testimony (or in lieu of that, a deposition) and/or until the proceeding is concluded.

Also, as I mentioned in another thread, someone who has received a pardon effectively loses all or at least part of their 5th amendment protection, as they would have no basis to "plead the fifth" in a situation where they face no legal jeopardy.

Because of the above, a person could be compelled to testify in a criminal proceeding, or face contempt of court charges, which as a newly occurring offense, would not be covered by a pardon, as a pardon doesn't provide immunity for crimes committed after the pardon is issued. It could also be argued, in such a situation, that the person refusing to testify might be engaging in a continuation of the criminal action for which they were pardoned, which could also nullify the pardon, because a president cannot use the power of a pardon to grant prosecutorial immunity that facilitates the continuation of an ongoing crime.

The above could be significant if a federal tax fraud or racketeering case was brought against Trump, his family, or his business and/or associates once he is out of office.

Jeff C

[skuthorp]

Can we have him keel hauled?.

Can you find a craft with enough barnacles these days?

[John Smith]

New wrinkle. Senator Blumenthal is proposing legislation to make it more clear that a president cannot pardon himself. This is, IMO, a mistake, as it implies the president CAN pardon himself.

As to barnacles, unless bottom paints have improved since I was young, I think find a well barnacled hull would not be difficult.