These pardons will be challenged and the Supreme Court will find them unconstitutional.

[Snake Plissken]

Otherwise future Presidents could hire hit squads to mass murder all the members of Congress and all the Judges and simply pardon the assassins

[Bev54]

1. I would certainly hope so because if they are not

the world will look away from the US in absolute disgust.

[coti]

9. It's not that he can't grant the pardons, it's that it's

a criminal act for him to grant them for his corrupt purposes. He needs to be prosecuted for it, among about a thousand other things.

[Bev54]

22. Yes I agree with that and then I think it is time that there be some kind

of control put on pardons. They have been abused by presidents and governors.

[L.Pharmstrong]

72. Sorry.

Last edited Thu Dec 24, 2020, 05:58 PM - Edit history (2)

But it would take a Constitutional Amendment to reign in Presidential Pardon power. The virtually unfettered authority to take issue pardons is unequivocally and unambiguously granted to the president by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

While the pardons issued by Trump are despicable, they are within his almost unlimited constitutional authority. Even if a challenge somehow were brought, do you really think that this Supreme Court would allow the power unequivocally granted to the President to be restrained in the absence of a Constitutional Amendment?

As a legal matter, the only way a pardon could be challenged is if a person receiving a pardon is later charged with federal crimes predating the pardon. The defendant would move to dismiss on the basis of the Presidential pardon and the viability of the pardon then could be tested. Only such a defendant would have standing under Article 3 of the Constitution to raise the issue. But any argument against the pardon would be weak.

On the other hand, if Trump does try to pardon himself, which I fully expect him to do, that will virtually assure that a US Attorney somewhere (SDNY presumably) will charge Trump and the pardon will be challenged. A Trump self-pardon will be less apt to survive scrutiny by even this Supreme Court.

[StarfishSaver]

74. I could have written this myself!

Every word you wrote is exactly how I see this.

[exboyfil]

24. Except he gets a pardon himself

in the end.

[lastlib]

39. Who would have standing to bring the matter into court?

And how would they get around that pesky Article II that gives the president the power to pardon for offenses against the US?

[Bev54]

41. I would say the new DOJ would bring it to court

maybe along with the dems. It gives him the power to pardon but not for corrupt purposes which a lot of them will be and it does not allow him to be his own judge. It must be fought or you no longer have a democracy, if any president can do whatever he wants at will.

[StarfishSaver]

47. How do you prove corrupt purposes?

[Progressive Jones]

64. Letting filthy, murderous trash out of prison might do. nt

[StarfishSaver]

68. No, it won't

Letting someone out of prison isn't a purpose, corrupt or otherwise.

It's possible to let someone out of prison whom many people believe are "filthy murderous trash" for a reason unrelated to corruption.

It's very difficult, if not virtually impossible, to prove corrupt intent. Trump is claiming he pardoned these people because they were unfairly treated by the justice system - which is actually a widely accepted reason for a pardon. We all know he's full of it, but he also may really believe they were railroaded, since his paranoia and sense of entitlement probably make him believe he and his associates are victims. He probably also pardoned them to reward them for covering for him, but that's difficult to prove and would not be enough since he also has an acceptable reason, even if it is delusional.

But even if it could be proven conclusively that he had corrupt intent, that wouldn't make the pardon invalid since the Constitution doesn't limit pardons to those without corrupt intent. He can pardon a tone he likes for any reason he likes, even a corrupt one.

The remedy is to prosecute him for bribery, public corruption, or obstruction of justice. But we shouldn't blow up the pardon process, which is an important safety valve in our system and usually works very well, just because Trump pissed all over it as he has done with just about every other part of our government.

[Progressive Jones]

82. Well, how about putting time limits on pardons?

For instance, no more pardons on the way out the door. No pardons within a particular time frame before and after an election, regardless of the outcome of said election.

[StarfishSaver]

84. That, too, would require a Constitutional amendment

And it's not a good idea. Although these pardons are getting a huge amount of attention, most pardons aren't anything like these. And often presidents may want to wait until close to the end of their term to pardon people who may not be particularly popular among a majority of Americans but who deserve mercy and a correction of an injustice.

The bottom line is that the founding fathers gave presidents a virtually unlimited power to pardon for very good reasons. The fact that one president has abused that power in order to help a dozen or so people is not enough to upend the entire pardon process.

[EX500rider]

88. That's what pardons are for, letting people out of prison. nt

[treestar]

46. Exactly

That’s the problem

[Bev54]

55. If you have the goods on Trump and I believe they do

and they also have the goods on these assholes which helped Trump. This should be a Rico investigation and it all bundled together.

[Renew Deal]

2. Unconstitutional on what grounds?

[sarisataka]

15. I think on the grounds

Of 'we don't like it'

[Renew Deal]

16. Well, in that case, I agree.

[Flaleftist]

20. Good question, but the OP brings up a good point.

What if the crime was so egregious as the OP indicated, what is the recourse? What if Trump asked someone to assassinate someone and them gave them a pardon?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. That's why The Framers gave us impeachment.

It sucks but that’s it.

Murder and conspiracy can still be a state charge he can’t pardon.

[Solomon]

32. Right.

[malaise]

83. It's worse than that

Killa Kon promised all his goons pardons in advance - it's a very interesting OP

[lagomorph777]

42. On these grounds: per ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1:

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases) and that they cannot affect an impeachment process. Because Trump's dangling of pardons most definitely affected his impeachment, his cronies who lied to protect him are ineligible.

[StarfishSaver]

48. No.

This clause means that he cannot pardon someone from being impeached. It doesn't mean he cannot pardon someone connected to his impeachment.

[lagomorph777]

53. That is not only my assessment.

https://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/2/essays/89/pardon-power
"... The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases) and that they cannot affect an impeachment process..." These pardons clearly did affect an impeachment process.

https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html
"There are, however, things that a pardon cannot cover. The first and most obvious is impeachment, since it is specifically excepted in the Constitution. Civil liability cannot be excused — a harm against another can still be considered a harm even if there is no longer any criminal liability. Contempts of court cannot be pardoned, as they are offenses against the dignity of the court, and not necessarily offenses against the law."

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/07/25/the-pardon-power-and-original-intent/
"The possibility that the president might use the power to pardon as a means by which to protect those with whom he had conspired to do harm to the United States by “adhering to,” or giving “aid and comfort” to, its enemies, led to one of the most important, but least remembered, exchanges in debate over whether the Constitution drafted in Philadelphia should become the Constitution of the United States. The exchange demonstrated that not only are there serious limitations on the president’s power to pardon, but that a president’s threat to use that power may itself be grounds for impeachment.

On the afternoon of Wednesday, June 18, 1788, George Mason rose from his chair on the floor of the Virginia Ratifying Convention deeply troubled by what he thought of the convention’s failure to understand—the president of the United States might not always be someone of sound character and high intelligence. There would rarely, if ever, he reminded the delegates, be a commander in chief with the courage and rectitude displayed by George Washington during the War of Independence. There might even be a president who would try to change our form of government. The president, argued Mason,

“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.”
...

Madison understood immediately the force of Mason’s objection, but he had a response—a response in which he described limitations on presidential power that, to our great misfortune, have for too long been forgotten. Was there a danger in giving the president the power to pardon? “Yes,” replied Madison, but there was a remedy for the danger in the Constitution as drafted.

“There is one security in this case to which gentlemen may not have adverted: if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”"

[StarfishSaver]

57. None of the quotes in your post supports your claim or contradicts my point

It is a non-debatable fact that the only limitation on the presidential pardon is that it only applies to federal crimes and cannot be used to absolve a person from impeachment. The fact that a pardon might "affect the impeachment process" does not make it impermissible.

Moreover, even if your interpretation of the pardon clause were correct, these pardons have come more than a year after Trump was impeached and involved matters that none of the pardoned characters were involved in, so it's a stretch to argue that they affected the impeachment process.

[Rstrstx]

66. Sure, many forget he was not impeached for anything in the Mueller Report

It was solely over the Ukraine affair. Now maybe if he ends up trying to pardon a secretary who shredded documents or a tech person who erased something from a computer back in the summer of 2019 there would be a case to be made, but since the House of Representatives made a deliberate decision not to include any transgressions from the Mueller Report in its articles of impeachment it’s all irrelevant.

Impeachment is never going to be an effective check on the President’s pardoning power. Pardons are instant and irreversible while the impeachment process is slow, difficult, and utterly pointless at the end of a presidency, which is when the pardon is most often abused.

Probably the most comfort we can take from this is that Trump knows the jig is up, if he really thought he was still going to be President after Jan 20 (or ever again) he would not be handing these things out like candy.

[tinrobot]

91. Because pardoning in exchange for something of value is itself a crime.

It is a federal crime if someone “directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official” to “influence any official act.”

Pardons are most certainly "official acts". Trump seems to have gained something of value from that act.

So, if it can be proved that people withheld testimony or offered other things of value in exchange for the pardon, that itself would be a crime. You could prosecute that crime of bribery separately.

But this brings up a grey area. If exchanging valuable things for a pardon is a crime, what about the pardon itself? Would that be null and void? For example, would a murderer still be on the hook for murder if the pardon was obtained illegally? Or would the pardon stand and murderer only gets charged with bribery?

I think a pardon obtained illegally would also be illegal. But it is a very interesting question, and I think there's enough of an argument to get the Supreme Court involved.

[Marthe48]

3. Hope you're right

I'm appalled. I keep thinking it can't get any worse, but it does.

[unblock]

4. Who will challenge them? Anyway, they'd just say congress should have kicked him out

The constitutional remedy for a president who uses his power corruptly is removal via impeachment.

Congress knew this about Donnie and said ok sounds good (well the senate republicans did, anyway)

[coti]

8. That DOJ memo is wrong.

Presidents aren't and can't be above the law. The whole idea is absurd.

[unblock]

10. Will the pardon hold up and is the granting of the pardon a crime are separate questions

If there's an investigation and if they have enough evidence of a clear connection between the granting of the pardon and a personal gain -- something blatant like a wire transfer -- then that's a crime donnie could be liable for.

But even in such an extreme case, it's not clear that the pardon wouldn't hold up. And maybe that's fine, a president can make a corrupt pardon if he's willing to go to prison for it.

In practice though, I don't see any challenge or real effort to prosecute Donnie over pardons. Taxes, sure; but pardons, no.

[StarfishSaver]

49. This

[Septua]

28. History will judge the complicit...

..but the GOP fools who let it slide don't give two shits about their legacy; just the best case, present moment, political position.

[USALiberal]

5. LOL, ok! nt

[coti]

6. They're not unconstitutional, but he's not immune from prosecution

as a result of granting them, either.

[Solomon]

33. Exactly.

[lagomorph777]

45. Wrong. See Article II Section2, Clause 1:

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Trump's cronies who helped him get out of being removed, by lying or concealing the truth, affected the impeachment process, and they did so on Trump's implied promise of pardons. They are clearly ineligible.

Sadly, however, the murderers employed by Betsy DeVos' brother are entirely eligible to get away with murder. In the USA. They'd better think twice before stepping foot outside the country, though.

[NYC Liberal]

52. No. That means he cannot pardon an impeachment itself and undo a Senate conviction.

It does not mean "he can't pardon anyone involved with the actions he was impeached for."

[lagomorph777]

54. If I was Trump's lawyer, I might try that argument.

But that's not what the words say. The text is more open than that. That's not an accident.

[StarfishSaver]

61. No, the text is not more open than that

It is very clear and unambiguous, as any judge or lawyer trained in legal interpretation and method will likely tell you.

But even if your interpretation had merit, the pardons were granted more than a year after Trump was impeached and granted to people who were not involved in any way in the matters for which he was impeached, so this would apply to them anyway.

[PoliticAverse]

7. I heard you were dead. n/t

[cureautismnow]

11. What if Putin tells him to pardon every person in a U.S. federal jail now?

All 153K+. Or just the Anglo prisoners? Who's going to stop him from creating mass chaos just because he can?

[sop]

17. "Putin signs a bill granting lifetime immunity to former Russian presidents,"

"Legislation will give former leaders and their families protection from prosecution" (From The Guardian, 12/22/20). Trump must be jealous.

[exboyfil]

25. In Russia they have lots of ways of dealing with former leaders

I am not sure Putin's lifetime immunity means what he thinks it means.

[Under The Radar]

12. I think that the Supreme Court will rule that a constitutional amendment

...to create rules for pardons or abolish them completely, but as of now he can use them on anyone and they are unlimited.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. The pardons themselves are constitutional, but if they were done with a corrupt purpose,

for example, as part of some kind of a deal for a bribe or other favor (very likely, since that's how Trump operates), that might be prosecutable if proven, even if the pardon itself can't be reversed. And most of the pardonees are criminals to the core, and I would expect them to keep criming and eventually get busted for something else, as to which Trump will no longer be able to help tjem.

[StarfishSaver]

21. As usual, you are correct

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. Nope. They will stand, but Trump will be on the hook for his own crimes. Nt

[Mike Niendorff]

18. The conflict:

(1) The president has the power to grant pardons

(2) The president also has an explicit, enumerated duty to see that the laws be faithfully executed.

At some point, one of these has to give, or the other is rendered a nullity.

The only possible solution I can see here is that (1) is constrained by (2) -- which means that pardons MUST be subject to judicial review, at least to the degree necessary to prevent clear situations of corruption or criminal intent.

But that, of course, would be practically another Marbury v Madison. It would be correct and necessary, imho, but still would require the system to be pushed to the breaking point for it to actually happen.


MDN

[StarfishSaver]

23. The president has no constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

[Mike Niendorff]

36. Article II, Section 3:

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

-- US Constitution, Article II, Section 3


MDN

[StarfishSaver]

37. You're right. I stand corrected

[mopinko]

19. the stone, manafort and other cronies, yes. the rest, no.

you cant pardon conspirators in your own crimes. but that requires him being convicted of crimes.
possible. but not probable.

[StarfishSaver]

26. The Constitution gives the president virtually unlimited right to pardon without limitations

Other than prohibiting him from using the pardon to protect someone from impeachment, he can pardon whomever he chooses.

If it can be proven that issued the pardon in return for a bribe or some other favor, he can be prosecuted for a crime but that would not affect the pardon himself..

[marlakay]

30. This is exactly why you don't elect a corrupt person

We could all see who Trump was unfortunately he fooled a lot of people.

Both sides should agree on some type of amendment for experience to be a president. Just being an American and 37 isn't good enough.

Also agree on some rules, things that used to be done turned into law, like no family working with you, no businesses involved, etc.

[StarfishSaver]

34. Exactly

I hope this disaster we've experienced over the last four years each is the American public the importance of paying attention and being responsible citizens. No more electing reality show celebrities become thinking might be entertaining

[tinrobot]

92. If the pardon was part of an illegal transaction, the entire transaction would be illegal.

Bribing someone for a pardon is illegal. If that is proven, then the whole deal is illegal, including the pardon.

The pardon would have to be nullified.

[StarfishSaver]

93. No, it wouldn't

The president could be prosecuted separately for the crime of bribery or obstruction of justice, but the pardon itself would stand since the president has the power to pardon anyone for any reason.

[tinrobot]

94. I disagree, and I think you could easily argue the case.

The question would be - if a pardon was obtained illegally, does the pardon still stand?

Example: Someone commits murder, is sentenced for life, then bribes the president for a pardon.

Sure, that person could be charged with bribery, but that doesn't carry a life sentence. Can this person avoid that life sentence just because he/she could afford a bribe?

I don't think there is an answer to that yet. But I think it is a valid question, and worth arguing before the courts.

[KWR65]

29. We need to amend the constitution to require a 3/4 majorty in the Senate for a pardon.

[StarfishSaver]

31. Then it wouldn't be a pardon

The point of a pardon is to provide mercy and justice where the political process and criminal justice system failed. Leaving defendants at the mercy of a super majority of Congress would completely eliminate that. It doesn't always work right but, for the most part, it works as intended. We can't let Trump's abuses destroy our basic tenets.

[Solomon]

35. Yep. Pardon gotta be a pardon or its not a pardon. I think the only limitation on the pardon power

is a self pardon, for obvious reasons.

[Sgent]

56. I might be amenable

to a pardon being overturned by a 2/3 vote of the Senate. That said I don't see this getting the momentum for an amendment.

[tinrobot]

95. ...or that the President can't pardon for personal gain.

I'm not sure how you would word it, exactly.

Tricky topic, because it is a very grey area. How do you define "personal gain?"

[onenote]

38. They will not find them unconstitutional. And who do you think has standing to challenge them.

[Bayard]

40. This was covered on Rachel tonight

With Andrew Weisman, I think?

Pardons can't be issued for corrupt reasons. Such as for money, or in this case, for people keeping their mouths shut.

[StarfishSaver]

50. He didn't say that. He said it could be a crime to pardon for corrupt purposes.

He said that if the president does that and it could be proven (extraordinarily difficult if not impossible), he can be charged with a crime, but the pardon would likely stand.

[Vivienne235729]

43. I hope and pray it gets challenged in court. These corrupt actions need to be held accountable.

[fishwax]

44. I can't imagine any scenario in which this SCOTUS rules these pardons unconstitutional

[onenote]

78. I can't imagine any scenario in which any other SCOTUS rules them unconstitutional

[fishwax]

79. agreed

[herding cats]

51. I'm not convinced the Founding Fathers ever intended the pardons to release incarcerated killers.

The Blackwater pardons may have a basis for legal review.

[StarfishSaver]

58. No, they don't merit review.

The language is plain and unambiguous so no court will go past the four corners of the document to interpret whether the founders meant something they didn't say.

And the fact that the drafters included a specific exception to the pardon power - impeachment - makes plain that they intended the pardon power to be extremely broad and to include all types of crimes. Otherwise, since they were obviously willing to carve out an exception, they would have excluded other crimes along with impeachment. As a matter of Constitutional interpretation, the courts would not go beyond that since that would be the height of inappropriate judicial activism.

[herding cats]

59. That's disheartening to hear.

I can muddle past the other pardons, those are the only ones which truly stick in my craw, as they say.

[StarfishSaver]

60. I understand.

Those disgust me, as well. But he had the power to do it.

These pardons should be a stark reminder to voters that we have to take elections seriously and never ever again let someone as corrupt and evil as Trump anywhere near the White House again. Elections are not a game.

[onetexan]

62. The pardon power needs to go away, or in the least LIMITED. Constitution must be amended so this no

longer becomes a gross abuse of power.

To question the Con's corrupt pardons would also to be questioning the presidents' pardons as well, and that get us into other political and legal quagmire. The only solution to this huge loophole is to do the impossible: amend the Constitution.

[StarfishSaver]

67. The pardon power is actually one of the best things about our system

It provides a way to correct injustices and bestow mercy. For the most part, it has been used well and fairly. I'm not going to allow Trump to change my mind about it just because he abused the power, as he has abused every other power he was given.

The problem is that presidents have too much power or that the powers are too unfettered. The problem is that this country allowed someone like Trump to have access to those powers. Because i's impossible to scale back powers to make them abuse-proof, we must be more careful about whom we give power to. I hope we've learned an important lesson.

[bluestarone]

70. Agreeing 100%. The problem here, in my eyes, is that our forefathers in the constitution

wanted every president to have pardon power, BUT THE (Forefathers) thoughts were to ALSO stop this type of a problem by granting the CONGRESS the right to IMPEACH and REMOVE a president that would use pardon power THIS WAY! The RETHUGLICON SENATE are the ones that allowed our GREAT CONSTITUTION to fail! It's on THEM!

[StarfishSaver]

73. Yes, at this point it is on them

But the voters also bear responsibility - we (collectively - I know no one on this board did) voted him in and also voted those senators in.

[bluestarone]

75. Absolutely!

[herding cats]

63. When I was screaming at the top of my lungs about SCOTUS appointments in 2016...

I admit I never considered a global pandemic under Trump, or the horror of Trump pardoning the convicted Blackwater killers. Or, so much more we've been forced to endure.

If we haven't learned our lesson (which I'm most definitely not convinced we have) of the dangers of electing a corrupt, megalomaniac to our highest office after this, then we deserve all the scorn which has been directed our way internationally.

We're irredeemable if we let something like this happen again.

[stopdiggin]

65. A lot of posters are forgetting that clemency and pardon

can be used to good purpose as well as ill. (and many times is) The solution here probably lies in not electing criminal thugs to high office. That this man has soiled the office (and presidential powers) should not come as a surprise after watching this for 4 years -- and says fathoms more about the character than it does about the office.

(and if you want to start clipping wings on presidential powers -- certainly a worthwhile discussion at least -- presidential pardon is probably well down the list?)
---- --- -- ----

[StarfishSaver]

69. Thank you so much for this!

I've been trying to make this point, but you did it much more effectively.

Back in 2015 and 2016 when some of my friends were rooting for Trump to get the nomination because they thought he would be easy pickins' and would make the race entertaining (or, as one of my colleagues said, "He'll wake people up and make them pay attention.He's a straight up hoot!".), I was jumping up and down screaming that this isn't entertainment and warning them how dangerous it was to let someone like him anywhere near the possibility of having power because something could go wrong and he could actually win.

The damage he's doing to our processes and institutions isn't proof that those processes and institutions are deeply flawed and must be overhauled (tweaked, yes, but made over, no) but proof of the danger of putting the wrong people in charge of them. That's on us, not the system.

We have to stop blaming the system, which depends on human subjectivity to function, when the humans we put in charge of that system screw up. That's on us, not the system.

I feel the same way about term limits. I don't get our propensity to give away our own power to make choices because we are too lazy or uninformed to make good choices. The solution is not to give away our ability to choose. It's to wake up and make better choices.

Here, the solution is not to tear up the Constitution to drastically scale back presidential powers and take away the good with the bad. The solution is to be more careful and thoughtful about selecting the person in whom we trust that power.

[ProfessorGAC]

76. +1

Point well made!

[Tarc]

71. Some people need to re-take American Civics.

"...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[Snake Plissken]

80. And how does that impeachment thingy work?

when he has hitmen kill everyone in Congress then pardons the hitmen, and says anyone else who tries it will meet the same fate.

[StarfishSaver]

85. Impeachment didn't work Because voters decided to put senators in who wouldn't vote for it

That's just how democracy works. If we don't like that outcome, n the future, we need to muster up the votes to elect different senators, not destroy the Constitution because we don't like the senators that the majority of voters selected.

[Tarc]

87. Hmm,

let me think about that...

[LAS14]

77. We never did before and let's hope we never will again elect someone who would pardon mass murderers

[RichardRay]

81. Nope, on several counts.

The wording of the Constitution.
The need for ‘standing’.
The makeup of the court. (Originalist, unwilling to interpret in light of experience)

And that’s just off the top of my head.

[USALiberal]

86. No they will not! Nt

[Polybius]

89. Sorry, no, there's not a damn thing we can do about it

Pardon powers are unlimited, the SC can't do a thing. If W Bush would have pardoned even Timothy McVeigh, he would have been a free man too.

[edhopper]

90. He actual could do just that

Nothing in the Constitution to stop him. One would hope that other members of Government woulf have him removesd before hand.
But there is nothing in the Constitution from a President pardoning anybody.