- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 12/12/23 at 6:45 am to OceanMan
quote:
Can you pardon an undisclosed number of people that you don’t have names for?
Kind of like how you'd pardon yourself for alleged crimes you can't name that may occur in the future.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 6:46 am to POTUS2024
quote:
Could have pardoned J6 people.
How? Did he build a time machine and go to the future and get a list of names of those who would be charged?
This whole thread is asinine.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 7:05 am to TrueTiger
quote:
No rules. They will not bat an eye at the thought of killing him and that is why people like Bongino are saying he is in great danger.
But they would never, never steal votes to defeat him. If you even suggest they would you should be silenced. Sometimes to save “Democracy” you have to destroy democracy.
This post was edited on 12/12/23 at 7:06 am
Posted on 12/12/23 at 7:07 am to Mike Honcho
quote:
But they would never, never steal votes to defeat him.
oh, never!
That's the most obvious thing to try first.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 7:30 am to OceanMan
quote:
Can you pardon an undisclosed number of people that you don’t have names for?
There isn't any requirement that any clemency list the persons by name. Johnson granted amnesty to Confederate soldiers, Carter to draft dodgers, and most recently Biden for the offenses of simple marijuana possession.
Biden
Carter
Johnson
As already discussed with Ford, the pardon also doesn't have to specifically list the crime (although in this case it should).
You just can't pardon for impeachment, state claims, or any civil claims
This post was edited on 12/12/23 at 7:50 am
Posted on 12/12/23 at 7:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Not the GA, NY, or Florida prosecutions.
How would that help?
None of those are pursuing a finding that some Lawfare a-hole can argue constitutes "insurrection" under the 14th.
PLUS, it's the only prosecution in the DC cesspool.
It would help, a lot.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 7:48 am to udtiger
quote:
None of those are pursuing a finding that some Lawfare a-hole can argue constitutes "insurrection" under the 14th.
I don't think a criminal prosecution is the only way to have this determined, for constitutional/eligibility issues.
It's not exactly clear what processes would be acceptable for the determination.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 8:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not exactly clear what processes would be acceptable for the determination
Well...considering the Congress did not convict him of it, only the stupidest fricking judge would consider disqualification in the absence of a conviction.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 8:06 am to udtiger
Yeah but that was a different process, impeachment.
That process was not specifically regarding his alleged behavior in the specific way you're using the term.
The 14A has a separate process for this:
It does not reference impeachment for this determination. It does reference a special Congressional act to remove the taint, which implies a special Congressional act to create the taint. If impeachment was the process, logic dictates it would have been referred to specifically.
That process was not specifically regarding his alleged behavior in the specific way you're using the term.
The 14A has a separate process for this:
quote:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
It does not reference impeachment for this determination. It does reference a special Congressional act to remove the taint, which implies a special Congressional act to create the taint. If impeachment was the process, logic dictates it would have been referred to specifically.
This post was edited on 12/12/23 at 8:07 am
Posted on 12/12/23 at 8:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability
Implicit in this is Congress enforces it (based upon its express authority regarding admission and expulsion of members). To the extent this is applicable to Presidents (or presidential candidates [an OPEN question]), the only constitutional mechanism is impeachment.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Kind of like how you'd pardon yourself for alleged crimes you can't name that may occur in the future.
In this case, you at least know who you are pardoning right?
If this were within the scope of pardoning powers, couldn’t the POTUS theoretically pardon everyone for any federal crime in the future? Effectively nullifying federal law?
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:11 am to udtiger
quote:
To the extent this is applicable to Presidents (or presidential candidates [an OPEN question]), the only constitutional mechanism is impeachment.
Impeachment is completely separate from this clause, otherwise the clause would reference impeachment
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:14 am to OceanMan
quote:
couldn’t the POTUS theoretically pardon everyone for any federal crime in the future? Effectively nullifying federal law?
Yes. It's silly.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Impeachment is completely separate from this clause, otherwise the clause would reference impeachment
You're a lawyer, right?
Contracts are to be read and interpreted as a whole document.
Don't be intentionally obtuse.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:15 am to GumboPot
quote:
Going forward all presidents should pardon themselves and associates upon leaving the executive branch. The deep state is vindictive and dangerous.
With the SCOTUS decision, we’re going to be entering uncharted territory. A constitutional crisis could emerge out of this, but that’s probably exactly what they want.
“A republic - if you can keep it”
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yes. It's silly
It would be ridiculous to expect that this would have legal standing. If it does in theory it definitely shouldn't
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:19 am to udtiger
Pardoning everyone probably would have severely damaged his reelection chances. Remember that he owes his strong position to the indictments. His popularity surged with each one. Now, most of these were state charges, so the pardon would not have affected them.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:26 am to dukkbill
quote:
There isn't any requirement that any clemency list the persons by name. Johnson granted amnesty to Confederate soldiers, Carter to draft dodgers, and most recently Biden for the offenses of simple marijuana possession.
Ok thanks for providing that info and examples. Seems pretty broad but it’s useful insight.
quote:
As already discussed with Ford, the pardon also doesn't have to specifically list the crime (although in this case it should).
I don’t feel that the Ford pardon is at all equivalent to what is being suggested Trump should have done.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:59 am to OceanMan
quote:
I don’t feel that the Ford pardon is at all equivalent to what is being suggested Trump should have done.
The question was whether a pardon could be issued for as yet unspecified crimes. He cited the Ford pardon as evidence that indeed unspecified crimes could be pardoned. I'd say the relevancy was very high.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News