Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 681305 times)

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15904
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7100 on: January 17, 2021, 11:32:13 AM »
A US President is entitled to a pension of $219,000 per year, and begins immediately after the president leaves office.

From a logistical standpoint, this is one of the reasons why conviction in the Senate would have consequences: DJT would lose that pension. Suppose Trump lives another decade or so (age 85) - that’s $2.5MM we’ll be paying him*  Granted that’s a rounding-error when it comes to the overall payroll of the federal government, but if one believes the president committed impeachable offense(s), there’s a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers to convict.

*Carter has gotten the most pension $ in absolute terms, as he has been collecting for a record 41 years.

Pizzabrewer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7101 on: January 17, 2021, 12:36:19 PM »
Not an outrage, but I find it hilarious that Trump wants to stiff Giuliani on his legal bills.

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3631
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7102 on: January 17, 2021, 01:04:44 PM »
A US President is entitled to a pension of $219,000 per year, and begins immediately after the president leaves office.

From a logistical standpoint, this is one of the reasons why conviction in the Senate would have consequences: DJT would lose that pension. Suppose Trump lives another decade or so (age 85) - that’s $2.5MM we’ll be paying him*  Granted that’s a rounding-error when it comes to the overall payroll of the federal government, but if one believes the president committed impeachable offense(s), there’s a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers to convict.

*Carter has gotten the most pension $ in absolute terms, as he has been collecting for a record 41 years.

Much more concerned about his access to classified information.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15904
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7103 on: January 17, 2021, 02:22:47 PM »
A US President is entitled to a pension of $219,000 per year, and begins immediately after the president leaves office.

From a logistical standpoint, this is one of the reasons why conviction in the Senate would have consequences: DJT would lose that pension. Suppose Trump lives another decade or so (age 85) - that’s $2.5MM we’ll be paying him*  Granted that’s a rounding-error when it comes to the overall payroll of the federal government, but if one believes the president committed impeachable offense(s), there’s a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers to convict.

*Carter has gotten the most pension $ in absolute terms, as he has been collecting for a record 41 years.

Much more concerned about his access to classified information.

My understanding is that past presidents are only ‘read-in” to classified information when it is related to their administration and as a professional courtesy.  There is no obligation to inform past-presidents, and it’s at the discretion of the NSA and the current president.

As Trump has shown little/no interest in classified briefings *during* his tenure, I’m not overly concerned that the Biden administration will be sharing a lot with him, or that Trump will care to listen. 

Retireatee1

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 213
  • Location: Fort Mill, SC
    • Retireator.org
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7104 on: January 17, 2021, 02:37:32 PM »
It's been a finding of twin studies (studies of identical twins who are brought up separately) for quite a few years.  Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in different families have a greater tendency towards both having spirituality or agnosticism/aetheism than would be expected by random chance.

Well there's a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity, and a strong relationship between genetics and intelligence.  Did this twin study account for that?

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5241
  • Age: 126
  • Location: In the middle somewhere....
  • Here to learn.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7105 on: January 17, 2021, 04:38:25 PM »
Hey Parler's back. Almost. Hosted by Epik. Same host as a variety of other far right websites.

Message on the singular homepage: "We will not let civil discourse perish!"

I don't think the CEO's version of civil discourse the same as other people's civil discourse.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7707
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7106 on: January 17, 2021, 04:48:11 PM »
It's been a finding of twin studies (studies of identical twins who are brought up separately) for quite a few years.  Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in different families have a greater tendency towards both having spirituality or agnosticism/aetheism than would be expected by random chance.

Well there's a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity, and a strong relationship between genetics and intelligence.  Did this twin study account for that?
I've no idea. I think you're going to have to do your own research on that one.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15904
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7107 on: January 17, 2021, 05:36:28 PM »
It's been a finding of twin studies (studies of identical twins who are brought up separately) for quite a few years.  Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in different families have a greater tendency towards both having spirituality or agnosticism/aetheism than would be expected by random chance.

Well there's a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity, and a strong relationship between genetics and intelligence.  Did this twin study account for that?
I've no idea. I think you're going to have to do your own research on that one.
Correlation also isn’t causation. And from what I saw in my precursors search, of ~83 studies only a handful found a strong link, most couldn’t detect a difference. And Jews are the most highly educated, followed by Christians (according to one). Take from that what you will...

FIRE Artist

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 999
  • Location: YEG
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7108 on: January 17, 2021, 07:15:38 PM »
It's been a finding of twin studies (studies of identical twins who are brought up separately) for quite a few years.  Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in different families have a greater tendency towards both having spirituality or agnosticism/aetheism than would be expected by random chance.

Well there's a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity, and a strong relationship between genetics and intelligence.  Did this twin study account for that?
I've no idea. I think you're going to have to do your own research on that one.
Correlation also isn’t causation. And from what I saw in my precursors search, of ~83 studies only a handful found a strong link, most couldn’t detect a difference. And Jews are the most highly educated, followed by Christians (according to one). Take from that what you will...

Religious affiliation also does not actually mean spiritual belief.  I can imagine that many educated people see personal advantage to continue to affiliate with their house of worship even if they are non believers.  Heck, I suspect a number of church leaders do not actually believe, but know they can derive personal wealth from their chosen profession. 

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4989
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7109 on: January 18, 2021, 07:38:36 AM »
Is it more pronounced in the USA or is this a stage of societal growth and maturation that the USA is going through?

Seems like I've seen evidence of this kind of BS in the news in Germany and England for example. Of course the fringe hasn't tried to overthrow their government in recent times.

I think trying to destroy each other and leaving millions dead in the wake forces societies to either collapse or grow up. It seems that the latter happened after WWII for Europe. The US was affected, but less so. If anyone "won" WW2 it was us, and we didn't learn the proper lessons from that experience (too much "we're the best! let's beat the commies!" and not enough "well that was really really stupid and how about we don't do that again, ever?"). That type of cultural jingo-ism is much more a part of most US cultures than European cultures. That's my History 101 - level take on it. Will not bore anyone with the further nuances (of which there are many).

I actually think the US-built world order--the United Nations, NATO, the WTO--sprang from the US learning many lessons from Europe's suffering. That one political faction within the US who didn't believe these things gained power seventy-one years later doesn't mean the US didn't learn.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4989
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7110 on: January 18, 2021, 07:45:04 AM »
It's been a finding of twin studies (studies of identical twins who are brought up separately) for quite a few years.  Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in different families have a greater tendency towards both having spirituality or agnosticism/aetheism than would be expected by random chance.

Well there's a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity, and a strong relationship between genetics and intelligence.  Did this twin study account for that?
I've no idea. I think you're going to have to do your own research on that one.
Correlation also isn’t causation. And from what I saw in my precursors search, of ~83 studies only a handful found a strong link, most couldn’t detect a difference. And Jews are the most highly educated, followed by Christians (according to one). Take from that what you will...

I'm trying to think through the twin-study and this thought. Are twin studies typically defended by saying that the processes through which twins are adopted are random? WRT spirituality, I think we lose some of that to the extent that families with a faith community are favored by adoption organizations, particularly beginning during the Bush administration.

A strength of the twin studies are that the biology--along with many unobservable similarities--are held largely constant?

Apologies for derailing the thread in our last hours of being outraged by President Trump, but I always enjoy these types of discussions.

Omy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7111 on: January 18, 2021, 07:55:46 AM »
Who will be the most outrageous recipient of a pardon this week? Or will the sheer number be the outrageous thing?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15904
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7112 on: January 18, 2021, 08:18:24 AM »
Who will be the most outrageous recipient of a pardon this week? Or will the sheer number be the outrageous thing?

Steve Bannon seems likely (for defrauding Trump's own supporters by embezzling money donated to "build the wall!").

Though the most outrageous would be either a self-pardon or a blanket pardon for this family members.

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5254
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7113 on: January 18, 2021, 08:25:09 AM »
I fully expect that he'll pardon his adult children, Stephen Miller, Rudy Giuliani, and anyone else in his inner circle who's remained loyal even after the insurrection. I would not be surprised at all to learn that he bought their loyalty with pardons.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6985

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5254
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7115 on: January 18, 2021, 08:50:27 AM »
https://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-associate-reportedly-trump-pardon-costs-2-million-nyt-2021-1

Well sure, you can't expect him to live off of his measly presidential pension, right? [/sarcasm] Especially now that Deutsche Bank has cut off his line of credit.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6985
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7116 on: January 18, 2021, 08:55:35 AM »
https://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-associate-reportedly-trump-pardon-costs-2-million-nyt-2021-1

Well sure, you can't expect him to live off of his measly presidential pension, right? [/sarcasm] Especially now that Deutsche Bank has cut off his line of credit.

I am really hoping that the GOP is going to realize the best way to save their party from going down forever is to cut ties with Trump and impeach him, but....maybe it wouldn't be the worst thing for them to go down forever. I don't know..

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5241
  • Age: 126
  • Location: In the middle somewhere....
  • Here to learn.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7117 on: January 18, 2021, 09:05:08 AM »
Is there ANY mechanism that would stop Trump pardoning someone or selling pardons quickly?

Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6985
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7118 on: January 18, 2021, 09:09:00 AM »
Is there ANY mechanism that would stop Trump pardoning someone or selling pardons quickly?

Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

I don't think so.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4989
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7119 on: January 18, 2021, 09:31:34 AM »
https://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-associate-reportedly-trump-pardon-costs-2-million-nyt-2021-1

Well sure, you can't expect him to live off of his measly presidential pension, right? [/sarcasm] Especially now that Deutsche Bank has cut off his line of credit.

I am really hoping that the GOP is going to realize the best way to save their party from going down forever is to cut ties with Trump and impeach him, but....maybe it wouldn't be the worst thing for them to go down forever. I don't know..

I'm pessimistic, but keeping my GOP registration for now in case Lara Trump really does run for NC Senate, so I can vote against her in the primary.

geekette

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2258
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7120 on: January 18, 2021, 09:38:17 AM »
I'm pessimistic, but keeping my GOP registration for now in case Lara Trump really does run for NC Senate, so I can vote against her in the primary.
I'm registered independent in NC, so I can too.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7707
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7121 on: January 18, 2021, 09:38:24 AM »
Is there ANY mechanism that would stop Trump pardoning someone or selling pardons quickly?

Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

I don't think so.
It should be possible for the federal courts, ending at the Supreme Court, to declare null and vold a pardon which was outside the powers of the President.

There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.

I would like to think that there is also an argument based on the Presidential Oath of Office, which states "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

1.  The President cannot take office until the Oath is sworn.
2.  The Oath must have more meaning than just being a form of words to be spoken, otherwise the President could recite something as meaningless as "Humpty Dumpty" in order to become President.
3.  The Oath is a statement about the President's future actions: "will".
4.  The Oath is therefore a statement that means that the President's powers and future actions are limited by its words.
5.  The President is therefore limited to issuing pardons which faithfully execute his office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
6.  A Presidential pardon for himself does not uphold the Constitution.  Nor does a Presidential pardon for any person who is a co-conspirator with the President or has committed crimes jointly with or in collusion with the President or has committed crimes in the role of member of the President's Administration.

That may all be wishful thinking of course, but it's an argument I'd be prepared to make in court.  The overarching argument in its favour is that it is the only/best logical argument available to ensure that a President, the President's co-conspirators and the President's henchmen in the Administration are not effectively placed above and beyond the law for their four year term by the exercise of the Presidential power of pardon.   The emphasis on the Oath of Office having meaning and effect should be welcome to the "originalists" on the Supreme Court.

Without this argument, the President, the Presidency and the Administration are all effectively above the law.

"Did Magna Carta mean nothing to you?  Did she die in vain?"  (Hancock)
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 09:53:14 AM by former player »

Fireball

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7122 on: January 18, 2021, 09:45:40 AM »
https://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-associate-reportedly-trump-pardon-costs-2-million-nyt-2021-1

Well sure, you can't expect him to live off of his measly presidential pension, right? [/sarcasm] Especially now that Deutsche Bank has cut off his line of credit.

I am really hoping that the GOP is going to realize the best way to save their party from going down forever is to cut ties with Trump and impeach him, but....maybe it wouldn't be the worst thing for them to go down forever. I don't know..

I'm sure the GOP brass have realized that for a while, but they'll be hesitant to do so given how loyal Trump's followers are. Personally, I hope Twitter and Facebook reinstate his accounts and Trump uses them to fracture the party over the next four years.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7123 on: January 18, 2021, 09:49:26 AM »
I'm pessimistic, but keeping my GOP registration for now in case Lara Trump really does run for NC Senate, so I can vote against her in the primary.
I'm registered independent in NC, so I can too.

+1, both parties have open primaries in NC, so there's really no reason to be registered as anything other than unaffiliated unless you want to apply to be one of the party's Electors or something.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3256
  • Age: 92
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7124 on: January 18, 2021, 09:52:47 AM »
Is there ANY mechanism that would stop Trump pardoning someone or selling pardons quickly?

Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

I don't think so.
It should be possible for the federal courts, ending at the Supreme Court, to declare null and vold a pardon which was outside the powers of the President.

There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.

I would like to think that there is also an argument based on the Presidential Oath of Office, which states "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

1.  The President cannot take office until the Oath is sworn.
2.  The Oath must have more meaning than just being a form of words to be spoken, otherwise the President could recite something as meaningless as "Humpty Dumpty" in order to become President.
3.  The Oath is a statement about the President's future actions: "will".
4.  The Oath is therefore a statement that means that the President's powers and future actions are limited by the Oath.
5.  The President is therefore limited to issuing pardons which faithfulyl execute his office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
6.  A Presidential pardon for himself does not uphold the Constitution.  Nor does a Presidential pardon for any person who is a co-conspirator with the President or has committed crimes jointly with or in collusion with the President or has committed crimes in the role of member of the President's Administration.

That may all be wishful thinking of course, but it's an argument I'd be prepared to make in court.  The overarching argument in its favour is that it is the only/best logical argument available to ensure that a President, the President's co-conspirators and the President's henchmen in the Administration are not effectively placed above and beyond the law for their four year term by the exercise of the Presidential power of pardon.

"Did Magna Carta mean nothing to you?  Did she die in vain?"  (Hancock)

1) Conviction in the senate prior to pardon would work. (ie, the ITMFA solution)
2) Nixon asked about self pardon and was advised that, No, you cannot do that.
3) This seems like a common law read of the statute in that it makes no sense to be able to self-pardon and the framers clearly did not want to establish a king/sovereign, so would not be valid.
4) the problem with the line of thinking is that it to some extent requires an interpretation of intent to be consistent with the Oath, which is not a part of the pardon power. Your line of argument should also be applicable to other pardons granted. For example, Arpaio clearly violated his oath as Sheriff, but he got a pardon. Flynn as well.

The actions of the modern GOP have laid bare a flaw in the structure of our government that it requires that the participants be interested in governance and adherence to norms. The system can be abused if those norms are subverted to personal/political gain.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7125 on: January 18, 2021, 10:05:46 AM »


Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

No.

The president is the  sole arbiter of their exercise of the Pardon Power.

The Pardon Power is plenary
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 10:08:46 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7707
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7126 on: January 18, 2021, 10:13:10 AM »


Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

No.

The president is the  sole arbiter of their exercise of the Pardon Power.

The Pardon Power is plenary
Is there ANY mechanism that would stop Trump pardoning someone or selling pardons quickly?

Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

I don't think so.
It should be possible for the federal courts, ending at the Supreme Court, to declare null and vold a pardon which was outside the powers of the President.

There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.

I would like to think that there is also an argument based on the Presidential Oath of Office, which states "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

1.  The President cannot take office until the Oath is sworn.
2.  The Oath must have more meaning than just being a form of words to be spoken, otherwise the President could recite something as meaningless as "Humpty Dumpty" in order to become President.
3.  The Oath is a statement about the President's future actions: "will".
4.  The Oath is therefore a statement that means that the President's powers and future actions are limited by the Oath.
5.  The President is therefore limited to issuing pardons which faithfulyl execute his office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
6.  A Presidential pardon for himself does not uphold the Constitution.  Nor does a Presidential pardon for any person who is a co-conspirator with the President or has committed crimes jointly with or in collusion with the President or has committed crimes in the role of member of the President's Administration.

That may all be wishful thinking of course, but it's an argument I'd be prepared to make in court.  The overarching argument in its favour is that it is the only/best logical argument available to ensure that a President, the President's co-conspirators and the President's henchmen in the Administration are not effectively placed above and beyond the law for their four year term by the exercise of the Presidential power of pardon.

"Did Magna Carta mean nothing to you?  Did she die in vain?"  (Hancock)

1) Conviction in the senate prior to pardon would work. (ie, the ITMFA solution)
2) Nixon asked about self pardon and was advised that, No, you cannot do that.
3) This seems like a common law read of the statute in that it makes no sense to be able to self-pardon and the framers clearly did not want to establish a king/sovereign, so would not be valid.
4) the problem with the line of thinking is that it to some extent requires an interpretation of intent to be consistent with the Oath, which is not a part of the pardon power. Your line of argument should also be applicable to other pardons granted. For example, Arpaio clearly violated his oath as Sheriff, but he got a pardon. Flynn as well.

The actions of the modern GOP have laid bare a flaw in the structure of our government that it requires that the participants be interested in governance and adherence to norms. The system can be abused if those norms are subverted to personal/political gain.
Then I am sorry to say this, but if this is the case then United States democracy is fucked.  Maybe not in the Biden Presidency, but at some point a Trumpist President is going to come along and that will be the end of democracy in the USA  - because the President will order an unlawful taking over of power in Congress, then pardon those who carry it out, and there will be no legal recourse.  The end.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3256
  • Age: 92
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7127 on: January 18, 2021, 10:25:25 AM »


Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

No.

The president is the  sole arbiter of their exercise of the Pardon Power.

The Pardon Power is plenary
Is there ANY mechanism that would stop Trump pardoning someone or selling pardons quickly?

Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

I don't think so.
It should be possible for the federal courts, ending at the Supreme Court, to declare null and vold a pardon which was outside the powers of the President.

There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.

I would like to think that there is also an argument based on the Presidential Oath of Office, which states "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

1.  The President cannot take office until the Oath is sworn.
2.  The Oath must have more meaning than just being a form of words to be spoken, otherwise the President could recite something as meaningless as "Humpty Dumpty" in order to become President.
3.  The Oath is a statement about the President's future actions: "will".
4.  The Oath is therefore a statement that means that the President's powers and future actions are limited by the Oath.
5.  The President is therefore limited to issuing pardons which faithfulyl execute his office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
6.  A Presidential pardon for himself does not uphold the Constitution.  Nor does a Presidential pardon for any person who is a co-conspirator with the President or has committed crimes jointly with or in collusion with the President or has committed crimes in the role of member of the President's Administration.

That may all be wishful thinking of course, but it's an argument I'd be prepared to make in court.  The overarching argument in its favour is that it is the only/best logical argument available to ensure that a President, the President's co-conspirators and the President's henchmen in the Administration are not effectively placed above and beyond the law for their four year term by the exercise of the Presidential power of pardon.

"Did Magna Carta mean nothing to you?  Did she die in vain?"  (Hancock)

1) Conviction in the senate prior to pardon would work. (ie, the ITMFA solution)
2) Nixon asked about self pardon and was advised that, No, you cannot do that.
3) This seems like a common law read of the statute in that it makes no sense to be able to self-pardon and the framers clearly did not want to establish a king/sovereign, so would not be valid.
4) the problem with the line of thinking is that it to some extent requires an interpretation of intent to be consistent with the Oath, which is not a part of the pardon power. Your line of argument should also be applicable to other pardons granted. For example, Arpaio clearly violated his oath as Sheriff, but he got a pardon. Flynn as well.

The actions of the modern GOP have laid bare a flaw in the structure of our government that it requires that the participants be interested in governance and adherence to norms. The system can be abused if those norms are subverted to personal/political gain.
Then I am sorry to say this, but if this is the case then United States democracy is fucked.  Maybe not in the Biden Presidency, but at some point a Trumpist President is going to come along and that will be the end of democracy in the USA  - because the President will order an unlawful taking over of power in Congress, then pardon those who carry it out, and there will be no legal recourse.  The end.
Our structure inadvertently creates incentives for polarization through both the formal and informal elements (executive set against legislative, emergence of political parties with disparate demographics, etc). We do have some problems. Ours was a good first draft, but one not often emulated by other countries who are setting up democracies... even those done by the US (Japan, etc). I think the proportionate representation models are more equitable and stable and we would be well served to work towards implementing those structures at home.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7128 on: January 18, 2021, 10:36:24 AM »

I wish this brought some sense of relief, but I fear that impeaching Trump is the easy part. The long lasting false-mythology of the stolen election, and deep divisions laid bare by the Trump presidency will be tough to grapple with.

This is not a mere political issue - it's a cognitive bias issue, with deep behavioral, neurological and psychological roots.

Implicit bias is a thing - and the research shows that conservatives think in more binary ways than liberals do: it's a yes/no, good/bad/, black/white, right/wrong dynamic.

Just one example of the academic research, here:

https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.16030051

"There is increasing evidence that neurobiological factors mediate where people fall on a general conservative-liberal axis that involves social, cultural, religious, economic, and other domains, as well as political ideology. Many studies now indicate that differences between extreme conservatives and extreme liberals are not entirely due to differences in socioeconomic, cultural, or other learned attributes, or rational consideration of the issues.3 Conservatism-liberalism is also associated with differences in personality, attention, memory, perception, emotional reactions, problem-solving, and response choices..."

So it's not about facts, per se. And it's not something that we can persuade them into or out of. Their brains actually interpret threat, risk, and actions differently.

Two prominent academics who do this sort of research: Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt of Stanford, and Dr. Jack Glaser at Berkeley....

I've long thought  there are inherent "mental" differences that influence an individual to tend toward a "conservative" or a "liberal" perspective.




Left Brains vs. Right Brains - Scientific Americanwww.scientificamerican.com › article › left-brains-vs-ri...
Dec 1, 2007 — Political ideology is tied to how the brain manages conflict ... that used a simple cognitive test to compare liberal and conservative thinkers.

Politics on the Brain: Scans Show Whether You Lean Left or ...www.livescience.com › 13608-brain-political-ideology-...
Apr 7, 2011 — Political ideology, and whether a person is liberal or conservative, might ... Politics on the Brain: Scans Show Whether You Lean Left or Right.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
human nature 9-0
« Reply #7129 on: January 18, 2021, 10:44:16 AM »
Is there ANY mechanism that would stop Trump pardoning someone or selling pardons quickly?

Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

I don't think so.
It should be possible for the federal courts, ending at the Supreme Court, to declare null and vold a pardon which was outside the powers of the President.

There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.

I would like to think that there is also an argument based on the Presidential Oath of Office, which states "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

1.  The President cannot take office until the Oath is sworn.
2.  The Oath must have more meaning than just being a form of words to be spoken, otherwise the President could recite something as meaningless as "Humpty Dumpty" in order to become President.
3.  The Oath is a statement about the President's future actions: "will".
4.  The Oath is therefore a statement that means that the President's powers and future actions are limited by its words.
5.  The President is therefore limited to issuing pardons which faithfully execute his office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
6.  A Presidential pardon for himself does not uphold the Constitution.  Nor does a Presidential pardon for any person who is a co-conspirator with the President or has committed crimes jointly with or in collusion with the President or has committed crimes in the role of member of the President's Administration.

That may all be wishful thinking of course, but it's an argument I'd be prepared to make in court.  The overarching argument in its favour is that it is the only/best logical argument available to ensure that a President, the President's co-conspirators and the President's henchmen in the Administration are not effectively placed above and beyond the law for their four year term by the exercise of the Presidential power of pardon.   The emphasis on the Oath of Office having meaning and effect should be welcome to the "originalists" on the Supreme Court.

Without this argument, the President, the Presidency and the Administration are all effectively above the law.

"Did Magna Carta mean nothing to you?  Did she die in vain?"  (Hancock)

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7130 on: January 18, 2021, 10:49:12 AM »
A lot of South American democracies actually were setup to model the US. The problem is that most of them failed, many of them have rewritten themselves as unicameral systems instead. Even Britain themselves have basically neutered the House of Lords to the point of them practically being a unicameral system. Canada I believe has no provincial level upper chambers anymore and even their national one is mostly just a box-checker now.

In the US, if it's not already obvious that the national Senate is a backwards regressive institution, then it should be doubly obvious that all of our State level upper chambers are complete wastes of time and resources. You'd think that perhaps liberal states would want to model a Senate-less democracy to prove their effectiveness. But it seems like there is little appetite to push this, or no one willing to lead the charge. Nebraska has had a unicameral system for what 100 years now? They don't seem to have been any worse off.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7131 on: January 18, 2021, 10:53:58 AM »


There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.



Self-pardon in any case violates the primacy of impartial, dispassionate adjudication.


The Supreme Court has never adjudicated the issue of a presidential self-pardon.

If the issue of a presidential self-pardon ever comes before the Supreme Court I predict a 9-0 ruling against self-pardon.

Due to human nature, a party that has a central self-interest in the outcome of their case is presumed incapable of scrupulously impartial  judgment, one of the requisites of equitable adjudication.

A presidential  power of self-pardon invites egregious, capricious  law-breaking and autocratic subversion of justice.



"Nemo judex in causa sua/nemo judex in sua causa is a Latin phrase that means, literally, 'no-one is judge in his own cause.'It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest."

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7707
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7132 on: January 18, 2021, 10:57:22 AM »


There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.



Self-pardon in any case violates the primacy of impartial, dispassionate adjudication.


The Supreme Court has never adjudicated the issue of a presidential self-pardon.

If the issue of a presidential self-pardon ever comes before the Supreme Court I predict a 9-0 ruling against self-pardon.

Due to human nature, a party that has a central self-interest in the outcome of their case is presumed incapable of scrupulously impartial  judgment, one of the requisites of equitable adjudication.

A presidential  power of self-pardon invites egregious, capricious  law-breaking and autocratic subversion of justice.



"Nemo judex in causa sua/nemo judex in sua causa is a Latin phrase that means, literally, 'no-one is judge in his own cause.'It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest."
So does that extend to pardons for people who have committed crimes with the President (eg his children) or on his behalf (eg members of his administration or the invaders of Congress)?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7133 on: January 18, 2021, 11:05:51 AM »
I have to imagine that that is why Trump seems to have some trepidation around pardoning himself or his children. His children would not have 5th amendment protections from tattling on their father. So even if Trump pardons his children, there's a potential for them to run into obstruction charges if they don't out their father.

Trump on the other hand has to see a self-pardon as a dangerous thing as well. It would basically be an admission of guilt. So he would end up having a whole slew of Civil cases opened up against him and likely would lose a lot of money. And then at the end of it, it likely wouldn't even be upheld. If Trump tries to pardon himself, it would probably be the riskiest, stupidest thing he did as president.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7134 on: January 18, 2021, 11:18:25 AM »


There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.



Self-pardon in any case violates the primacy of impartial, dispassionate adjudication.


The Supreme Court has never adjudicated the issue of a presidential self-pardon.

If the issue of a presidential self-pardon ever comes before the Supreme Court I predict a 9-0 ruling against self-pardon.

Due to human nature, a party that has a central self-interest in the outcome of their case is presumed incapable of scrupulously impartial  judgment, one of the requisites of equitable adjudication.

A presidential  power of self-pardon invites egregious, capricious  law-breaking and autocratic subversion of justice.



"Nemo judex in causa sua/nemo judex in sua causa is a Latin phrase that means, literally, 'no-one is judge in his own cause.'It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest."
So does that extend to pardons for people who have committed crimes with the President (eg his children) or on his behalf (eg members of his administration or the invaders of Congress)?

No.

Plenary power is plenary power.

 Although exercise of the Pardon Power in such cases reeks of nepotism and  corruption they do not suffice to nullify its exercise.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 11:20:36 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7707
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7135 on: January 18, 2021, 11:39:30 AM »


There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.



Self-pardon in any case violates the primacy of impartial, dispassionate adjudication.


The Supreme Court has never adjudicated the issue of a presidential self-pardon.

If the issue of a presidential self-pardon ever comes before the Supreme Court I predict a 9-0 ruling against self-pardon.

Due to human nature, a party that has a central self-interest in the outcome of their case is presumed incapable of scrupulously impartial  judgment, one of the requisites of equitable adjudication.

A presidential  power of self-pardon invites egregious, capricious  law-breaking and autocratic subversion of justice.



"Nemo judex in causa sua/nemo judex in sua causa is a Latin phrase that means, literally, 'no-one is judge in his own cause.'It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest."
So does that extend to pardons for people who have committed crimes with the President (eg his children) or on his behalf (eg members of his administration or the invaders of Congress)?

No.

Plenary power is plenary power.

 Although exercise of the Pardon Power in such cases reeks of nepotism and  corruption they do not suffice to nullify its exercise.
Then yeah, Magna Carta is dead in the USA and when Trump Mark 2 comes along you are all fucked.

frugalnacho

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5016
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7136 on: January 18, 2021, 11:41:53 AM »

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5254
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7137 on: January 18, 2021, 12:07:32 PM »
I hadn't seen this footage until today:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/video-dept/a-reporters-footage-from-inside-the-capitol-siege

disturbing

I think that’s the most disturbing one I’ve seen yet. It really doesn’t leave any doubt about their intention to assassinate government leaders, or that they perceive Trump, Cruz, and Hawley to be their leaders.

Warlord1986

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
  • Age: 36
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7138 on: January 18, 2021, 01:23:30 PM »
The Qanon Shaman preached a sermon. I did not see that coming.

We're very lucky there wasn't more violence.

katsiki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1959
  • Age: 41
  • Location: La.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7139 on: January 18, 2021, 03:32:38 PM »
No.

Plenary power is plenary power.

 Although exercise of the Pardon Power in such cases reeks of nepotism and  corruption they do not suffice to nullify its exercise.
Then yeah, Magna Carta is dead in the USA and when Trump Mark 2 comes along you are all fucked.

I must not be smart enough to understand what former player is saying here.  I thought I was doing pretty good with John GI's Latin and legal explanations (excellent job by the way, JGI!)

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7140 on: January 18, 2021, 03:42:12 PM »
No.

Plenary power is plenary power.

 Although exercise of the Pardon Power in such cases reeks of nepotism and  corruption they do not suffice to nullify its exercise.
Then yeah, Magna Carta is dead in the USA and when Trump Mark 2 comes along you are all fucked.

I must not be smart enough to understand what former player is saying here.  I thought I was doing pretty good with John GI's Latin and legal explanations (excellent job by the way, JGI!)

The Magna Carta is the first (I think?) case of rule of law applying to political leadership.    So if the president can pardon himself, then s/he is not bound by rule of law.

sui generis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2753
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7141 on: January 18, 2021, 03:47:26 PM »
I have to imagine that that is why Trump seems to have some trepidation around pardoning himself or his children. His children would not have 5th amendment protections from tattling on their father. So even if Trump pardons his children, there's a potential for them to run into obstruction charges if they don't out their father.

Trump on the other hand has to see a self-pardon as a dangerous thing as well. It would basically be an admission of guilt. So he would end up having a whole slew of Civil cases opened up against him and likely would lose a lot of money. And then at the end of it, it likely wouldn't even be upheld. If Trump tries to pardon himself, it would probably be the riskiest, stupidest thing he did as president.

The "pardoned people don't have 5th amendment protections" thing is blown a bit out of proportion.  Because of our federalist system, the same one the same people are excited to know that anyone pardoned by Trump is only getting out of federal crimes and not state crimes, and the strength of 5th amendment protections in our jurisprudence, it's likely that Trump children who were pardoned would still maintain 5th amendment protections for nearly everything because of their potential vulnerability to legal action at the state level.  I have heard many smart legal scholars opine that attempts to invoke the 5th Amendment by these parties would be likely to be successful in just about any court.

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5254
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7142 on: January 18, 2021, 03:57:18 PM »
Oh boy, apparently Melania has released her FLOTUS farewell speech, in which she touts her "Be Best" campaign and its efforts to target online safety.

After "Be Best," she will be the first FLOTUS not to give her successor, Dr. Jill Biden, a tour of the White House living quarters in the modern era.

Irony is lost on these people.

katsiki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1959
  • Age: 41
  • Location: La.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7143 on: January 18, 2021, 04:02:53 PM »
No.

Plenary power is plenary power.

 Although exercise of the Pardon Power in such cases reeks of nepotism and  corruption they do not suffice to nullify its exercise.
Then yeah, Magna Carta is dead in the USA and when Trump Mark 2 comes along you are all fucked.

I must not be smart enough to understand what former player is saying here.  I thought I was doing pretty good with John GI's Latin and legal explanations (excellent job by the way, JGI!)

The Magna Carta is the first (I think?) case of rule of law applying to political leadership.    So if the president can pardon himself, then s/he is not bound by rule of law.

Thanks @scottish !    I did not make the connection at all.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15904
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7144 on: January 18, 2021, 04:36:11 PM »
Oh boy, apparently Melania has released her FLOTUS farewell speech, in which she touts her "Be Best" campaign and its efforts to target online safety.

After "Be Best," she will be the first FLOTUS not to give her successor, Dr. Jill Biden, a tour of the White House living quarters in the modern era.

Irony is lost on these people.

I think Melania has a different concept of what “Be Best” means.
She’s repeatedly cut out all people from her former life each time she climbs the social ladder.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3885
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7145 on: January 18, 2021, 05:31:44 PM »
Oh boy, apparently Melania has released her FLOTUS farewell speech, in which she touts her "Be Best" campaign and its efforts to target online safety.

After "Be Best," she will be the first FLOTUS not to give her successor, Dr. Jill Biden, a tour of the White House living quarters in the modern era.

Irony is lost on these people.

Pence hasn't learned a thing. He showed up to Fort Drum on a Sunday to tell a group of voluntold soldiers how great Trump was to them.

-We gave you the biggest pay raise ever in 10 years (not true)
-Your military was in shambles because of the previous administration (the Budget Control Act was as much Senator Pence's fault as anybody else's)
-Nobody has died in Afghanistan this year (easy when we have just a handful of troops left)
-Trump hasn't started a war (just a civil one; conversely you could point out he declared war on COVID and has been losing miserably, about to surpass WW2's US death toll)

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15904
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7146 on: January 18, 2021, 05:55:43 PM »
Oh boy, apparently Melania has released her FLOTUS farewell speech, in which she touts her "Be Best" campaign and its efforts to target online safety.

After "Be Best," she will be the first FLOTUS not to give her successor, Dr. Jill Biden, a tour of the White House living quarters in the modern era.

Irony is lost on these people.

Pence hasn't learned a thing. He showed up to Fort Drum on a Sunday to tell a group of voluntold soldiers how great Trump was to them.

-We gave you the biggest pay raise ever in 10 years (not true)
-Your military was in shambles because of the previous administration (the Budget Control Act was as much Senator Pence's fault as anybody else's)
-Nobody has died in Afghanistan this year (easy when we have just a handful of troops left)
-Trump hasn't started a war (just a civil one; conversely you could point out he declared war on COVID and has been losing miserably, about to surpass WW2's US death toll)

Well to be fair, there were no US combat deaths this year in Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, or Vietnam either...

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3885
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7147 on: January 18, 2021, 06:03:43 PM »
Oh boy, apparently Melania has released her FLOTUS farewell speech, in which she touts her "Be Best" campaign and its efforts to target online safety.

After "Be Best," she will be the first FLOTUS not to give her successor, Dr. Jill Biden, a tour of the White House living quarters in the modern era.

Irony is lost on these people.

Pence hasn't learned a thing. He showed up to Fort Drum on a Sunday to tell a group of voluntold soldiers how great Trump was to them.

-We gave you the biggest pay raise ever in 10 years (not true)
-Your military was in shambles because of the previous administration (the Budget Control Act was as much Senator Pence's fault as anybody else's)
-Nobody has died in Afghanistan this year (easy when we have just a handful of troops left)
-Trump hasn't started a war (just a civil one; conversely you could point out he declared war on COVID and has been losing miserably, about to surpass WW2's US death toll)

Well to be fair, there were no US combat deaths this year in Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, or Vietnam either...

Well we stopped measuring progress by enemy deaths back in Vietnam, and we've never cared about the rise or fall of noncombatant deaths, so...

edit: not entirely true, there was a brief period in Iraq where we were keeping track of all attacks across the country as a measurement, but then we started leaving as soon as it looked like it was trending positively.

Back to the point of this administration using every moment it is in front of a microphone to campaign for reelection.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 06:33:18 PM by Travis »

markbike528CBX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1771
  • Location: the Everbrown part of the Evergreen State (WA)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7148 on: January 18, 2021, 07:58:04 PM »

Pence hasn't learned a thing. He showed up to Fort Drum on a Sunday to tell a group of voluntold soldiers how great Trump was to them.
.... big snip...........

Errr I'm speechless...... If someone put a target on my back, I'd be unspeakably pissed.

"....
At 2:13 PM EST that day, Vice President Mike Pence – who until that moment had been fulfilling his constitutional duty presiding as President of the Senate – was rushed off the Senate floor by the U.S. Secret Service as the angry mob breached the doors of the Capitol. At 2:24 PM, President Trump tweeted “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!” Minutes later, the mob was chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” throughout the halls of Congress after building gallows and hanging a noose on the lawn of the National Mall.   ...."

Unverified facts, but a quote from a Republican Member of Congress letter.

I was watching the Joint Session live.  I blinked and Mike Pence wasn't there and somebody else had taken that seat with much consternation and confusion.

That said I think Pence performed his Constitutional duty well that day. 
I did note that he didn't say "no objections heard" after every Trump/Pence state (but a few), as he did with every (most) Biden/Harris state.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7149 on: January 18, 2021, 09:29:13 PM »
"....
At 2:24 PM, President Trump tweeted “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!” Minutes later, the mob was chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” throughout the halls of Congress after building gallows and hanging a noose on the lawn of the National Mall.   ...."

Unverified facts, but a quote from a Republican Member of Congress letter.

Um, I may be missing something, but how are any of these unverified? Are you just saying that you personally did not verify them? Here is Trump's (deleted) tweet, here is an example of the Trumpers chanting "Hang Mike Pence!" (there are more, some actually "in the halls of Congress"), here is the noose.