Ubiquitous wrote: ↑2024-12-04 08:43am
I doubt this goes any further. Joe Biden is yesterday's news. The HB scandal was ultimately a political tool to beat President Biden with. Now that 46 is no longer relevant, this whole story goes away.
That said I don't think it does Biden's political legacy any favours. But as a father protecting his son; fair play. We'd probably all do the same.
Are you kidding me??? My dad would be the first one to testify against me if I did any of that crap, and he certainly wouldn’t offer a pardon.
Both my parents and grandparents are in the “ Don’t expect any bail from us if you get up to something stupid” crowd.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
Ubiquitous wrote: ↑2024-12-04 08:43am
I doubt this goes any further. Joe Biden is yesterday's news. The HB scandal was ultimately a political tool to beat President Biden with. Now that 46 is no longer relevant, this whole story goes away.
That said I don't think it does Biden's political legacy any favours. But as a father protecting his son; fair play. We'd probably all do the same.
Are you kidding me??? My dad would be the first one to testify against me if I did any of that crap, and he certainly wouldn’t offer a pardon.
Both my parents and grandparents are in the “ Don’t expect any bail from us if you get up to something stupid” crowd.
Well none of them are President of the United States
bilateralrope wrote: ↑2024-12-02 10:42pm
If Trump's DOJ tries to challenge this as a corrupt pardon, SCOTUS is going to have a hard time finding a way to cancel it without also limiting Trump's ability to make corrupt pardons. But if they allow Hunter Biden's pardon to stand, Trump will be unhappy with them.
SCOTUS has previously ruled that the presidential pardon power is not restrictable by law, and can apply to any previous crime, regardless of where it occurred, or when. It can’t be cancelled. The biggest things are: it only works for federal crimes, not state crimes, and accepting it is an admission of guilt (though it makes them legally innocent for criminal purposes)
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
bilateralrope wrote: ↑2024-12-02 10:42pm
If Trump's DOJ tries to challenge this as a corrupt pardon, SCOTUS is going to have a hard time finding a way to cancel it without also limiting Trump's ability to make corrupt pardons. But if they allow Hunter Biden's pardon to stand, Trump will be unhappy with them.
SCOTUS has previously ruled that the presidential pardon power is not restrictable by law, and can apply to any previous crime, regardless of where it occurred, or when. It can’t be cancelled. The biggest things are: it only works for federal crimes, not state crimes, and accepting it is an admission of guilt (though it makes them legally innocent for criminal purposes)
Correct me if I'm wrong but does this mean the president could pardon themselves from any (federal) crime should they choose to do so?
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
bilateralrope wrote: ↑2024-12-02 10:42pm
If Trump's DOJ tries to challenge this as a corrupt pardon, SCOTUS is going to have a hard time finding a way to cancel it without also limiting Trump's ability to make corrupt pardons. But if they allow Hunter Biden's pardon to stand, Trump will be unhappy with them.
SCOTUS has previously ruled that the presidential pardon power is not restrictable by law, and can apply to any previous crime, regardless of where it occurred, or when. It can’t be cancelled. The biggest things are: it only works for federal crimes, not state crimes, and accepting it is an admission of guilt (though it makes them legally innocent for criminal purposes)
Correct me if I'm wrong but does this mean the president could pardon themselves from any (federal) crime should they choose to do so?
It would go against centuries of precedent in the legal tradition the pardon power came out of and in any sane world would trigger an immediate constitutional crisis and impeachment, so...maybe?
I mean, they already tried to make "If the President does it, it's not illegal" an actual codified legal principle and the Vice President-Elect went on the record saying Americans need to get over their phobia of dictators, so at this point anything's possible.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
bilateralrope wrote: ↑2024-12-02 10:42pm
If Trump's DOJ tries to challenge this as a corrupt pardon, SCOTUS is going to have a hard time finding a way to cancel it without also limiting Trump's ability to make corrupt pardons. But if they allow Hunter Biden's pardon to stand, Trump will be unhappy with them.
SCOTUS has previously ruled that the presidential pardon power is not restrictable by law, and can apply to any previous crime, regardless of where it occurred, or when. It can’t be cancelled. The biggest things are: it only works for federal crimes, not state crimes, and accepting it is an admission of guilt (though it makes them legally innocent for criminal purposes)
Correct me if I'm wrong but does this mean the president could pardon themselves from any (federal) crime should they choose to do so?
That is in fact an open legal question, because no president has attempted such before. That said, Nixon believed he couldn’t do so, which is why Ford was the one to issue a pardon. This is binding DoJ precedent, so if a president tries to pardon himself, the DoJ will probably still charge him after he leaves office.
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
SCOTUS has previously ruled that the presidential pardon power is not restrictable by law, and can apply to any previous crime, regardless of where it occurred, or when. It can’t be cancelled. The biggest things are: it only works for federal crimes, not state crimes, and accepting it is an admission of guilt (though it makes them legally innocent for criminal purposes)
Correct me if I'm wrong but does this mean the president could pardon themselves from any (federal) crime should they choose to do so?
That is in fact an open legal question, because no president has attempted such before. That said, Nixon believed he couldn’t do so, which is why Ford was the one to issue a pardon. This is binding DoJ precedent, so if a president tries to pardon himself, the DoJ will probably still charge him after he leaves office.
That would actually be an interesting legal question - as the pardon is done after conviction, or confession, and Trump wasn't convicted, would the 'confession' aspect of it still stand, or at least be allowed in as evidence?
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.
It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
Bearing in mind that fixing miscarriages of justice like false convictions is the sort of thing you would expect to fall under legitimate usages of the pardon power.
There is also the issue that Donny Jingles is hard-wired to never admit he was wrong or at fault, pathologically some might say. So I think he would pursue any other avenue to freedom that he could unless that rule changes.
"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? Y'know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! Y'know, I just do things..." --The Joker
And that the current SCOTUS doesn't think precedent means anything, they'd likely issue a ruling reversing "accepting a pardon is admission of guilt".
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
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.
