• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump's Pardons

Non-lawyer here - and I am going off of memory for some of this, so most of the following will probably be just nonsensical babble - but here goes. If I am not mistaken, Mueller said that Trump certainly seemed to partake in obstruction of justice during his investigation. And that it was his belief that a sitting president could be indicted after he leaves office for crimes committing while in office. And then there is the alleged current investigation into "pay for pardons" - which I believe is not related to these pardons; however, it does seem to indicate that giving a pardon in exchange for some sort of gain is illegal. So can't it be argued that these recent pardons strengthen obstruction of justice charges against Trump? Perhaps there would need to be evidence of direct conversations of such? Though it seems like Mueller felt like there was already enough there for obstruction charges, so it just seems like this further strengthens a case.
 
you literally used the word "victim" in your post. It is sad how you expect others to take responsibility for their actions, but when it comes to rich white men taking advantage of others, they are victims and aren't responsible for their actions.

Right? Sailor is fucking stupid he used victim in his post lol. That is some funny shit
 
Non-lawyer here - and I am going off of memory for some of this, so most of the following will probably be just nonsensical babble - but here goes. If I am not mistaken, Mueller said that Trump certainly seemed to partake in obstruction of justice during his investigation. And that it was his belief that a sitting president could be indicted after he leaves office for crimes committing while in office. And then there is the alleged current investigation into "pay for pardons" - which I believe is not related to these pardons; however, it does seem to indicate that giving a pardon in exchange for some sort of gain is illegal. So can't it be argued that these recent pardons strengthen obstruction of justice charges against Trump? Perhaps there would need to be evidence of direct conversations of such? Though it seems like Mueller felt like there was already enough there for obstruction charges, so it just seems like this further strengthens a case.

Ummm, what are you talking about? He was completely exonerated!
 
Sailor can't be real right? We've all been conned. No one is this dumb. Best troll ever I guess. Well done.


I don’t think he’s dumb, but definitely trolling.

And seems lost to the conservative mediasphere. So an actual victim after all.
 
Trump’s just providing solid evidence for the umpteenth time of his despicable character.


Thx Pubs.
 
Trump’s just providing solid evidence for the umpteenth time of his despicable character.


Thx Pubs.

But according to his Evangelical supporters, God has often used despicable men to do the Lord's work. Who cares if he assaults women, lies constantly about everything, thinks only about himself and no one else, uses the Bible and Christianity as photo ops and privately ridicules his Evangelical supporters as gullible idiots and rubes, and is generally the opposite of Christ in almost every way? Look at all those great originalist judges we got who will support the values that Trump disdains and doesn't really believe in! And we can even say Merry Christmas in public again! The cognitive dissonance is really something to behold.
 
Non-lawyer here - and I am going off of memory for some of this, so most of the following will probably be just nonsensical babble - but here goes. If I am not mistaken, Mueller said that Trump certainly seemed to partake in obstruction of justice during his investigation. And that it was his belief that a sitting president could be indicted after he leaves office for crimes committing while in office. And then there is the alleged current investigation into "pay for pardons" - which I believe is not related to these pardons; however, it does seem to indicate that giving a pardon in exchange for some sort of gain is illegal. So can't it be argued that these recent pardons strengthen obstruction of justice charges against Trump? Perhaps there would need to be evidence of direct conversations of such? Though it seems like Mueller felt like there was already enough there for obstruction charges, so it just seems like this further strengthens a case.

Giving someone a pardon does not, in itself, obstruct justice, at least not in a legally cognizable way. In fact, the opposite is true—once pardoned, a person may no longer invoke the 5th in connection with crimes for which they were pardoned, because there is no longer any threat of prosecution for those crimes. Counterintuitively, then, a pardon can actually further discovery of the facts of the events that led to the issuance of the pardon, if anyone asks the questions.

(It is true that a pardon “obstructs justice” in the sense that the recipient, who may have committed a crime, will not be held to account for it, but that’s baked in to what a pardon is, so that, alone, could not constitute the crime of obstruction of justice.)

In any event, assuming a president can give himself a pardon, Trump could likely just pardon himself for any wrongful acts associated with giving a pardon to another, such as pay for play. It is possible that this type of offense is non-pardonable; I don’t know for sure either way.

I think all of this is mental masturbation, though, because Biden isn’t going to allow Trump to be prosecuted for any federal offenses. I just don’t think Biden is going to be the first president whose administration prosecutes his predecessor. That would set a bad precedent going forward, particularly for a crime like obstruction of justice.
 
What's the worse precedent to set? A totally corrupt presidential administration that has destroyed all norms and grifted this country while ruining relationships all over the world. An administration that has only focused on self serving money grab? No consequences for destroying the economy through lying and inaction before and during a pandemic while 320k+ and rising americans have died? That precedent? Maybe the subservience to putin and Russia while they run roughshod over America and the world?

Walk free donnie. Its all good.
 
Junebug, I think you purposefully sidestepped the point. Several co-conspirators could not be compelled to participate in investigations because they expected Trump would pardon them. He did pardon them.

Trump has already set the precedent you’re worried about by rallying the Republican Party around the threat of prosecuting the Clintons and President Obama. They would prosecute if there was anything to actually prosecute.

So your party is committing crimes and doesn’t want to be held accountable but wants to campaign on prosecuting the other party.
 
Last edited:
No consequences for destroying the economy through lying and inaction before and during a pandemic while 320k+ and rising americans have died? That precedent? Maybe the subservience to putin and Russia while they run roughshod over America and the world?

Yes, there are consequences for political failures. Trump was voted out of office.

If you think Trump should be prosecuted, take it up with the president-elect. He doesn’t want it to happen either.
 
Junebug, I think you purposeful sidestepped the point. Several co-conspirators could not be compelled to participate in investigations because they expected Trump would pardon them. He did pardon them.

Trump has already set the precedent you’re worried about by rallying the Republican Party around the threat of prosecuting the Clintons and President Obama. They would prosecute if there was anything to actually prosecute.

So your party is committing crimes and doesn’t want to be held accountable but wants to campaign on prosecuting the other party.

“Trump threatened it so we should do it” isn’t really a compelling argument. After January 20, the best place for this administration is in the rear-view mirror.
 
It wouldn't set a precedent going forward as long as administrations going forward don't actually wantonly bulldoze through the law like Trump did.
 
Which precedent is worse? Committing crimes or prosecuting crimes?
 
Giving someone a pardon does not, in itself, obstruct justice, at least not in a legally cognizable way. In fact, the opposite is true—once pardoned, a person may no longer invoke the 5th in connection with crimes for which they were pardoned, because there is no longer any threat of prosecution for those crimes. Counterintuitively, then, a pardon can actually further discovery of the facts of the events that led to the issuance of the pardon, if anyone asks the questions.

(It is true that a pardon “obstructs justice” in the sense that the recipient, who may have committed a crime, will not be held to account for it, but that’s baked in to what a pardon is, so that, alone, could not constitute the crime of obstruction of justice.)

In any event, assuming a president can give himself a pardon, Trump could likely just pardon himself for any wrongful acts associated with giving a pardon to another, such as pay for play. It is possible that this type of offense is non-pardonable; I don’t know for sure either way.

I think all of this is mental masturbation, though, because Biden isn’t going to allow Trump to be prosecuted for any federal offenses. I just don’t think Biden is going to be the first president whose administration prosecutes his predecessor. That would set a bad precedent going forward, particularly for a crime like obstruction of justice.

To some extent I agree with the last point about new presidents prosecuting their predecessors. However I do think that state prosecutions of a former president are a perfectly acceptable precedent and federal prosecutions of the president’s political appointees and politically active family and associates are fine. Like, Jared Kushner should go to jail for something.
 
It wouldn't set a precedent going forward as long as administrations going forward don't actually wantonly bulldoze through the law like Trump did.

Exactly. Not prosecuting Trump or those in his administration because it might set a "precedent" is a stupid argument. Not prosecuting them makes the Presidency above the law. The DOJ believes that a sitting President can't be indicted and then you would have them immune after they are out of office due to "precedent".
 
This presidency broke all norms and precedents because, you know, they were breaking the law. But Dems need to get back to norms and precedent to not investigate said crimes.
 
This presidency broke all norms and precedents because, you know, they were breaking the law. But Dems need to get back to norms and precedent to not investigate said crimes.

If our side doesn’t behave as we should, the 74 million people who don’t care and vote R anyway won’t know that they can run all over us.
 
Back
Top