US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Meds]

Trumpy Poo didn’t put his hand on the Bible when sworn in. Jesus fucking Christ fuck this is bad!

Yeah, he refused to place his hand on the bible because it doesn't mention dinosaurs.

And because he knows that Christ said not to do that.

[Strangelove]

^ yeah, that too!


https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/page/3/

Five pages of Executive Orders signed by Trump already.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... d-actions/

Countless Biden EOs erased.

WOW, he was nothing like this in his first term.

Talk about "back with a vengeance"!

[Cornuck]

"Trump pardons over 1500 Jan. 6 defendants on inauguration day"

So you're ok with people beating on cops now? Good to know you're still an anarchist.

[Strangelove]

How many of those 1500 were beating on cops?

[Topper]

How many of those 1500 are related to the Biden's

[Meds]

"Trump pardons over 1500 Jan. 6 defendants on inauguration day"

So you're ok with people beating on cops now? Good to know you're still an anarchist.

But no comment on the pardons given by Biden?

[UWSaint]

"Trump pardons over 1500 Jan. 6 defendants on inauguration day"

So you're ok with people beating on cops now? Good to know you're still an anarchist.

In my view, the pardons are overbroad and Trump should have taken a more surgical approach with the cases involving violence. Some of these had their sentences commuted (conviction remains), but this group is underinclusive and based on the individual case, it may have made sense to wait longer on the commutations.

But the sweep of the criminal investigations and convictions was extraordinary, with hundreds convicted who seem to have done nothing but enter the capitol, many of those thinking they could enter the capitol. The prosecutions appear to have been manifestly unjust, with the government in possession of exculpatory evidence that was never provided to the defense. Plus, many were charged and convicted under a statute aimed at records alteration/destruction in an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding -- but DOJ enforced it without the "record" bit because the statute provided "or otherwise attempt to obstruct an official proceeding." The Supreme Court held "otherwise" must be read in context of the subsection and surrounding statutes -- correctly, in my view -- but the point is that many of these convictions relied on an interpretation of an offense that was broad and ultimately determined to be wrong.

In a world in which the prosecutions were more surgical, aimed only at those committing or plotting to commit violence and physical obstruction of the chamber, I doubt very much that we'd see blanket pardons of this nature. And I understand and appreciate the view that the process for separating the wheat from the chaff might take months, and require the reluctant cooperation of the Inspector Jauverts who put these cats in prison. We know how this works; we know how feet draggers and half truths can delay and delay and delay. I suspect part of the reason for the breadth of the pardon was to avoid that -- that precision wasn't worth the trade off of having a thousand + serve months more time or have the convicted criminal stain.

Understand this -- I've experienced protestors occupying my state's capitol for a month. At its peak, there were 10,000 protestors. The protestors were *camping* in the building; and the regular work of the state legislature was ground to a near halt. The purpose of the protest was not only to protest the actions of the legislature and the governor, but to keep them from being able to perform their work.

At first, the police response was simply to try to maintain safety in the building and respond to violence and investigate death threats. Eventually, they attempted to enforce orders to vacate once the numbers had died down a bit, and many were cited after refusing orders to vacate and challenged their forfeitures on First Amendment grounds (and largely won). Those committing violence were arrested and many convicted for those offenses. But were there sweeping arrests of everyone? No. Was there a hunt to get the protestors afterwards? No. Should they have all been locked up? What do you think, Cornuck?

Did people really believe that January 6, 2021 was an insurrection? That the fall of the US Republic was close at hand due to a mass of almost entirely unarmed people protesting? A protest that resulted in what? A couple hour delay in the certification of an election? Power transferred peacefully on the day it was supposed to. Trump administration officials and Congress did their duty.

Far more a threat to the republic is the weaponization of the Justice Department and other federal law enforcement agencies. The broad sweep of convictions. The silly prosecutions of a former President (and his men) -- the only of these that made an ounce of sense was the records case, but even that one was extraordinary. The agents showing up at journalists' house to inquire about "taxes" the same day the (mostly left wing, but old school) journalist testified about the Twitter Files. All of Russia Gate (that one started by Obama and Biden, but continued by bureaucrats with their own agendas and without the oversight of an AG who pusillanimously recused himself). The list could go on and on and on.

So I think these pardons are overbroad. But pardoning many was absolutely appropriate. There's a reason for the pardon power. It is not to protect one's family, but it is as a backstop to overzealous prosecutions or as a tool to promote moving forward.

[Cornuck]

So I think these pardons are overbroad. But pardoning many was absolutely appropriate. There's a reason for the pardon power. It is not to protect one's family, but it is as a backstop to overzealous prosecutions or as a tool to promote moving forward.

Good post mostly, I'll disagree on the goal of the J6 protesters.

Your last line could likely be turned into a long book on the legalities of pardons. When an incoming president is threatening prosecution of former government officials, things are not 'normal'. Whether it's just more of his bullshit and playing to his base, I think Biden had to consider the possibility that his family and others like Liz Cheney were legitimate targets. I'm not enough of a legal scholar to comment whether these are justified, legal, or just paper, but if it were my family, I might do the same.

It's going to be an interesting 4 years, and by the time this is over your country may be drastically changed.

[UWSaint]

So I think these pardons are overbroad. But pardoning many was absolutely appropriate. There's a reason for the pardon power. It is not to protect one's family, but it is as a backstop to overzealous prosecutions or as a tool to promote moving forward.

Good post mostly, I'll disagree on the goal of the J6 protesters.

Your last line could likely be turned into a long book on the legalities of pardons. When an incoming president is threatening prosecution of former government officials, things are not 'normal'. Whether it's just more of his bullshit and playing to his base, I think Biden had to consider the possibility that his family and others like Liz Cheney were legitimate targets. I'm not enough of a legal scholar to comment whether these are justified, legal, or just paper, but if it were my family, I might do the same.

It's going to be an interesting 4 years, and by the time this is over your country may be drastically changed.

In the US, the President's pardon power is absolute and not subject to review. This is as it was with the King's pardon power, and was largely seen as an exercise of mercy. There is a significant debate whether a proper "pardon" includes preemptive pardons of the type Ford gave Nixon (and are of the type Biden's given his family and others)--some contend, and as far as I can tell, contend with some historical support, that the power to pardon doesn't exist until there is a conviction. Before a conviction, the executive's forbearance is exercised by prosecutorial discretion -- and yes, the President could instruct the AG to not prosecute a class of offense (though that would be politically controversial, as it should be, it is not outside the president's authority to issue that directive and then can the AG if the AG doesn't follow it). Preemptive pardons are thus a way for the dead hand of the past to control the present enforcement of laws.

I think that question -- what is a pardon and what is not a pardon; in other words, was a pardon was exercised at all -- would be reviewable by a court (as opposed to whether the pardon was exercised for the right reasons -- that's not reviewable under a traditional concept of the pardon). But structurally, its hard to imagine this arising. Presidents probably prefer to have vast pardon power rather than undo some of the pardons -- challenging a pardon done by a predecessor, if successful, would limit a President's own power. Plus, there probably is some legal opinion by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel that justifies the preemptive pardon -- that's what they do -- they are great lawyers, but their client is the executive branch and their opinions generally provide legal justifications for executive action (remember the torture memos?).

So when I said pardons aren't properly exercised to protect one's family, I wasn't making a legal claim. I was thinking more of the public policy reasons that societies like the US give the executive the pardon power.

As for Trump threatening to use the legal system to get at his enemies, talk about projection/deflection!!! I see talking heads make this claim all of the time, blissfully unaware that the only people who have really weaponized the DOJ for political purposes in recent times is Biden (and a little bit Obama). Trump was president for four years, and while he said "lock her up" about Hilary, he didn't lock her up or bring a case that would have had at least as much merit as the classified documents case. The message from the Trump campaign this election was to stop the abuse -- and I understand those who question whether that's sincere and I knew there are certainly elements of the Trump movement that would prefer to see the power of the state turned against political enemies -- but he wasn't campaigning on vengence. Nominees like Patel have been on the stop the politicization narrative for years. Some people might take principled positions because their ox is being gored; some take it out of principle.

So Biden may certainly have been concerned about weaponization of the justice department aimed at his allies (as he aimed it at Trump's allies) -- but if he was, it was because it was calculus based on the precautionary principle or because he can't imagine that anyone would use the power differently than he did. Fact is, executives throughout history have used the state's power to punish political enemies/preserve their own power, and its been the norm rather than the exception. But in the US, the exception was the norm until Biden and democrat state AG's broke the norm. At least in recent history (I think the prosecution of socialist Eugene Debs in the teens and twenties was probably a way to silence a political adversary).

Biden pardoned his family because there is a lot of smoke there and because he wishes to protect them for the reasons we wish to protect our families (but lack that tool....) I get it -- it isn't the first time a political leader used the state for personal gain.

[Cornuck]

So tell me, UW- how long have you been a lawyer?

Going back to Ford's pardon of Nixon, even back then I knew it was a bad idea to let Nixon skate. As for the Biden family pardons, I don't agree with them, and agree they're in a very grey area, but I understand his reasons.

[UWSaint]

So tell me, UW- how long have you been a lawyer?

Going back to Ford's pardon of Nixon, even back then I knew it was a bad idea to let Nixon skate. As for the Biden family pardons, I don't agree with them, and agree they're in a very grey area, but I understand his reasons.

Lawyer? I just play one on the internet.

I understand the reasons for pardoning kin, too.

I haven't really studied the "are preemptive pardons pardons at all" question in enough depth to have a personal view. But even if that pardon was wrong, I am not sure it wasn't correct to not prosecute Nixon. I thought it was a bad idea to prosecute Hilary, for example. Not because she didn't do it, but because (1) criminal sanction is not the only way to punish people for wrongdoing, (2) judges and juries are not the only way to pass judgment, (3) it is better to have the people select the President than prosecutors and juries; and (4) even legitimate prosecutions of a political opponent are harbingers of far worse things than whether someone gets away with carelessly treating state secrets. (If she were shown to be sharing those secrets with enemies of the United States, that would have changed the equation).

For Nixon, I buy the reconciliation argument. Nixon was reputationally defeated in total. There was absolutely a deterrent effect at work with or without prosecution.

Trump regained his viability, I think, because democrats overplayed their hand, abused their authority, and made him a martyr. Hilarious, really, that they are a principle reason that Trump's comeback was successful.

[Topper]

A kid at the time, coming home from school for lunch and watching the Watergate hearings on TV while mom complained her soap operas were preempted. Those hearings laid bare the wrong doings and finished Nixon and his associates career. The punitive portion was accomplished and criminal trials should not be vindictive (why Hilary wasn't pursued by Trump).

The Biden pardons loosely parallel Nixon however that has not been publicly investigated, could lay waste to parts of the Obama administration, certainly the Biden family. Too much perception of corruption being swept under the carpet for comfort in those pardons.

Even with Hilary, we knew about Benghazi, we knew about the private server, we knew about the deleted emails. There was enough there without the Russia hoax and false FISA applications coming to light later.

[Meds]

So I think these pardons are overbroad. But pardoning many was absolutely appropriate. There's a reason for the pardon power. It is not to protect one's family, but it is as a backstop to overzealous prosecutions or as a tool to promote moving forward.

Good post mostly, I'll disagree on the goal of the J6 protesters.

Your last line could likely be turned into a long book on the legalities of pardons. When an incoming president is threatening prosecution of former government officials, things are not 'normal'. Whether it's just more of his bullshit and playing to his base, I think Biden had to consider the possibility that his family and others like Liz Cheney were legitimate targets. I'm not enough of a legal scholar to comment whether these are justified, legal, or just paper, but if it were my family, I might do the same.

It's going to be an interesting 4 years, and by the time this is over your country may be drastically changed.

Ummm…..isn’t it your country too?

[Meds]

So tell me, UW- how long have you been a lawyer?

Lawyer? I just play one on the internet.

FFS!!! Another Doc Sock!!!!

[Cornuck]

Ummm…..isn’t it your country too?

I'm still a proud Canadian citizen. I'm just a guest here.