Trump pardons Joe Arpaio

[SCRawl]

Yeah, but it wouldn't "count" until it's out of office. So if Trumpzi is impeached and removed, it would would then be at risk. Until whoever sits in the Oval Office pardons Trumpzi to keep the precedent set by Ford so that no former POTUS is subject to prosecution for actions they commit while in office.

That's a weak precedent; we have only n=1 when running this particular experiment. And it really didn't go well for President Ford; he was pretty popular (71% in mid-August 1974) until after he pardoned Nixon (50% in September 1974, below 40% in January 1975), so it was a bad move for Ford's personal political career. (See Gallup for more details.)

I think that President Trump's popularity, wildly positive as it is among his base, is really not wide enough to justify a move like that for anyone who would come after him, and his unpopularity is sufficiently wide and deep that those who oppose him would view it as disqualifying from future consideration.

[Terralthra]

Has it ever been used that way ?

Routinely. President Obama, for example, granted pardons and clemency to thousands of individuals whom he and the DoJ thought were given unreasonably harsh sentences, usually as a result of drug charges carrying long mandatory minimums. You can find a list of these individuals here.

He also granted clemency to Chelsea Manning.

Ms. Manning is listed on the next page.

[The Romulan Republic]

As to Trump pulling a Nixon and stepping down to be pardoned, that seems unlikely to me. I mean, maybe, but it would depend on:

a) Trump being willing to step down. Given how narcissistic he is, I very much doubt he will ever voluntarily leave the White House. He'll have to be dragged out in handcuffs, if it gets to that point.

b) Weather Pence feels he has more to gain or lose by pardoning him. Pence is believed to have his own Presidential ambitions (albeit delusional ones, given the sinking ship he's tied himself to). So he'd be weighing angering Trump's base by not pardoning vs. enraging the rest of the electorate by pardoning (see the above-mentioned Ford precedent, as SCRawl noted).

Of course, there's also the fact that Trump almost certainly has blackmail-worthy dirty on Pence.

[Thanas]

Trump's first pardon is being used on a guy who literally bragged about running a concentration camp.

GG USA.

[Flagg]

Yeah, but it wouldn't "count" until it's out of office. So if Trumpzi is impeached and removed, it would would then be at risk. Until whoever sits in the Oval Office pardons Trumpzi to keep the precedent set by Ford so that no former POTUS is subject to prosecution for actions they commit while in office.

That's a weak precedent; we have only n=1 when running this particular experiment. And it really didn't go well for President Ford; he was pretty popular (71% in mid-August 1974) until after he pardoned Nixon (50% in September 1974, below 40% in January 1975), so it was a bad move for Ford's personal political career. (See Gallup for more details.)

I think that President Trump's popularity, wildly positive as it is among his base, is really not wide enough to justify a move like that for anyone who would come after him, and his unpopularity is sufficiently wide and deep that those who oppose him would view it as disqualifying from future consideration.

I would hope so. But considering what Bush II got away with without any move to impeach (in fact impeachment was said to be off the table by the incoming speaker of the House) or criminal charges after he left office... I just have zero faith in our elected officials to hold anyone accountable for anything but lying about a blowjob.

[Flagg]

Routinely. President Obama, for example, granted pardons and clemency to thousands of individuals whom he and the DoJ thought were given unreasonably harsh sentences, usually as a result of drug charges carrying long mandatory minimums. You can find a list of these individuals here.

He also granted clemency to Chelsea Manning.

Ms. Manning is listed on the next page.

Sorry, showed up teeny tiny unreadable on my phone.

[Coop D'etat]

I love the hyperventilating in this thread. "The rule of law is dead." Except it's not because there is no real limit (except probably to self-pardon and since it's never been attempted...) on Presidential pardons. By rule of law the President is free to use and abuse the power to pardon.

Its hardly the end of rule of law, you're right about that. It is the chief executive of the United States taking a massive dump on the entire concept of judicial review though which has to be considered pretty significant. I'd say its considerably worse than pardoning Rich or Liddy, on the basis that its announcing that Trump feels he has the authority to immunize his political allies from the judiciary's power to make orders. The other powers weren't this kind of implied threat to separation of powers.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump's first pardon is being used on a guy who literally bragged about running a concentration camp.

GG USA.

Its horribly, unbelievably bad. But I do take some encouragement from the fact that the majority of the American people is increasingly against him, and from the ongoing Muller investigation. I hope that Trump will ultimately mobilize a backlash from Americans who have thus far been apathetic in the face of rising Right-wing extremism.* Charlottsville in particular seems to have been a wake-up call for some, but it remains to be seen if we can keep the momentum going, and not lose our way, in the face of Right-wing corruption and violence.

*Anecdotal, but...

I'm a member of Democrats Abroad. At meetings, I have repeatedly overheard that the organization saw a huge increase in membership, and in the rate of new members joining, since Trump started his campaign for President, and continuing after his election. Hell, I know its one of the reasons I became a more active participant in political parties. So I do think it has mobilized some people who were previously content to largely sit things out.

[Vendetta]

Trump's first pardon is being used on a guy who literally bragged about running a concentration camp.

GG USA.

Yes, but you're missing the really important bit. Which is that this will annoy John McCain and Jeff Flake, who are The Enemy. Especially McCain.

It's a good job the Republicans have eight years experience in opposition, because they're now in opposition to their own president over things like financing his border wall (I thought Mexico was going to pay for that?)

[Simon_Jester]

What the hell did they expect when they gave the president the power to unilaterally grant pardons? Literally from the moment I learned presidential pardons were a thing I've wondered what was stopping the president from sending his minions to kill critics and other enemies and then pardoning them for it.

The answer was supposed to be "Congress impeaches him, or Congress and the courts collectively shut down so much of his power to actually DO anything that he becomes a meaningless neutered irrelevancy."

Unfortunately, if this is happening, it is not happening nearly hard enough to solve the problem.

The rule of law is dead. Personal loyalty to the President will get him to casually short circuit the only enforcement mechanism the courts have.

Why? Wasn't this a perfectly legal thing?

Under the large-C Constitution's text, debateable. Under the small-c "constitution" that represents the informal order and understanding of American legal structures... Uh, no, not really.

It is NOT normal for the President to pardon law enforcement officers convicted of abuse of power, especially in a context where the President has an incentive to use said officers as goon squads to break the heads of designated enemies of the state.

What is the presidential pardon meant to be used for if not to let friends of the president be above the law ?

As noted, for literally everything else involving cases where the president has reason to believe someone has wrongfully been convicted, or that mercy is appropriate. It's the kind of thing that an ideal Enlightenment philosopher-gentleman president would use very well, because their honor and morality would prevent them from having any associations with real criminals. And that Donald Trump will inevitably use very poorly because he fucking loves associating with real criminals as long as he can profit and guffaw in the process.

So is this constitutional crisis level yet?

No?

President can pardon anyone. Constitutional crisis would be over whether or not they can pardon themselves. My guess would be "no", but it depends on what the SCOTUS rules.

Easy way to get around it would be to have a medical procedure like a colonoscopy "requiring" general anesthesia (it normally isn't but can be and you just need a Doctor to order it and I doubt one would be hard to find), which given Trumpzi's age wouldn't be a stretch, so you sign over Presidential authority to Pence, and Trumpzi wakes up with a pardon.

What you're missing is the difference between what rules are written down, and what rules are normally followed.

It would be impossible to have an orderly, non-tyrannical government with the rule of law, if the President actually can have goon squads who kill his critics and are immune to prosecution because of pardons. Or if the President can arrange to pardon himself for his own crimes.

It was very, very explicitly NOT the intent of the people who wrote the pardon power into the Constitution that these things happen. They took considerable pains to avoid such things in other respects. They did not deliberately write a loophole for presidential tyranny into their own document. What happened is that the rules-as-written came with a sheet of, shall we say, errata and house rules. Without the house rules the game could not be played, and everyone knew this, and no one broke them.

Among these house rules are that the President can't actually pardon people for the crime of doing his dirty work, can't pardon himself, and can't arbitrarily pardon individual abusive shithead officials because he approves of officials being abusive shitheads.

If these house rules start being ignored, then we have a constitutional crisis. Because the game is unplayable without the house rules.

[Flagg]

What the hell did they expect when they gave the president the power to unilaterally grant pardons? Literally from the moment I learned presidential pardons were a thing I've wondered what was stopping the president from sending his minions to kill critics and other enemies and then pardoning them for it.

The answer was supposed to be "Congress impeaches him, or Congress and the courts collectively shut down so much of his power to actually DO anything that he becomes a meaningless neutered irrelevancy."

Unfortunately, if this is happening, it is not happening nearly hard enough to solve the problem.

The rule of law is dead. Personal loyalty to the President will get him to casually short circuit the only enforcement mechanism the courts have.

Why? Wasn't this a perfectly legal thing?

Under the large-C Constitution's text, debateable. Under the small-c "constitution" that represents the informal order and understanding of American legal structures... Uh, no, not really.

It is NOT normal for the President to pardon law enforcement officers convicted of abuse of power, especially in a context where the President has an incentive to use said officers as goon squads to break the heads of designated enemies of the state.

What is the presidential pardon meant to be used for if not to let friends of the president be above the law ?

As noted, for literally everything else involving cases where the president has reason to believe someone has wrongfully been convicted, or that mercy is appropriate. It's the kind of thing that an ideal Enlightenment philosopher-gentleman president would use very well, because their honor and morality would prevent them from having any associations with real criminals. And that Donald Trump will inevitably use very poorly because he fucking loves associating with real criminals as long as he can profit and guffaw in the process.

So is this constitutional crisis level yet?

No?

President can pardon anyone. Constitutional crisis would be over whether or not they can pardon themselves. My guess would be "no", but it depends on what the SCOTUS rules.

Easy way to get around it would be to have a medical procedure like a colonoscopy "requiring" general anesthesia (it normally isn't but can be and you just need a Doctor to order it and I doubt one would be hard to find), which given Trumpzi's age wouldn't be a stretch, so you sign over Presidential authority to Pence, and Trumpzi wakes up with a pardon.

What you're missing is the difference between what rules are written down, and what rules are normally followed.

It would be impossible to have an orderly, non-tyrannical government with the rule of law, if the President actually can have goon squads who kill his critics and are immune to prosecution because of pardons. Or if the President can arrange to pardon himself for his own crimes.

It was very, very explicitly NOT the intent of the people who wrote the pardon power into the Constitution that these things happen. They took considerable pains to avoid such things in other respects. They did not deliberately write a loophole for presidential tyranny into their own document. What happened is that the rules-as-written came with a sheet of, shall we say, errata and house rules. Without the house rules the game could not be played, and everyone knew this, and no one broke them.

Among these house rules are that the President can't actually pardon people for the crime of doing his dirty work, can't pardon himself, and can't arbitrarily pardon individual abusive shithead officials because he approves of officials being abusive shitheads.

If these house rules start being ignored, then we have a constitutional crisis. Because the game is unplayable without the house rules.

If the POTUS sent out goon squads to kill his enemies he would be part of a criminal conspiracy and could be dealt with accordingly. Pardoning a piece of shit like Arpaio doesn't really fit that description. In fact W's commutation of Libby's sentence was a clear abuse of power since what Libby was doing was seen as directly benefiting that Administration. What Arpaio did isn't connected to Trump in any direct way I can see. It's a horrible thing, he's being rightly condemned for it, but if that constitutes a Constitutional Crisis then what use of Presidential power used in an unpopular and morally corrupt way doesn't?

[MKSheppard]

The why is the second sentence. In doing this, Trump has demonstrated that he'll give his cronies a free pass to flaunt the courts.

What this really is about is....ICE being told "THERE ARE NO BRAKES ON THE DEPORTATION TRAIN."

[Simon_Jester]

The why is the second sentence. In doing this, Trump has demonstrated that he'll give his cronies a free pass to flaunt the courts.

What this really is about is....ICE being told "THERE ARE NO BRAKES ON THE DEPORTATION TRAIN."

Yeah, removing the brakes on a train sounds like such a good idea.

Tell me Shep, in your mind does the list of brakes that have been removed include things like "legally this person shouldn't actually get deported? Yes or no?

[Broomstick]

Gerald Ford deserves to be forever damned in the eyes of history for not letting Nixon face the music.

To his credit (albeit too little, too late), I've heard that Ford did later express regret for that decision.

At the time some saw it as a reasonable step to end the scandal and let the country move forward. Nixon was out of office and disgraced and couldn't be elected dog catcher anywhere in the nation, he wasn't actually convicted of anything (Then why are you pardoning him Gerald? Yes, I remember hearing that, too), and a lot of people just wanted the mess over. Of course, a lot of people were outraged, but once it was done there could be no more talk of putting Nixon on trial and the nation did move on to other things.

I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, but at the time the concern was keeping things calm and the government functioning until the next election.

[Zaune]

Hah. Maybe we should all put our heads together and draw up a list of previous presidents that Trump's successfully made look good by comparison?

Actually, on second thoughts that would just be depressing.

[The Romulan Republic]

Buchanan still narrowly beats out Trump in terms of epic failure, I'd say- being the only President who left the country territorially smaller when he left office than when he entered it, thanks to the secession of the South.

I don't think any modern President beats him for shear moral loathsomeness (you have to go back to the days of slavery and Native American genocide to get that), and I don't think any President ever beats him for shear pettiness, stupidity, and mental and emotional ugliness.

So basically, they all look good in comparison to him.

[Elfdart]

There needs to be constitutional amendment where no pardon or clemency can be issued from October in an election year until a the next presidential term begins (i.e. no lame duck pardons), AND where no government official (elected or appointed) can receive pardon or commutation unless it is approved by a 3/4 vote of both houses of Congress.

[The Romulan Republic]

I could get behind that.

Though I'd add an explicit prohibition on self-pardoning as well.

[SCRawl]

There needs to be constitutional amendment where no pardon or clemency can be issued from October in an election year until a the next presidential term begins (i.e. no lame duck pardons), AND where no government official (elected or appointed) can receive pardon or commutation unless it is approved by a 3/4 vote of both houses of Congress.

I know why that sounds good, but (a) it will never happen, and (b) it shouldn't happen either. If the purpose propping the power of the presidential pardon (alliteration, bitches) is to provide an avenue to address miscarriages of justice, and those can happen at any time, then limiting the time frame during which the pardon can be granted undermines the point of having it there in the first place.

So if you really want to take the worst abuses out of the presidential pardon authority, there are a few choices: eliminate it entirely, which sounds fine to me; or require that it goes through Congress like you suggest (with a supermajority? why not?) as well, kind of in the reverse of the way a bill gets passed, which also sounds fine to me. The only issue I would have with this last idea is that it could politicize the pardon even further, which is the opposite of what it should be.

[TheFeniX]

I don't think any modern President beats him for shear moral loathsomeness (you have to go back to the days of slavery and Native American genocide to get that), and I don't think any President ever beats him for shear pettiness, stupidity, and mental and emotional ugliness.

I highly recommend doing some reading into Nixon. The man was incredibly petty and dangerous to anyone remotely viewed as his enemy. Trump is basically the blue collar version of him, but (thankfully) lacks the professionalism and ability to cajole others to get his way. Nixon could (and did) bully people into submission, but his bullying was A. much more effective (because he wasn't a "cheap" bully.) B. had numerous other tools at his disposal.

Watergate is like.... a fucking sidenote of the shit that man pulled with the help of his cronies. For all his bullshit, Trump is so ineffectual he has to resort to beating up on Illegals and Transsexuals (two groups with very little protections) to vent his impotent rage.

Semi-ontopic since this OP both vile and unsurprising: The man who lets diabetics die without treatment is pardoned by Trump. If ever there was a narrative to the Trump admin.

[Simon_Jester]

There needs to be constitutional amendment where no pardon or clemency can be issued from October in an election year until a the next presidential term begins (i.e. no lame duck pardons), AND where no government official (elected or appointed) can receive pardon or commutation unless it is approved by a 3/4 vote of both houses of Congress.

I know why that sounds good, but (a) it will never happen, and (b) it shouldn't happen either. If the purpose propping the power of the presidential pardon (alliteration, bitches) is to provide an avenue to address miscarriages of justice, and those can happen at any time, then limiting the time frame during which the pardon can be granted undermines the point of having it there in the first place.

So if you really want to take the worst abuses out of the presidential pardon authority, there are a few choices: eliminate it entirely, which sounds fine to me; or require that it goes through Congress like you suggest (with a supermajority? why not?) as well, kind of in the reverse of the way a bill gets passed, which also sounds fine to me. The only issue I would have with this last idea is that it could politicize the pardon even further, which is the opposite of what it should be.

I'd go with a ban on pardons issued to people holding elected or senior-ranking public office in general, and a ban on pardons issued to people for crimes committed while serving in such an office or on behalf of a public official.

That may not have been what the Founders really meant when they said explicitly in the Constitution that the pardon power doesn't apply to cases of impeachment. But it should have been what they meant.

Public officials of any meaningful rank are almost never convicted of crimes except for crimes directly related to malfeasance in office or actions that would disqualify them from office.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think any modern President beats him for shear moral loathsomeness (you have to go back to the days of slavery and Native American genocide to get that), and I don't think any President ever beats him for shear pettiness, stupidity, and mental and emotional ugliness.

I highly recommend doing some reading into Nixon. The man was incredibly petty and dangerous to anyone remotely viewed as his enemy. Trump is basically the blue collar version of him, but (thankfully) lacks the professionalism and ability to cajole others to get his way. Nixon could (and did) bully people into submission, but his bullying was A. much more effective (because he wasn't a "cheap" bully.) B. had numerous other tools at his disposal.

Watergate is like.... a fucking sidenote of the shit that man pulled with the help of his cronies. For all his bullshit, Trump is so ineffectual he has to resort to beating up on Illegals and Transsexuals (two groups with very little protections) to vent his impotent rage.

Semi-ontopic since this OP both vile and unsurprising: The man who lets diabetics die without treatment is pardoned by Trump. If ever there was a narrative to the Trump admin.

I don't know, maybe he just seems worse because back then, most of this shit happened behind closed doors, and now, it gets broadcast over fucking Twitter 24/7.

But their are a lot of parallels, I think, between Nixon and Trump, beyond the obvious. Both bigots. Both pandered to Southern white supremacists (the Southern Strategy). Both were unfit to be trusted with the nukes. Indeed, I think you can view Trump as the ultimate culmination of the path that Nixon started the Republican Party on, particularly with the "Southern Strategy"

[Gaidin]

I know why that sounds good, but (a) it will never happen, and (b) it shouldn't happen either. If the purpose propping the power of the presidential pardon (alliteration, bitches) is to provide an avenue to address miscarriages of justice, and those can happen at any time, then limiting the time frame during which the pardon can be granted undermines the point of having it there in the first place.

So if you really want to take the worst abuses out of the presidential pardon authority, there are a few choices: eliminate it entirely, which sounds fine to me; or require that it goes through Congress like you suggest (with a supermajority? why not?) as well, kind of in the reverse of the way a bill gets passed, which also sounds fine to me. The only issue I would have with this last idea is that it could politicize the pardon even further, which is the opposite of what it should be.

May be somewhat of a segue for this thread, but you've brought up an interesting possible question with the way you've proposed possible structures requiring the pardon to have coordination with an entire different branch of government. Would we then want to restructure other branches independent powers to require coordination with other branches to maintain balance? You know, veto as a counter to Legislative requires majority approval from SCOTUS. Overriding veto also requires approval from SCOTUS. That sort of thing.

[TheFeniX]

I don't know, maybe he just seems worse because back then, most of this shit happened behind closed doors, and now, it gets broadcast over fucking Twitter 24/7.

What? Trumps rantings showing that he's a terrible person. But this is the difference between a man standing on a soap box talking about racial supremacy while there's another guy 10 feet over using the dead bodies of the minorities he's killed as his soapbox to rant about racial supremacy.

But their are a lot of parallels, I think, between Nixon and Trump, beyond the obvious. Both bigots. Both pandered to Southern white supremacists (the Southern Strategy). Both were unfit to be trusted with the nukes. Indeed, I think you can view Trump as the ultimate culmination of the path that Nixon started the Republican Party on, particularly with the "Southern Strategy"

The man is a huge step back. Men like Nixon, Reagan, Hell even Obama: these guys got results. Nixon in particular went after more "hardened" targets such as "white males" and did very well for himself in this regard. There was seemingly no one he couldn't ruin.

Trump can only content himself with targeting minorities and other groups that lack all the protections they should have AND are looked down upon by a disturbingly large portion of the American Public. Hence, "cheap bully." He targets the "weak" because that's all he can do. Men like Nixon are incredibly more dangerous because when they want results, they get them.

Trump can't even be bothered to say more than "Good Luck" to a state that helped him win his election while people are dieing over here due to the storm. Texans take care of their own, but the man can't even "play the game" with a state that is (currently) in his pocket. That's how laughably obtuse the man is, he can't even maintain appearances with his allies. No one not currently benefiting him means ANYTHING to him. They aren't worth a second thought and people are finally starting to pick up on this. He has no allies, only people who are currently useful.

As shitty as this makes him as a person, this kind of attitude does not get anything other than short term results. As we can already see, more and more Republicans are starting to shift their support away. Mostly due to the crazy (I assume), but I also assume a lot of this has to do with them not being able to "buy" loyalty from a guy like Trump since the idea is laughable to him.

Nixon (and other handjobs) understood how to play the game or surrounded (and kept it that way) themselves with people who did. GW Bush is/was a more dangerous man than Trump in this regard.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know, maybe he just seems worse because back then, most of this shit happened behind closed doors, and now, it gets broadcast over fucking Twitter 24/7.

What? Trumps rantings showing that he's a terrible person. But this is the difference between a man standing on a soap box talking about racial supremacy while there's another guy 10 feet over using the dead bodies of the minorities he's killed as his soapbox to rant about racial supremacy.

What I'm saying is: Nixon might very well be far worse, but Trump seems worse because all his bull crap his constantly broadcast over modern mass-media.

Trump can only content himself with targeting minorities and other groups that lack all the protections they should have AND are looked down upon by a disturbingly large portion of the American Public. Hence, "cheap bully." He targets the "weak" because that's all he can do. Men like Nixon are incredibly more dangerous because when they want results, they get them.

I'd say Trump is more dangerous, arguably, because the Republican Party is apparently no longer willing to impeach a corrupt, authoritarian Republican President.

Trump can't even be bothered to say more than "Good Luck" to a state that helped him win his election while people are dieing over here due to the storm. Texans take care of their own, but the man can't even "play the game" with a state that is (currently) in his pocket. That's how laughably obtuse the man is, he can't even maintain appearances with his allies. No one not currently benefiting him means ANYTHING to him. They aren't worth a second thought and people are finally starting to pick up on this. He has no allies, only people who are currently useful.

As shitty as this makes him as a person, this kind of attitude does not get anything other than short term results. As we can already see, more and more Republicans are starting to shift their support away. Mostly due to the crazy (I assume), but I also assume a lot of this has to do with them not being able to "buy" loyalty from a guy like Trump since the idea is laughable to him.

Nixon (and other handjobs) understood how to play the game or surrounded (and kept it that way) themselves with people who did. GW Bush is/was a more dangerous man than Trump in this regard.

Gross incompetence is a danger all its own, when you have that kind of power. Moreover, Trump is dangerous because he is inciting and normalizing Neo-Nazism and political violence, and basically undermining any public trust in the law or democratic institutions.

But I don't disagree that Nixon was an absolutely horrible President.