Presidential pardons are one of those incredibly stupid things that show in the end America just wants a king.
They do arguably have a point to existence I think, in that it is virtually impossible to create a completely ideal set of laws, and so there are always going to be cases where a person is technically guilty of breaking a law but hasn’t done anything that punishment is appropriate for, or who is probably falsely convicted but has failed to prove it and run out of appeals and resources. They have a serious potential for misuse, but literally any power does, electing the kind of person that would misuse them will always cause problems of some kind.
Then pardons should at minimum be the purview of the Senate or House, instead of a single person.
I think the rationale is that, when it’s a single individual, they can’t pass the buck or blame the group. It’s a final appeal at a human level.
The trick is not electing a troll.
That’s how it effectively works in most of the Western world. The head of state usually issue pardons but on advise of the government (especially in countries where the head of state is not the head of government) or an independent comission.
In the end chaos always remains in power.
I realize this is probably a silly question, but can he even do that? The power of pardon only extends to federal crimes. The state of Michigan could still press charges and there is fuck all Dumb Dumb can do about it. Unless I miss something here.
(This is ignoring whatever his cronies at state level can do to obfuscate the situation of course)
You are correct. Typically you don’t see crimes charged at both the state and federal level, but they’re not exclusive.
can he even do that?
I don’t see anyone with the guts to stop him.
It depends on how the state charges against them were dropped. Basically, the state can say why they’re dropping charges. In many cases, the state won’t bother charging them if the feds have a good case. In these cases, they often drop the charges without prejudice, which is basically the state going “we’re dropping these charges because the higher courts have you, but we can open the case again if the feds bungle it.”
In contrast, they can also choose to drop the charges with prejudice. This is usually what happens when the state doesn’t believe they have enough evidence to bring to trial. Basically, it’s the state going “eh, we won’t bother with this again in the future.” So if the charges were dropped without prejudice, then they could potentially be opened again.
I’d actually be curious to see if the pardon can be used against them, because US v. Burdick ruled that accepting the pardon also requires admitting that you are guilty of the crime you’re being pardoned for. The dude wanted to selectively refuse the first “I admit I’m guilty of this crime” part of the pardon, but accept the second “and accept the presidential pardon” part. The court ruled that the person being pardoned can’t accept the pardon without also admitting guilt. Lorrance v. Commandant USDB ruled that a presidential pardon doesn’t override habeas corpus, meaning the people would still have a right to a trial… Basically, the government wanted to take a dude’s presidential pardon, and use it to say “well he already admitted guilt, so we can just jump straight to sentencing. No need for a trial.” That got shot down. But it’s unclear whether or not that admission of guilt can be used against them during said trial.
I bet she feels great about being his buddy last time he was in town.
He laying the groundwork to be president again. He’s showing that people that try to overthrow the govt again has his support.
Stochastic terror at its finest… Think about what the underlying message of this is.
Weren’t 12 out of the 14 people plotting this working for the FBI? Like…a dozen agents were entrapping 2 guys?
