The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Trump is abusing the Presidential pardon power

1356711

Posts

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    That presidents in the past have used the pardon power in a really awful way doesn’t not strike me as especially relevant to the current president using his pardon power in a really awful way. Outside of attempts to try and justify the awful use.

  • CogCog What'd you expect? Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    The Pardon is bad.

    If someone is unjustly imprisoned, then the law is wrong and must be changed and them freed through that. If they are not, then they should not simply be able to walk free.

    This power in the hands of an active, political figure is really quite abuseable, as seen in the cases above.

    Mercy is virtuous. The Pardon is good, and should remain because we are imperfect beings and need a system by which someone can be merciful even in the face of clear wrongdoing.



    Every power that can be used can be abused. The problem is not with the pardon, but with those whom we have entrusted with its use.

    Sure, but what we are seeing is that the last few Presidents, where they used it, often and frequently used it for political reasons, to protect themselves, their supporters and so on. That is surely not something you want? The President's half-brother can break the law and get away with it because he's related to the CiC? If the pardon remains, surely it cannot be in the form.

    The problem is that Congress in general refuses to act as a legitimate check on the President.

    The problem is the very expectation that Congress could act as a check on the President. It's a farce. They are part of the same fucking political party. They rise and fall together. They have most of the same goals.

    As pertains to what, exactly? "Retaining power"? There's an argument to be made for that. Actual policy views? No goddamn way. Supporting "their guy" no matter what? Arguable at best.

    Trump has mostly gone along with what the GOP in Congress wants.

    Wait shit, I think I misread shryke now. The president and congress have the same goals. I read him as "both parties in congress have the same goals", a 'both sides' argument.

    My bad. Carry on.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    The Pardon is bad.

    If someone is unjustly imprisoned, then the law is wrong and must be changed and them freed through that. If they are not, then they should not simply be able to walk free.

    This power in the hands of an active, political figure is really quite abuseable, as seen in the cases above.

    Mercy is virtuous. The Pardon is good, and should remain because we are imperfect beings and need a system by which someone can be merciful even in the face of clear wrongdoing.



    Every power that can be used can be abused. The problem is not with the pardon, but with those whom we have entrusted with its use.

    Sure, but what we are seeing is that the last few Presidents, where they used it, often and frequently used it for political reasons, to protect themselves, their supporters and so on. That is surely not something you want? The President's half-brother can break the law and get away with it because he's related to the CiC? If the pardon remains, surely it cannot be in the form.

    The problem is that Congress in general refuses to act as a legitimate check on the President.

    The problem is the very expectation that Congress could act as a check on the President. It's a farce. They are part of the same fucking political party. They rise and fall together. They have most of the same goals.

    As pertains to what, exactly? "Retaining power"? There's an argument to be made for that. Actual policy views? No goddamn way. Supporting "their guy" no matter what? Arguable at best.

    Trump has mostly gone along with what the GOP in Congress wants.

    Today feels like the day that makes this obviously not true. The majority of his elected folks do not want a fucking trade war with the EU.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    Cog wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    The Pardon is bad.

    If someone is unjustly imprisoned, then the law is wrong and must be changed and them freed through that. If they are not, then they should not simply be able to walk free.

    This power in the hands of an active, political figure is really quite abuseable, as seen in the cases above.

    Mercy is virtuous. The Pardon is good, and should remain because we are imperfect beings and need a system by which someone can be merciful even in the face of clear wrongdoing.



    Every power that can be used can be abused. The problem is not with the pardon, but with those whom we have entrusted with its use.

    Sure, but what we are seeing is that the last few Presidents, where they used it, often and frequently used it for political reasons, to protect themselves, their supporters and so on. That is surely not something you want? The President's half-brother can break the law and get away with it because he's related to the CiC? If the pardon remains, surely it cannot be in the form.

    The problem is that Congress in general refuses to act as a legitimate check on the President.

    The problem is the very expectation that Congress could act as a check on the President. It's a farce. They are part of the same fucking political party. They rise and fall together. They have most of the same goals.

    As pertains to what, exactly? "Retaining power"? There's an argument to be made for that. Actual policy views? No goddamn way. Supporting "their guy" no matter what? Arguable at best.

    Everything? He's appointing all their judges, he's signing their laws, he's pushing their regulatory agenda, he's doing almost everything they want him to. And anything he's doing they'd rather he didn't, the base that votes for both of them wants them to do so they will go along with it anyway. Absolutely this is about retaining and exercising power and they have almost all the same goals there. Exactly the same goals when it comes to staying in office.

    Opposing the President of your own party does no benefit you. The idea of Congress checking the Executive is a farce.

    shryke on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    It is at moments like these that I really feel the gravity of being powerless in the face of unchecked authority. What does it matter to me if blagojevich is pardoned, or Martha Stewart gets her record wiped? Well, sure, nothing directly. But it does make it clear that there are rules for me but not for thee, and I don’t know how we can fix this when all the beneficiaries of lopsided power are the ones who have to check themselves against abuse of it. It’s frustrating af.

    The fix for this is to look through the actual list of pardons and see the huge volume of justice and mercy granted to people by every President in the last 30 years and before. People who were convicted of scamming food stamps, of minor drug violations, of petty theft with egregious sentences. People who were convicted of crimes because they were black, because they were young, because they had the wrong politics, because they were simply foolish, because they were left holding the bag while the real criminals got away.

    The list of pardons is a giant catalog of goodness, with a few notable blots of obvious political payback.

    Sorry, but no, this isn't "both sides are the same", and Example A in this matter are those pardons issued in 1992. Until now, there has never been another example of the pardon power being abused to short-circuit an investigation like those, and I don't think it's coincidence that we see the behavior on one side of the aisle. At least Bush knew what he was doing was shameful and tried to hide it.

    yes yes "bothsidesism" accusations: the "you're a racist" of policy discussion. Sorry, but it's not an effective counter. McDougal's pardon demonstrates that.

    But it's irrelevant as an attack anyway because I fully grant that pardons are misused on occasion. Because y'all are bad at following the Twitter policy in this thread I have few details on the current nonsense (it's blocked at work) but it doesn't matter - I 100% believe that Trump has done something bad and wrong again. Still doesn't matter, because the point I am making is that the existence of the pardon power is a clear and obvious net good, even though it is abused on occasion.

    Let's just say that I severely disagree with your characterization of the McDougal pardon, given the behavior of Ken Starr. And even taking your position at face value, all the pardon abuses you listed pale in comparison to what happened in 1992, where a sitting Republican president abused the pardon power to kill a major investigation into a Republican administration secretly selling arms to a country we considered hostile in order to do an end run around a law prohibiting them from supporting right wing groups in Latin America. So no, the problem of the presidential pardon power being abused to kill investigations into abuses of the presidential office is not a bipartisan matter, and I find it telling that whenever abuses of the pardon are brought up, Bush's Christmas pardons tend to get left out.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • CogCog What'd you expect? Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    shryke wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    The Pardon is bad.

    If someone is unjustly imprisoned, then the law is wrong and must be changed and them freed through that. If they are not, then they should not simply be able to walk free.

    This power in the hands of an active, political figure is really quite abuseable, as seen in the cases above.

    Mercy is virtuous. The Pardon is good, and should remain because we are imperfect beings and need a system by which someone can be merciful even in the face of clear wrongdoing.



    Every power that can be used can be abused. The problem is not with the pardon, but with those whom we have entrusted with its use.

    Sure, but what we are seeing is that the last few Presidents, where they used it, often and frequently used it for political reasons, to protect themselves, their supporters and so on. That is surely not something you want? The President's half-brother can break the law and get away with it because he's related to the CiC? If the pardon remains, surely it cannot be in the form.

    The problem is that Congress in general refuses to act as a legitimate check on the President.

    The problem is the very expectation that Congress could act as a check on the President. It's a farce. They are part of the same fucking political party. They rise and fall together. They have most of the same goals.

    As pertains to what, exactly? "Retaining power"? There's an argument to be made for that. Actual policy views? No goddamn way. Supporting "their guy" no matter what? Arguable at best.

    Everything? He's appointing all their judges, he's signing their laws, he's doing almost everything they want him to. And anything he's doing they'd rather he didn't, the base that votes for both of them wants them to do so they will go along with it anyway.

    Opposing the President of your own party does no benefit you. The idea of Congress checking the Executive is a farce.

    See above, I completely misread your post.

    EDIT: I will say the "idea" of Congress checking the Executive is fine, but the reality breaks down completely - especially in the current configuration of one party in power - because Congress is not particularly beholden to their constituencies.

    Cog on
  • BronzeKoopaBronzeKoopa Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    Absolutely the wrong thread sorry.

    BronzeKoopa on
  • bowenbowen Sup? Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    That presidents in the past have used the pardon power in a really awful way doesn’t not strike me as especially relevant to the current president using his pardon power in a really awful way. Outside of attempts to try and justify the awful use.

    It's almost always an attempt to attack people because "so it's okay when your guy does it?"

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    The other question is, basically, what kind of 'check' can be put on the Power of the Pardon (which is itself intended to be a check against the Legislature and Judiciary) that doesn't ultimately rely on the discretion of the people empowered to wield it?

    Require everything go through the process of a pardon review board? Who appoints the board members, and what guarantees their independence? Approval of the Attorney General? The President can lean on him too. The only thing that would maybe work is Congressional oversight, but now it's just back to party political and depends on who runs the Chambers. Which would make a lot of politically challenging pardons, like drug sentence commutations, basically impossible.

    moniker on
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    moniker wrote: »
    The other question is, basically, what kind of 'check' can be put on the Power of the Pardon (which is itself intended to be a check against the Legislature and Judiciary) that doesn't ultimately rely on the discretion of the people empowered to world it?

    Require everything go through the process of a pardon review board? Who appoints the board members, and what guarantees their independence? Approval of the Attorney General? The President can lean on him too. The only thing that would maybe work is Congressional oversight, but now it's just back to party political and depends on who runs the Chambers. Which would make a lot of politically challenging pardons, like drug sentence commutations, basically impossible.

    It's better to have it all centralized with the President. At least it's more visible and the blame lands in one specific place.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    The Pardon is bad.

    If someone is unjustly imprisoned, then the law is wrong and must be changed and them freed through that. If they are not, then they should not simply be able to walk free.

    This power in the hands of an active, political figure is really quite abuseable, as seen in the cases above.

    Mercy is virtuous. The Pardon is good, and should remain because we are imperfect beings and need a system by which someone can be merciful even in the face of clear wrongdoing.



    Every power that can be used can be abused. The problem is not with the pardon, but with those whom we have entrusted with its use.

    Sure, but what we are seeing is that the last few Presidents, where they used it, often and frequently used it for political reasons, to protect themselves, their supporters and so on. That is surely not something you want? The President's half-brother can break the law and get away with it because he's related to the CiC? If the pardon remains, surely it cannot be in the form.

    The problem is that Congress in general refuses to act as a legitimate check on the President.

    The problem is the very expectation that Congress could act as a check on the President. It's a farce. They are part of the same fucking political party. They rise and fall together. They have most of the same goals.

    As pertains to what, exactly? "Retaining power"? There's an argument to be made for that. Actual policy views? No goddamn way. Supporting "their guy" no matter what? Arguable at best.

    Trump has mostly gone along with what the GOP in Congress wants.

    Today feels like the day that makes this obviously not true. The majority of his elected folks do not want a fucking trade war with the EU.

    Their base does though and those elected folk want to keep getting elected. And that's all that counts.

    Congress can't be a check on the executive because when they are both the same party they want to, you know, win elections.

  • CogCog What'd you expect? Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The other question is, basically, what kind of 'check' can be put on the Power of the Pardon (which is itself intended to be a check against the Legislature and Judiciary) that doesn't ultimately rely on the discretion of the people empowered to world it?

    Require everything go through the process of a pardon review board? Who appoints the board members, and what guarantees their independence? Approval of the Attorney General? The President can lean on him too. The only thing that would maybe work is Congressional oversight, but now it's just back to party political and depends on who runs the Chambers. Which would make a lot of politically challenging pardons, like drug sentence commutations, basically impossible.

    It's better to have it all centralized with the President. At least it's more visible and the blame lands in one specific place.

    And again, have congress be the check on that power. Which unfortunately requires them to do their fucking jobs instead of protect their fucking party, which is why it's not working.

  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Why do it now?

    Also does he not know what Blagojevich did?

    He knows, but thinks that it's business as usual:


    President Trump on Rod Blagojich per pool: “18 yrs in jail for being stupid & saying things that every other politician, you know that many other politicians say...What he did does not justify 18 yrs in a jail. And he’s a Democrat. ... But I thought that he was treated unfairly.”

    Yamiche Alcindor is a reporter for PBS.

    That's the explanation - in his mind, blatant corruption is how our government works.

    What is this 18 years nonsense? He's been in prison 6 years of a maximum 14 year sentence.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • A Kobold's KoboldA Kobold's Kobold He/Him MississippiRegistered User regular
    I have nothing to say other than that this is, at least personally, incredibly demoralizing

    Switch Friend Code: SW-3011-6091-2364
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The other question is, basically, what kind of 'check' can be put on the Power of the Pardon (which is itself intended to be a check against the Legislature and Judiciary) that doesn't ultimately rely on the discretion of the people empowered to world it?

    Require everything go through the process of a pardon review board? Who appoints the board members, and what guarantees their independence? Approval of the Attorney General? The President can lean on him too. The only thing that would maybe work is Congressional oversight, but now it's just back to party political and depends on who runs the Chambers. Which would make a lot of politically challenging pardons, like drug sentence commutations, basically impossible.

    It's better to have it all centralized with the President. At least it's more visible and the blame lands in one specific place.

    What blame? Like, to what extent that is at all meaningful? You and AH together produced a list of potentially questionable pardons. Who suffered for it? Who cared except to use it as a stick to beat the other side with after the fact? Shit, how many of these are handed out at the last minute before the President loses power?

    Blame is irrelevant because it goes nowhere and does nothing here.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Cog wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The other question is, basically, what kind of 'check' can be put on the Power of the Pardon (which is itself intended to be a check against the Legislature and Judiciary) that doesn't ultimately rely on the discretion of the people empowered to world it?

    Require everything go through the process of a pardon review board? Who appoints the board members, and what guarantees their independence? Approval of the Attorney General? The President can lean on him too. The only thing that would maybe work is Congressional oversight, but now it's just back to party political and depends on who runs the Chambers. Which would make a lot of politically challenging pardons, like drug sentence commutations, basically impossible.

    It's better to have it all centralized with the President. At least it's more visible and the blame lands in one specific place.

    And again, have congress be the check on that power. Which unfortunately requires them to do their fucking jobs instead of protect their fucking party, which is why it's not working.

    So do you think Chelsea Manning's commutation would have passed your hypothetical check?

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Why do it now?

    Also does he not know what Blagojevich did?

    He knows, but thinks that it's business as usual:


    President Trump on Rod Blagojich per pool: “18 yrs in jail for being stupid & saying things that every other politician, you know that many other politicians say...What he did does not justify 18 yrs in a jail. And he’s a Democrat. ... But I thought that he was treated unfairly.”

    Yamiche Alcindor is a reporter for PBS.

    That's the explanation - in his mind, blatant corruption is how our government works.

    What is this 18 years nonsense? He's been in prison 6 years of a maximum 14 year sentence.

    Fox must have said 18 years. I didn't see it, but I know it's so.

  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    In Illinois, we have a history of sending our governors off to jail when we find out how stupid they are in office.

    Blago deserves what he got. Many would say he deserves more/harsher, but I can't truck with that.

    He should serve out his sentence. And apparently others agree, because I vaguely remember his early parole and other such hearings being denied.

    Ugh. Just.. ugggh. It is hard for me to see past my incandescent rage at anything dealing with Blago.

    He/Him | "We who believe in freedom cannot rest." - Dr. Johnetta Cole, 7/22/2024
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    spool32 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The other question is, basically, what kind of 'check' can be put on the Power of the Pardon (which is itself intended to be a check against the Legislature and Judiciary) that doesn't ultimately rely on the discretion of the people empowered to world it?

    Require everything go through the process of a pardon review board? Who appoints the board members, and what guarantees their independence? Approval of the Attorney General? The President can lean on him too. The only thing that would maybe work is Congressional oversight, but now it's just back to party political and depends on who runs the Chambers. Which would make a lot of politically challenging pardons, like drug sentence commutations, basically impossible.

    It's better to have it all centralized with the President. At least it's more visible and the blame lands in one specific place.

    I don't disagree, but the "blame" for an unpopular pardon doesn't have a corresponding mechanism for redress that fits the offense. The only remedy is removal from office via congress or ballot box. That's a bit much for anything short of pardoning serial killers in their prime, or trying to prevent something that would get yoi impeached anyway.

    If a 2/3 majority in both houses wishes to stick their neck out to overturn a pardon rather than impeach, I don't see much harm there.

    My real concern with the pardon is Ford preempting the transparency of the trial process. One cannot appropriately determine the "blame" to lay at their feet unless the deeds are known.

    A clarifying amendment preventing that seems like a very modest revision.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    January 2019 is the 50th anniversary of Richard Nixon taking office and ever since every Republican administration has been involved in either committing serious crimes or covering the crimes of their immediate predecessors (using a lot of the same cast) up.

    They've been punished by being awarded the office for 8 of the 13 presidential terms in that window.

    All of these scandals have been swept away with the stroke of a pardoning pen. Maybe we need a better set of rules governing pardons.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    like pretty much everything wrong with our government, fixing the pardon would require a party on the left which is willing and able to commit to a fifty-year project of restructuring American society

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    I'm fully aware of past Presidential pardons used to help political allies or cover a President's ass

    What Trump is doing is an actual abuse of the power and it's not normal or part of the "tradition"

    Comparing to past pardons only reveals how outside of traditional norms Trump is, which is no surprise given his absolute disregard of how our government works even at the most basic level

  • CogCog What'd you expect? Registered User regular
    Cog wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The other question is, basically, what kind of 'check' can be put on the Power of the Pardon (which is itself intended to be a check against the Legislature and Judiciary) that doesn't ultimately rely on the discretion of the people empowered to world it?

    Require everything go through the process of a pardon review board? Who appoints the board members, and what guarantees their independence? Approval of the Attorney General? The President can lean on him too. The only thing that would maybe work is Congressional oversight, but now it's just back to party political and depends on who runs the Chambers. Which would make a lot of politically challenging pardons, like drug sentence commutations, basically impossible.

    It's better to have it all centralized with the President. At least it's more visible and the blame lands in one specific place.

    And again, have congress be the check on that power. Which unfortunately requires them to do their fucking jobs instead of protect their fucking party, which is why it's not working.

    So do you think Chelsea Manning's commutation would have passed your hypothetical check?

    I'm not sure how to answer this question. I'm not 100% sure I understand it. Do you mean, in a "perfect" world, would Obama have been checked by Congress in some fashion over the Manning commutation?

  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Central OhioRegistered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    January 2019 is the 50th anniversary of Richard Nixon taking office and ever since every Republican administration has been involved in either committing serious crimes or covering the crimes of their immediate predecessors (using a lot of the same cast) up.

    They've been punished by being awarded the office for 8 of the 13 presidential terms in that window.

    All of these scandals have been swept away with the stroke of a pardoning pen. Maybe we need a better set of rules governing pardons.

    They’ve only won the popular vote 4 of the 11 terms since Nixon resigned. More than Pardons need to be fixed.

    l7ygmd1dd4p1.jpeg
    3b2y43dozpk3.jpeg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    This is pretty high up on the ol' so corrupt and dumb its actually pretty hilarious.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • R-demR-dem Registered User regular
    I honestly really don't care about the past shitty Presidential pardons, R or D. I hated them then, I protested them then, now they are in the past and in no way whatsoever excuse Trump's current batch of shitty Presidential pardons. He has yet to give a good excuse as to why any of these individuals deserve one other than creating more fog and hooking up people. And I swear to the Tapatio hot sauce guy that the next time I hear a "but Clinton!" or "but Obama!" I'm gonna flip tables.

  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User, Moderator mod
    I have nothing to say other than that this is, at least personally, incredibly demoralizing

    Probably at least partly by design.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    I have nothing to say other than that this is, at least personally, incredibly demoralizing

    Probably at least partly by design.

    It doesn't have to be! Trump publicly siding with a man as cartoonishly racist as this guy can be something to laugh about and is politically useful.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    This was an alignment of three of the worst humans in America, because Ted Cruz was apparently fighting for this pretty hard.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • IlpalaIlpala Just this guy, y'know TexasRegistered User regular
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    I have nothing to say other than that this is, at least personally, incredibly demoralizing

    Probably at least partly by design.

    It doesn't have to be! Trump publicly siding with a man as cartoonishly racist as this guy can be something to laugh about and is politically useful.

    I mean fuck, how long ago was Arpaio? Hardly any different.

    FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
    Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
    Fuck Joe Manchin
  • furlionfurlion Riskbreaker Lea MondeRegistered User regular
    edited May 2018
    As someone who is a felon, and took a plea deal rather then risk going to jail, and is innocent, the pardon is pretty much the only way I can get my life back. Trump is obviously abusing it, and he should be held accountable, but congress will let him slide because his base will let him slide. Maybe I have too much skin in the game but historically the benefits of the pardon have outweighed the abuses.

    furlion on
    sig.gif Gamertag: KL Retribution
    PSN:Furlion
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Central OhioRegistered User regular
    This was an alignment of three of the worst humans in America, because Ted Cruz was apparently fighting for this pretty hard.

    Was Cruz the beneficiary of D’Souza’s illegal donations?

    l7ygmd1dd4p1.jpeg
    3b2y43dozpk3.jpeg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    furlion wrote: »
    As someone who is a felon, and took a plea deal rather then risk going to jail, and is innocent, the pardon is pretty much the only way I can get my life back. Trump is obviously abusing it, and he should be held accountable, but congress will let him slide because his base will let him slide. Maybe I have too much skin in the game but historically the benefits of the pardon have outweighed the abuses.

    Can you not get your record expunged or whatever the equivalent is? A pardon shouldn't be the only way.

    shryke on
  • furlionfurlion Riskbreaker Lea MondeRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    As someone who is a felon, and took a plea deal rather then risk going to jail, and is innocent, the pardon is pretty much the only way I can get my life back. Trump is obviously abusing it, and he should be held accountable, but congress will let him slide because his base will let him slide. Maybe I have too much skin in the game but historically the benefits of the pardon have outweighed the abuses.

    Can you not get your record expunged or whatever the equivalent is? A pardon shouldn't be the only way.

    Can't expunge felonies. It is literally the only way.

    sig.gif Gamertag: KL Retribution
    PSN:Furlion
  • Blackhawk1313Blackhawk1313 Demon Hunter for Hire Time RiftRegistered User regular
    I thought that a pardon doesn’t do anything to remove guilt or that a felony was committed, only the punishment involved... or am I just confused?

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I thought that a pardon doesn’t do anything to remove guilt or that a felony was committed, only the punishment involved... or am I just confused?

    That's commutation. That's what Obama did for Manning. It says "you are still guilty as fuck, but you don't have to be punished for it anymore". Which was basically the proper thing for Manning (ie - did the crime, deserves to be guilty but ffs let's stop torturing her)

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    I thought that a pardon doesn’t do anything to remove guilt or that a felony was committed, only the punishment involved... or am I just confused?

    A commutation reduces the sentence, a full pardon does this and removes any civil penalties / roadblocks that exist for felons.

    (It does not refund fines)

  • furlionfurlion Riskbreaker Lea MondeRegistered User regular
    I thought that a pardon doesn’t do anything to remove guilt or that a felony was committed, only the punishment involved... or am I just confused?

    A commutation reduces the sentence, a full pardon does this and removes any civil penalties / roadblocks that exist for felons.

    (It does not refund fines)

    No one will hire a felon. I mean literally almost no one. There is a list online of maybe 20 or 30 companies in the entire US. Being a felon means you are making minimum wage for the rest of your life, unless you open your own business. But no one will do business with a felon. So what do you do?

    sig.gif Gamertag: KL Retribution
    PSN:Furlion
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    furlion wrote: »
    I thought that a pardon doesn’t do anything to remove guilt or that a felony was committed, only the punishment involved... or am I just confused?

    A commutation reduces the sentence, a full pardon does this and removes any civil penalties / roadblocks that exist for felons.

    (It does not refund fines)

    No one will hire a felon. I mean literally almost no one. There is a list online of maybe 20 or 30 companies in the entire US. Being a felon means you are making minimum wage for the rest of your life, unless you open your own business. But no one will do business with a felon. So what do you do?
    You make it illegal to ask the question. Something that essential should not rely on a purely optional political process that can be abused.

  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    Oh huh, Comey prosecuted Martha Stewart

    I guess that helps motivate that potential pardon

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
Sign In or Register to comment.