Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Trump's Pardons


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#21 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 08:17 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 28 August 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

Do you endorse this pardon of Joe Arpaio? If so, what do you know about Joe Arpaio and his actions that make him worthy of a pardon in your opinion?

Actually, at this time, no I don't. But my reasons are probably not what you're thinking they are. As I understand it, Arpaio's case was still in appeal. He was appealing his conviction, which meant the case wasn't resolved completely. A pardon at this point is premature. Trump should've waited for the appeals process to finish. I'm also not wild about the Pardon power being used for Political reasons. A Pardon should be used in rare cases, and true remorse should be shown by the convicted. So this pardon of Trump's is not only premature, it is also politically motivated. So no, I'm not wild about this pardon. But neither am I wild about people claiming Trump doesn't have this Presidential power, when he does. Like it or not the boy is President.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#22 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 08:19 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 28 August 2017 - 08:05 PM, said:

Won't this strengthen civil cases, such as lawsuits, against Joe Arpaio? To accept a pardon you have to admit guilt as I understand it.

Honestly, I don't know. I don't think Presidential pardons protect against civil lawsuits, but I'm not positive on that.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#23 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,803 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 08:38 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 28 August 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:

View Postsierraleone, on 28 August 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

Do you endorse this pardon of Joe Arpaio? If so, what do you know about Joe Arpaio and his actions that make him worthy of a pardon in your opinion?

Actually, at this time, no I don't. But my reasons are probably not what you're thinking they are. As I understand it, Arpaio's case was still in appeal. He was appealing his conviction, which meant the case wasn't resolved completely. A pardon at this point is premature. Trump should've waited for the appeals process to finish. I'm also not wild about the Pardon power being used for Political reasons. A Pardon should be used in rare cases, and true remorse should be shown by the convicted. So this pardon of Trump's is not only premature, it is also politically motivated. So no, I'm not wild about this pardon. But neither am I wild about people claiming Trump doesn't have this Presidential power, when he does. Like it or not the boy is President.

Those are some very reasonable points.

While the Presidential pardon power appears absolute (though untested in that regard), do you think it is possible to abuse that power? Examples have already been given in this thread.
Do you think a President can and should face consequences for abuse of their pardon power?

Something I've read that I agree with; Congress and the Senate should send a loud and clear public message to Trump:
Any pardons to anyone under the glare of the Mueller probe and there will be impeachment hearings.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#24 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,803 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 09:15 PM

Yes, Trump should have waited until after the judicial branch was done with Arpaio's court case, and appeals exhausted….

An aside in this WaPo column says thats Arpaio is now pushing for the Federal court to vacate its verdict against him.
Imagine if Arpaio is successful… He essentially gets the courts to null and void the reason for the pardon in the first place.
A pardon doesn't vacate or overturn a conviction, only the punishment, as I understand it. But because Arpaio lawyer(s) reason that he can't pursue this appeal further in court to try clear his name, that the courts have to legally clear his name for him and vacate its previous verdict…. Because it they don't, due to the collateral consequences of a conviction, he will still feel compelled to pursue his appeal to the USSC for a jury-trial. Hope everyone could follow that ;)

Edited by sierraleone, 28 August 2017 - 09:17 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#25 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 09:19 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 28 August 2017 - 08:38 PM, said:

View PostLord of the Sword, on 28 August 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:

View Postsierraleone, on 28 August 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

Do you endorse this pardon of Joe Arpaio? If so, what do you know about Joe Arpaio and his actions that make him worthy of a pardon in your opinion?

Actually, at this time, no I don't. But my reasons are probably not what you're thinking they are. As I understand it, Arpaio's case was still in appeal. He was appealing his conviction, which meant the case wasn't resolved completely. A pardon at this point is premature. Trump should've waited for the appeals process to finish. I'm also not wild about the Pardon power being used for Political reasons. A Pardon should be used in rare cases, and true remorse should be shown by the convicted. So this pardon of Trump's is not only premature, it is also politically motivated. So no, I'm not wild about this pardon. But neither am I wild about people claiming Trump doesn't have this Presidential power, when he does. Like it or not the boy is President.

Those are some very reasonable points.

While the Presidential pardon power appears absolute (though untested in that regard), do you think it is possible to abuse that power? Examples have already been given in this thread.
Do you think a President can and should face consequences for abuse of their pardon power?

Absolutely the pardon power can be abused. Bill Clinton abused it when he commuted the sentences of 16 member of the terrorist organization FALN. Obama abused it when he pardoned Oscar Lopez Rivera, who wanted to overthrow the US Government. Absolutely the power can be abused. Should a President face consequences for using that power? HELL NO! Number one: Who decides what constitutes abuse of the pardon power? If a President pardons someone a political party doesn't like, then that party just removes the President??? Talk about your Coup De Tats.

Quote

Something I've read that I agree with; Congress and the Senate should send a loud and clear public message to Trump:
Any pardons to anyone under the glare of the Mueller probe and there will be impeachment hearings.

You're talking a Coup De Tat here. What's next? Congress tells Trump if you don't sign the Paris Climate Accords, we will impeach? You don't kill the Keystone pipeline, we will impeach? You're talking about essentially making Congress the President. Again...HELL NO!
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#26 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 09:24 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 28 August 2017 - 08:38 PM, said:


Something I've read that I agree with; Congress and the Senate should send a loud and clear public message to Trump:
Any pardons to anyone under the glare of the Mueller probe and there will be impeachment hearings.

People, here on EI, like to ask me the hypothetical question: What if it had been Obama that did this? What would you're reaction be? So now it's my turn to ask: Would you have supported Congress trying what you just described with Obama?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#27 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,803 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 09:32 PM

^ I said impeachment hearings, not an assured successful impeachment. What, congress can't even *talk*, officially, about impeachment?

Edited by sierraleone, 28 August 2017 - 09:33 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#28 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,803 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 09:48 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 28 August 2017 - 09:24 PM, said:

View Postsierraleone, on 28 August 2017 - 08:38 PM, said:

Something I've read that I agree with; Congress and the Senate should send a loud and clear public message to Trump:
Any pardons to anyone under the glare of the Mueller probe and there will be impeachment hearings.

People, here on EI, like to ask me the hypothetical question: What if it had been Obama that did this? What would you're reaction be? So now it's my turn to ask: Would you have supported Congress trying what you just described with Obama?

If Obama pardoned an LEO who violated the constitutional rights of citizens while carrying out their duties?
(Which is practically an oxymoron, enforcing the law by breaking the law….)
If Obama was under federal investigation for possible collusion with a foreign country to subvert U.S. democracy, or even just serious financial crimes?

I'd be frelling pissed at Obama. If Biden was caught up in it, and someone I didn't like was next in succession I would be doublely-pissed. But if I held it against congress that would be wrong of me.
I would hold it against Obama, and anyone who had enabled his criminal or highly unethical behaviour. I would still think Obama should be held accountable for abuse of power/obstruction of justice and/or other ethical violations or crimes that he had done, because even the President is not above the law, or impeachment for other high crimes and mis-demeanors.
Depending on how it ends up, I may think Congress did an injustice (say, choosing punishment via execution if allowed) instead of properly addressing Obama's injustice.

Edited by sierraleone, 28 August 2017 - 09:59 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#29 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,803 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 09:58 PM

So, what, in your opinion LOTS, is the impeachment power spelled out in the constitution even for? You say Trump should be able to exercise all his Presidential powers, apparently without any consequences from Congress, but Congress can't exercise all their powers, which include the power to impeach? One could argue they should use such powers sparingly, but if they don't, should they face any consequences for using such an enumerated power, the opposite that you are arguing POTUS shouldn't for his?
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#30 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,829 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 10:03 PM

The law is full of pearls. The problem is that Trump is a swine.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#31 Omega

Omega

    Nous sommes tous Franšais

  • Moderator
  • 3,985 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 10:14 PM

My thinking is that if the order is reissued after a pardon, violating the second order is a separate crime from violating the first.

#32 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 10:17 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 28 August 2017 - 09:58 PM, said:

So, what, in your opinion LOTS, is the impeachment power spelled out in the constitution even for? You say Trump should be able to exercise all his Presidential powers, apparently without any consequences from Congress, but Congress can't exercise all their powers, which include the power to impeach? One could argue they should use such powers sparingly, but if they don't, should they face any consequences for using such an enumerated power, the opposite that you are arguing POTUS shouldn't for his?

What you were talking about wasn't just impeachment proceedings though. You were saying that Congress should issue a direct THREAT to the President of the US. Do this and we try our best to remove you. That is the very nature of a Coup De Tat. If Congress felt a President had committed High Crimes (Which warrants impreachment) Then by all means they should exercise their Constitutional power of impeachment proceedings. They did it to Clinton, when he lied about having an affair. Something I didn't agree with, BTW. The impeachment proceedings I mean. Because lets face facts, what man who was committed adultery doesn't immediately lie about it?

What you were talking about is Congress essentially becoming President. Congress telling the President: Do this, or we try impeaching. Don't do that, or else you're gone from office. In that scenario, you have essentially done away with the entire executive branch, and just given that power to Congress. So no, I'm not for that apporach.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#33 Omega

Omega

    Nous sommes tous Franšais

  • Moderator
  • 3,985 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 10:19 PM

And impeachment is entirely at the discretion of the House. An impeachable offense is, by design, whatever they say it is, with no appeal.

Exactly like the Presidential power to pardon.

#34 Omega

Omega

    Nous sommes tous Franšais

  • Moderator
  • 3,985 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 10:22 PM

It isn't a coup if the system was designed that way. Removing the President via impeachment is, by definition, not a coup. Its entire point is to be a check on the power of the President.

Edited by Omega, 28 August 2017 - 10:23 PM.


#35 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 10:25 PM

View PostOmega, on 28 August 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

It isn't a coup if the system was designed that way. Removing the President via impeachment is, by definition, not a coup. Its entire point is to be a check on the power of the President.

To be a check on the power of a President, yes. Not to issue threats to the President. Not to tell the President: Do it OUR way or else you're gone. A check, yes. Not to become President.

Do you really not see the difference here?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#36 Omega

Omega

    Nous sommes tous Franšais

  • Moderator
  • 3,985 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 10:30 PM

I'm not sure I understand the details of the line you're drawing. What's the difference between being a check, and being able to say "stop that" and make it stick? I think those are two ways of saying the same thing.

#37 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 29 August 2017 - 12:21 AM

View PostOmega, on 28 August 2017 - 10:30 PM, said:

I'm not sure I understand the details of the line you're drawing. What's the difference between being a check, and being able to say "stop that" and make it stick? I think those are two ways of saying the same thing.

There is a big difference. One is punishment, the other is intimidation.

If the President committs a crime that is an impeachable offense, then Congress has the authority and responsibilty to impeach.

The other is Congress literally telling the President: Do this, or else. Where does that end? Congress tells the President: You can only nominate this person for the bench. if you nominate anyone else, we impeach. If you issue any more executive orders, we impeach. If you build the wall, we impeach. If you do this, we impeach, if you don't do that, we impeach. The second, what Sierra was talking about is Congress literally having the power of the executive branch. Of turning the President into nothing more than a rubber stamp for Congress.

Now Congress has already, at least once, tried to grab this power with this President. When Congress threatened the President about his possible firing of Sessions or Mueller. Something else that the President has the power, and legal authority to do. Congress's Constitutional mandate is to "Advise and Consent". Advise and Consent doesn't mean issuing Ultimatums to the President. The President has the power of the pardon. Period. Congress damn sure has zero say in who he can and can't pardon, and they most certainly don't have the authority to impeach just because they don't like who the President has pardoned.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#38 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,803 posts

Posted 29 August 2017 - 04:16 AM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 28 August 2017 - 10:17 PM, said:

What you were talking about wasn't just impeachment proceedings though. You were saying that Congress should issue a direct THREAT to the President of the US. Do this and we try our best to remove you. That is the very nature of a Coup De Tat. If Congress felt a President had committed High Crimes (Which warrants impreachment) Then by all means they should exercise their Constitutional power of impeachment proceedings.
...
What you were talking about is Congress essentially becoming President. Congress telling the President: Do this, or we try impeaching. Don't do that, or else you're gone from office. In that scenario, you have essentially done away with the entire executive branch, and just given that power to Congress. So no, I'm not for that apporach.

So it should be verboten for Congress to share with the public or the President what actions it considers high crimes/mis-demeanors worthy of discussing in impeachment hearings?

It shouldn't be clear what checks they are willing to carry out and under what circumstances, instead of leaving what would otherwise be very unclear? Why does making that clear automatically make it intimidation? Regular laws applied to citizens are made fairly clear to the rest of us.

Because the President would think twice? Because the President would only do such an proscribed act that if he either felt confident in his ability to defend his actions against/during impeachment, and/or the action was so strongly prescribed in his mind that it was worth risking his office over? If he thinks this office is at risk either way, his calculation may be different….

Note: Some countries have the elected members of congress/parliament carrying out the duties of the executive branch, and the head of state and head of congress/parliament are the same person (typically a Prime Minister). Not a foreign concept to some of us at all.

Edited by sierraleone, 29 August 2017 - 05:02 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#39 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,803 posts

Posted 29 August 2017 - 04:41 AM

View PostOmega, on 28 August 2017 - 10:14 PM, said:

My thinking is that if the order is reissued after a pardon, violating the second order is a separate crime from violating the first.

In reading the wording of the pardon, which it (page 7), along with Arpaio submission to vacate the applicable court verdict, can be found here, may suggest that may not be as readily easy as you might suggest.

Quote

A FULL AND UNCONDITIONAL PARDON

FOR HIS CONVICTION … and ...

FOR ANY OTHER OFFENSES under Chapter 21 of Title 18, United States Code that might arise, or be charged, in connection with Melendres v Arpaio (Docket….) in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Could that not preclude any further contempt charges? At least arising from that court case? Couldn't some similar wording be fashioned for pardoning people who are targets of the Mueller investigation or Congress/Senate probes?

Edited by sierraleone, 29 August 2017 - 04:55 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#40 Omega

Omega

    Nous sommes tous Franšais

  • Moderator
  • 3,985 posts

Posted 29 August 2017 - 06:09 AM

I think it's different because pardoning people for things they have already done is different from pardoning people from things they have not yet done. If he gets charged with something else relating to that court case that means he's already violated something and can be pardon for it even if it hasn't been charged yet. But violating an order that hasn't been issued yet is something that can't be pardoned. Even if that order happens to look identical to one that has already been issued.


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users