politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You're not wrong, of course, but that's not how the Constitution is written. The President's pardon power (for Federal) crimes is absolute, with the only exception being in matters of impeachment. The whole notion of pre-emptive pardons seems silly, but Biden gave one to his son and that seems to have stuck.
However, there is an idea that giving a politically-motivated pardon for an actual crime can backfire, because if someone can no longer be prosecuted for something, it also means they have no reason to take the 5th amendment that prevents them from incriminating themselves under oath. So while individuals might be pardoned, the crime was still committed, and investigators are within their rights to bring charges against people they can prosecute. When the pardoned person is questioned under oath, they have to testify truthfully (with no recourse to the 5th amendment for the crime they were pardoned for) or else they can be prosecuted for perjury.... which is a new crime that was not subject to any prior pardon.
So, the pardon power is in serious need of reform. That would take a Constitutional Amendment. But we can do anything in an amendment, as long as Congress and enough States agree. We can even retroactively nullify any pardon given by Trump! I doubt it would get the 38 states required to pass if it contained that clause, but a boy can dream, can't he?
Also interesting to note that the process of passing an amendment does not require the President at all. It does need a 2/3 majority in both houses before it goes to the States, so it's not something Democrats can do alone. But it would be the perfect middle finger to Trumpism if they can manage to build enough support to get it passed before Trump leaves office.
I really do wish Trump would try to turn over one of those pardons to chase some made up crimes that clearly fail in court - just so he sets precedence and enables the next non-MAGA government to wipe out his pardons as well and mop up his ilk for every single cent misappropriated (not to mention the lives his regime cost, the treasons etc.)
With how far out of pocket the Trump party is right now, I could see Trump writing an executive order against a new amendment and the GOP side of the SCOTUS finding in his favor. At that point the reasonable (hork) republicans would fold and the DOJ would just stay were it is, neck deep in diaper. That would be bullshit stacked deeper than the Titan sub, but is honestly more likely than the amendment getting passed in the first place.
"Neck deep in diaper" is a new one for me. I'll be using that going forward, thanks!