• @RestrictedAccount
    link
    965 months ago

    I suspect that this is extremely dry humor, but for others that read this, Trump pardoned both Bannon and Stone

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      825 months ago

      it’s still unfathomable that trump was “allowed” (I know it was “legal”, don’t point that out) to pardon his literal partners-in-crime. He basically has already self-pardoned himself by proxy by allowing these traitors to walk free.

      • @UnderpantsWeevil
        link
        17
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Ford pardoned Nixon.

        Bush Jr pardoned Scooter Libby.

        Governor Abbott pardoned a pedophile for shooting a black girl’s white boyfriend

        Why is this even remotely surprising?

        • ASeriesOfPoorChoices
          link
          155 months ago

          the difference being that ford wasn’t involved in Nixon’s taping. etc. etc.

          this is direct involvement, which makes it stink more.

      • @takeda
        link
        65 months ago

        We messed up when we allowed Ford’s pardon of Nixon before he was convicted. We should only allow pardons after the person was convicted. That created all kinds of paradoxes:

        • creating a blanket pardon “from any crime that we don’t know yet about”
        • possible pocket pardon, where a president could pardon themselves secretly
        • hiring thugs on president benefit and giving pardon right before leaving office. They know they can do anything and will receive a blanket pardon. If president had to wait for conviction then there was no guarantee he would be there to pardon them. So it would make whole escapade more risky
        • total immunity which trump is arguing about would be even less likely if there was no blanket and pocket pardon and he had to wait until being convicted before being able to be pardoned
        • @takeda
          link
          45 months ago

          We should never have allowed a pardon before a conviction. What Ford did for Nixon created all kinds of paradoxes.

          • @disguy_ovahea
            link
            1
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Carter did it with draft dodgers too, but I agree.

            • @frunch
              link
              15 months ago

              Well that balances the damage lol

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      185 months ago

      I’m not sure if I’m joking. In any case, the writ of habeas corpus is the legal tool that a court can theoretically use to compel the appearance of a prisoner before it. It is the legal doctrine that underlies the right to trial, and I say “theoretically” because courts rarely need to issue one; it’s just standard procedure to bring people to court to face charges.

      By suspending it, Abraham Lincoln could detain those people he deemed dangerous seditionists indefinitely, because the detainees would have to go to court to challenge their detention, and there was no way to get to court. The effect of suspending it again is that it wouldn’t matter that Baboon (autocorrect and I’m leaving it) and Stone were pardoned, or that there were even criminal charges.

      Lincoln did it, George W. Bush did it. Barack Obama did it. The Constitution contains a clause which allows it to be suspended due to rebellion or threats to public safety. It’s a dangerous thing to allow a president to do, but the MAGA danger might be greater.

      • @UnderpantsWeevil
        link
        45 months ago

        Worth noting that, historically speaking, if a state official wanted to punish someone without going through the court system he could always just turn the prisoner over to a lynch mob.

        So while suspending habeaus corpus is a danger to democracy, it is not a singular method by which mayors, governors, or Presidents have disposed of political opponents.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        15 months ago

        In other words the US is neither a state of law nor is it a democracy as separation of power can be overturned whenever the president feels like it.

        • @Censored
          link
          25 months ago

          Emergency powers are in most constitutions because people generally understand that during war things have to operate a little differently. You can’t allow the enemy, who is attacking you physically, to go and publish propaganda that attacks you rhetorically and turns the populace’s loyalty towards the other side. The problem we have now is the constant use of emergency powers. That needs to be shut down. Emergency powers should be limited to a certain timeframe, and reviewed by congress after that. Not these multi decade states of emergency.

    • @Serinus
      link
      85 months ago

      I have to say, “you’ve been unpardoned” would be a great line.