Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Just like I predicted, the Oath Keepers trial would show evidence of a conspiracy between [View all]LaMouffette
(2,017 posts)10. What also needs to be happening now is proposing a Constitutional Amendment to limit pardons.
Would it pass? Nope. But it would be another way to showcase ahead of the midterms how corrupt the GOP is.
Democratic candidates could run ads showing Traitor Trump promising to pardon the Jan. 6 rioters (and have a montage of all the corrupt pardons he made, such as Bannon, Stone, and Flynn) and how the Democratic candidates' Republican opponents voted against limiting the power to pardon and thereby allowing Traitor Trump and future corrupt presidents to keep abusing the pardon power.
Also, the Brennan Center for Justice has an article on things Congress could do legislatively to limit the pardon. Excerpt:
Short of amending the Constitution, Congress could limit the pardon power legislatively. One bill, the Protecting Our Democracy Act, would require the Justice Department and the president to provide Congress materials pertaining to a pardoned individuals prosecution and pardon. The bill would also make it clear that pardons could not be doled out in exchange for bribes. Another provision would outlaw self-pardons.
There is strong reason to believe this legislation would withstand constitutional challenges. With respect to the bribery provisions, it is widely accepted that Congress may impose criminal penalties on a presidential pardon issued to bribe a recipient. Moreover, DOJ has issued two opinions consistent with this understanding. The more recent one, from 1995, concluded that applying the federal bribery statute to the president raises no separation of powers question, let alone a serious one.
There is strong reason to believe this legislation would withstand constitutional challenges. With respect to the bribery provisions, it is widely accepted that Congress may impose criminal penalties on a presidential pardon issued to bribe a recipient. Moreover, DOJ has issued two opinions consistent with this understanding. The more recent one, from 1995, concluded that applying the federal bribery statute to the president raises no separation of powers question, let alone a serious one.
[link:https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-prevent-abuse-presidents-pardon-power|
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
39 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Just like I predicted, the Oath Keepers trial would show evidence of a conspiracy between [View all]
fightforfreedom
Oct 2022
OP
I know that Trump only wants to delay everything, and that is what he is doing.
gab13by13
Oct 2022
#16
Agreed. And Nicole is doing a good job of covering what all other networks don't.
Evolve Dammit
Oct 2022
#38
What also needs to be happening now is proposing a Constitutional Amendment to limit pardons.
LaMouffette
Oct 2022
#10
I had to cringe just pulling up behind a minivan with Booth Kreepers sticker yesterday
lambchopp59
Oct 2022
#22
There are Orange allies in the DOJ. Garland inherited a "snake pit." Time will tell, but the fact
Evolve Dammit
Oct 2022
#39
Not just scare. The DOJ's evidence on them will get them charged with aiding and abetting,
ancianita
Oct 2022
#34