Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The verdict was a slam dunk based on the evidence.I understand and especially with Stone know the Federal pardon on all 7 counts, the jury convicted on was wrong.
www.politico.com
Trump clearly did not use the power to pardon as intended by the Framers – as a means to address an injustice.As the author points out, Stone is the most glaring example of an abuse because he possessed information that related to Trump's exposure in the Mueller investigation. After making it clear to Stone his silence would be rewarded Stone was in fact pardoned. I can think of no other example of a previous prez so manifestly abusing his authority.
A Presidents power to pardon should not extend to cases he has a personal interest in
Pardoning those who broke laws on your behalf should not be tolerated
Obviously, but the sitting asswhole at the time pardoned him. Live with it. I can. If you can get state charges, more power to ya, but changing the constitution will not fly and would probably take 30 years or more.The verdict was a slam dunk based on the evidence.
Roger Stone sentenced to over 3 years in prison
The president has called Stone's treatment a miscarriage of justice, raising questions about whether he will grant clemency to his longtime political confidant.
Good luck with thatTrump clearly did not use the power to pardon as intended by the Framers – as a means to address an injustice.
The people knew who and what Trump was, that he would abuse the powers of the presidency, such as the power to pardon – yet they put him in the WH regardless.
The people have only themselves to blame.
Rather than reform, the people should resolve to not elect the likes of Trump again.
Obviously we can't resist making everything about Trump. But I agree that the constitution is correct to provide a way for the executive to check the otherwise unlimited power of the judicial over individuals.There’s a school of thought that it’s incumbent upon the people to choose their presidents wisely, to elect someone who won’t abuse the powers of the office, such as the power to pardon.
Reform, therefore, shouldn’t be needed if the people choose wisely.
Otherwise, when the people err, they deserve the bad government they get – Trump, of course, was the worst.
It's how we pick the executive we should look at. That's what's broke.
They never envisioned Dementia Joe either.How we got Trump
A situation our founders never envisioned
“ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection? The case of treason ought, at least, to be excepted. This is a weighty objection with me.”
www.brookings.edu
They never envisioned Dementia Joe either.
They envisioned White Male Landowners picking one of their peers for a temporary exercise of power over a very very limited government.
Doubtful he could be convicted with the DNC/DOJ/FBI literally hiding the evidence and claiming not to know where it is.Speaking of President Biden, how would Trumpleton's feel if he pardoned Hunter in the event he is convicted of something?
That last paragraph is problematic.Doubtful he could be convicted with the DNC/DOJ/FBI literally hiding the evidence and claiming not to know where it is.
But if he were I would not think badly of Biden for pardoning him. I'd expect that from any father. Especially the titular head of an organized crime family.
Lol could you expand on that thought? That is a very new one for me. All the other countries loved that they had enough money for huge intrusive and war making governments But we had to make do with a discount government?They wanted limited government because they could not afford anything more
Yes and they also predicted the demise of the republic once voters began to vote themselves benefits from the public treasury.But they also accepted the right of future citizens to elect the government they want
I agree, but the Right isn't concerned about lawlessness, so they're good with pardons as long as it's someone on the Republican side.Trump once said, “Then, I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.” It would appear no one in his admin or inner circle dared to inform him of his colossal misunderstanding of Article II powers. But he's finding out now.
But this thread isn't about the sordid MaL affair. It's about whether we all can agree the absolute power to pardon people possessed by the POTUS needs to be reformed?
One of the features of Trump's presidency was the extent to which he exposed weaknesses in the laws, rules, and protocols governing a prez's behavior. Weaknesses that existed because no one ever contemplated that a prez would so extensively exploit them. This article explores some of the areas in need of reform and suggests remedies to address them.
Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform
What should be done in a post-Trump world to restore the rule of law?www.lawfareblog.com
One of them being.............-Pardon reform. There can be little doubt of two things. First, as currently constructed, the president’s pardon power is nearly absolute. Second, President Trump’s use of the pardon power has transgressed the Founders’ expectations. Indeed, the idea that a president might pardon his own criminal confederates (as is arguably the case with Roger Stone) is exactly why George Mason opposed the pardon power altogether. At some point, Congress might give serious consideration to a constitutional amendment that, for example, makes pardons illegal for individuals personally known to the president and makes the misuse of the power judicially reviewable.
As the author points out, Stone is the most glaring example of an abuse because he possessed information that related to Trump's exposure in the Mueller investigation. After making it clear to Stone his silence would be rewarded Stone was in fact pardoned. I can think of no other example of a previous prez so manifestly abusing his authority.
The question at hand being, can we agree no POTUS should be allowed to pardon someone who could act as a hostile witness to the prez in a civil or criminal case or in an impeachment trial?
I don't know how to continue when you acvuse me of lying about my own opinion.That last paragraph is problematic.
I would take issue with a pardon like that… and you know you would even though you claim otherwise
So you’d not take issue with such a pardon?I don't know how to continue when you acvuse me of lying about my own opinion.
Maybe I should clarify. I DON'T approve of the Biden Family corruption. But a pardon in the situation you describe wouldn't make me think any worse of them.
Except no wall money was going to the wall. And would his followers indict him for stealing their money? No! They're idiots for criminals who stiff them. Just look at the millions Trump stiffed them for. Total idiotic cultists throwing their money at a mob boss. Go figure?Although it doesn't rise to the level of Stone's pardon, obviously Bannon was pardoned because he was engaged in a fraudulent activity Trump favored.......building the border wall. I doubt a review board would have approved it if for no other reason than the compelling evidence of Bannon's guilt.
Everything he stated is true, your party is corrupt. Hopefully when we take both houses back, Republicans will do an outright Mueller stile investigation into the fbi and doj.See?
