Even Rudy Giuliani thought her plan to seek blanket immunity, before breaching Georgia voting machines, was “over the top,” according to a new book by reporters Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman.

As allies of Donald Trump schemed to seize voting machines in swing states after the 2020 election, Sidney Powell proposed issuing preemptive pardons—which the team described as “hunting licenses”—to shield them from legal liability, according to a new book by investigative reporters Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman.

“I need six to eight pardons,” the former Trump attorney said in a Virginia planning meeting, according to Find Me the Votes, excerpts of which were reviewed by Vanity Fair ahead of its January 30 publication date. “What we need is a ‘hunting license’ that provides top cover for ops,” a member of Powell’s team wrote to Lin Wood, another Trump lawyer involved in the effort to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, according to Isikoff and Klaidman.

According to Isikoff and Klaidman, the team asked Michael Trimarco, an associate of Rudy Giuliani’s, to get the former New York City mayor to approve the pardon proposal. But Giuliani “dismissed the idea as over the top,” according to the book. Trimarco apparently agreed, recalling that he thought, “What the fuck?” as the group mulled the idea.

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

    Trump could not have pardoned himself because pardoning is not a thing people can do to themselves. Don’t normalize the idea that it is.

    Imagine people saying “I pardon myself” after bumping into you on the street. That’s the level of absurdity we’re at.

    • @Steve
      link
      English
      211 months ago

      None of that logic works.

      Random people can’t legally pardon anyone. That’s why they can’t pardon themselves.

      The President can legally pardon people accused of federal crimes. It’s only common sense that stops one from pardoning themselves, not the law.

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

        I’m advocating for the meaning of words in the constitution meaning what they’ve always meant. There’s no need or justification for inventing some new legal meaning for a word the authors of the Constitution didn’t see fit to define.