|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 18, 2021 16:08:14 GMT
It keeps being said that Trump shouldn't pardon anyone involved in the assault on the Capitol, but surely most of them won't even have been to court, or have been charged before he is out of office??
Or are they hoping to be found guilty (although of course wholly innocent) asap so he can then pardon them for something that, of course, they didn't actually do, honest guv'nr.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Jan 18, 2021 18:01:08 GMT
It keeps being said that Trump shouldn't pardon anyone involved in the assault on the Capitol, but surely most of them won't even have been to court, or have been charged before he is out of office??
Or are they hoping to be found guilty (although of course wholly innocent) asap so he can then pardon them for something that, of course, they didn't actually do, honest guv'nr. That doesn't matter. The President can issue a pre-emptive pardon. "Pardons need not follow convictions but can be issued before or during a criminal prosecution. The rationale for so-called “pre-emptive” pardons is that there is no point in requiring a person to live in fear of conviction or to go through a trial if the offense of which he is or might be accused would ultimately be pardoned."
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jan 18, 2021 18:25:42 GMT
It keeps being said that Trump shouldn't pardon anyone involved in the assault on the Capitol, but surely most of them won't even have been to court, or have been charged before he is out of office??
Or are they hoping to be found guilty (although of course wholly innocent) asap so he can then pardon them for something that, of course, they didn't actually do, honest guv'nr. That doesn't matter. The President can issue a pre-emptive pardon. "Pardons need not follow convictions but can be issued before or during a criminal prosecution. The rationale for so-called “pre-emptive” pardons is that there is no point in requiring a person to live in fear of conviction or to go through a trial if the offense of which he is or might be accused would ultimately be pardoned." That reads like it's meant for a named person or persons. Does it cover people who have so far not been identified let alone charged?
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Jan 18, 2021 18:27:41 GMT
That doesn't matter. The President can issue a pre-emptive pardon. "Pardons need not follow convictions but can be issued before or during a criminal prosecution. The rationale for so-called “pre-emptive” pardons is that there is no point in requiring a person to live in fear of conviction or to go through a trial if the offense of which he is or might be accused would ultimately be pardoned." That reads like it's meant for a named person or persons. Does it cover people who have so far not been identified let alone charged? No, a pardon needs to be for a specific person. EDIT: Apparently that's not true. Andrew Johnson did a general amnesty for low-level confederate soldiers after the Civil War and Jimmy Carter pardoned draft-dodgers.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 18, 2021 18:56:38 GMT
It keeps being said that Trump shouldn't pardon anyone involved in the assault on the Capitol, but surely most of them won't even have been to court, or have been charged before he is out of office??
Or are they hoping to be found guilty (although of course wholly innocent) asap so he can then pardon them for something that, of course, they didn't actually do, honest guv'nr. That doesn't matter. The President can issue a pre-emptive pardon. "Pardons need not follow convictions but can be issued before or during a criminal prosecution. The rationale for so-called “pre-emptive” pardons is that there is no point in requiring a person to live in fear of conviction or to go through a trial if the offense of which he is or might be accused would ultimately be pardoned." I feared as much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2021 19:06:33 GMT
That doesn't matter. The President can issue a pre-emptive pardon. "Pardons need not follow convictions but can be issued before or during a criminal prosecution. The rationale for so-called “pre-emptive” pardons is that there is no point in requiring a person to live in fear of conviction or to go through a trial if the offense of which he is or might be accused would ultimately be pardoned." I feared as much. So what period of time does it cover ? Is it just offences up to the date of the pardon ? If not, then presumably anyone involved with last week’s insurrection who gets a pardon will be on a get out of jail free card for the inauguration
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,543
|
Post by john07 on Jan 18, 2021 19:54:20 GMT
It suits Trump to allow the incoming regime to overreach and engage in a politically motivated series of show trials and political sentences. The Dems have learned nothing from Trump, including decency. How could anyone learn 'decency' from Trump?
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jan 18, 2021 21:13:32 GMT
So what period of time does it cover ? Is it just offences up to the date of the pardon ? If not, then presumably anyone involved with last week’s insurrection who gets a pardon will be on a get out of jail free card for the inauguration A pardon can only be for crimes already committed.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,543
|
Post by john07 on Jan 18, 2021 21:20:22 GMT
So what period of time does it cover ? Is it just offences up to the date of the pardon ? If not, then presumably anyone involved with last week’s insurrection who gets a pardon will be on a get out of jail free card for the inauguration A pardon can only be for crimes already committed. Go to Jail. Go Directly to Jail. Do not pass Go. Do Not Collect £200.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,543
|
Post by john07 on Jan 18, 2021 21:31:04 GMT
Seriously depressing response. If you post bullshit, expect such replies.
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jan 18, 2021 21:39:42 GMT
So what period of time does it cover ? Is it just offences up to the date of the pardon ? If not, then presumably anyone involved with last week’s insurrection who gets a pardon will be on a get out of jail free card for the inauguration A pardon can only be for crimes already committed. That surely must be true, if only because the opposite would be unthinkable. I've also seen that as the basis as to why a self-pardon is out of the question. I know this is disputed but for someone to be able to commit a crime knowing that they would be pardoned is just wrong on so many levels.
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jan 18, 2021 21:53:08 GMT
It suits Trump to allow the incoming regime to overreach and engage in a politically motivated series of show trials and political sentences. The Dems have learned nothing from Trump, including decency. How could anyone learn 'decency' from Trump? Or, indeed, from anyone who thinks you can learn decency from Trump?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2021 21:53:09 GMT
So what period of time does it cover ? Is it just offences up to the date of the pardon ? If not, then presumably anyone involved with last week’s insurrection who gets a pardon will be on a get out of jail free card for the inauguration A pardon can only be for crimes already committed. Thanks. That seemed the most obvious & sensible answer, but in the Alice-through-the-looking-glass land that is the White House you can never be absolutely certain ....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2021 21:54:14 GMT
A pardon can only be for crimes already committed. That surely must be true, if only because the opposite would be unthinkable. I've also seen that as the basis as to why a self-pardon is out of the question. I know this is disputed but for someone to be able to commit a crime knowing that they would be pardoned is just wrong on so many levels. Now there’s a word that has cropped up a few times over the last 4 years....
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Jan 18, 2021 22:24:10 GMT
Totally meaningless at the moment. Meaningless as an indicator for who'll win in '24, but not for who will dominate Republican politics for the next couple of years - which given the extremely high level of polarization and potential for political violence is a far more interesting question at the moment imo. If Trump remains the frontrunner and the impeachment trial ends with his acquittal so he won't be legally barred from running he'll be able to launch a Trump '24 campaign and while that likely won't result in him actually running (he is probably not interested in that, but it'll allow him to keep the grift going to save his business empire and remain in the limelight) it will keep the GOP as "the party of Trump" and uphold the extreme level of polarization of American politics. It will also make it much more likely that the Democrats win the mid-terms (if Trump "goes away" the GOP should be able to take the House). It also makes it fairly likely that a GOP moderate launches an independent bid in 2023, which may complicate things. So Trump's polling numbers are far from "meaningless". Until he is either impeached, in jail, dead or too frail (mentally and/or physically) to run or has decided to retire from politics for other reasons his polling numbers will remain both relevant and meaningful.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,546
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 19, 2021 12:37:44 GMT
Seriously depressing response. Depressing in that it is basically correct, you mean?
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,517
|
Post by Khunanup on Jan 20, 2021 4:44:26 GMT
What I am wondering is this. If the Russians have footage of Trump wearing nothing but his socks getting pleasured by two FSB special operatives and this influenced his foreign policy, how many lives were saved relative to say an Obama bomb-the-fuck-out-of-them Presidency? But as my wife says, if we were on a package holiday and the couple in the next apartment with whom we basically share balcony (and end up going on day trips with) were American, and in week one it was the Obamas'and in week two it was the Trumps...........don't get me wrong I love Obama. Trump was appalling. But the Bedouins we had tea with who hustled us for carved wooden camels, they may have preferred that rude flash heavy tipping orange bloke and his hot whore of a wife to the black couple whose wife and daughters wore headscarfs I find it highly amusing that you presume Trump as a heavy tipper... Seeing as he goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying anyone for services rendered I have my doubts...
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Jan 20, 2021 7:51:13 GMT
What I am wondering is this. If the Russians have footage of Trump wearing nothing but his socks getting pleasured by two FSB special operatives and this influenced his foreign policy, how many lives were saved relative to say an Obama bomb-the-fuck-out-of-them Presidency? But as my wife says, if we were on a package holiday and the couple in the next apartment with whom we basically share balcony (and end up going on day trips with) were American, and in week one it was the Obamas'and in week two it was the Trumps...........don't get me wrong I love Obama. Trump was appalling. But the Bedouins we had tea with who hustled us for carved wooden camels, they may have preferred that rude flash heavy tipping orange bloke and his hot whore of a wife to the black couple whose wife and daughters wore headscarfs They may. Or they may have enough foresight to see that the rude orange bloke's withdrawal from the role that blokes like him normally played has created a vacuum which Russia. China, Iran and various other states with no love for democracy will be only too happy to exploit in order to increase their hard power. They may conclude that the rude orange bloke's erratic behaviour and absolute inability to accept any kind of slight made him way too dangerous to be anywhere near a nuclear football.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,546
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 20, 2021 13:40:14 GMT
And lets be clear about Obama's approach. He did a lot, arguably an excessive amount, of drone warfare. But he also resisted being drawn into a full scale Syrian war and only OK'ed the Libyan adventure with considerable reluctance (unsurprisingly, HRC was the main enthusiast in Washington for that one)
|
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Jan 21, 2021 2:01:10 GMT
What I am wondering is this. If the Russians have footage of Trump wearing nothing but his socks getting pleasured by two FSB special operatives and this influenced his foreign policy, how many lives were saved relative to say an Obama bomb-the-fuck-out-of-them Presidency? But as my wife says, if we were on a package holiday and the couple in the next apartment with whom we basically share balcony (and end up going on day trips with) were American, and in week one it was the Obamas'and in week two it was the Trumps...........don't get me wrong I love Obama. Trump was appalling. But the Bedouins we had tea with who hustled us for carved wooden camels, they may have preferred that rude flash heavy tipping orange bloke and his hot whore of a wife to the black couple whose wife and daughters wore headscarfs Turns out more would've been saved had Hillary been in charge.
|
|