Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 347: The Indian in the Cabinet

(+) Yeah! (+)

RaidenGarai posted...

According to twitter, Flynn can be forced to testify against Trump now, and theres nothing he can do, and if he lies hes totally fucked.

No idea how true this is, but the fifth amendment trend seems to think this is going to bite Flynn and Trump in the ass.

oh yeah, this is true. now it depends on the wording of the pardon but doubt that's a concern.
also it's not like a presidential pardon prevents states from issuing their own charges under state laws either, should any apply. separate government, separate rules.

---

Kenri posted...

I mean, sometimes the law is bad. This part isn't too hard to explain.

that's a fair point. i shouldn't be approaching this in a corrik-ish lawful neutral way, obviously. i don't see how "you want more pardons, not less" works as a blanket statement, though. seems to me like you should examine on a case-by-case basis whether or not a pardon is justified.

and i'm pretty sure the stone pardon wasn't an example of "the law was bad."

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

that's a fair point. i shouldn't be approaching this in a corrik-ish lawful neutral way, obviously. i don't see how "you want more pardons, not less" works as a blanket statement, though. seems to me like you should examine on a case-by-case basis whether or not a pardon is justified.

pardons are definitely done case by case, there's just a lot of people in jail for dumb shit and their only way out is a pardon. the second you start a real limit is the second you start ticking down other limits. keeping it broad keeps it simple, no legalese to worry about, and again, it's the top of executive doing it. this is completely within their power when you follow along the chain: cops don't need to hold prisoners, cops don't need to charge you if they don't want to. judge can't do anything about that, legislature can't do anything about that. this is exclusively the power of the executive.

as for justified or not, that's a different argument you can have.


---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i don't see how "you want more pardons, not less" works as a blanket statement, though. seems to me like you should examine on a case-by-case basis whether or not a pardon is justified.

and i'm pretty sure the stone pardon wasn't an example of "the law was bad."

It doesn't work as a blanket statement at all, it's just a dumb thing Wang said lol. I agree with you that it's something you have to look at case-by-case (and in Stone's case, yeah, obviously the pardon should not have happened).

---

There should definitely be restrictions on pardons. Our justice system already greatly benefits the rich and powerful. Pardons allow people with access to the President and/or Governor more power than those without. Too easily abused.


---

Has anyone from the lower class ever been pardoned?
---

I mean, pardon power is way too absolute and the way you know this is that we have literally had blanket preemptive pardons for "anything that may have happened" even before charges were ever brought (Nixon was pardoned for anything he may have done wrt Watergate for the duration of his entire Presidency) and the fact that it's an open question whether a president can pardon themselves. I suspect SCOTUS would balk at that but we don't know! It would have to be litigated! It's unclear!

As for how to restrict it, that's a tougher one. You could put a legislative "veto" of sorts like giving Congress the ability to block it with a 2/3s vote like a veto overturn but with politics as broken as they are this probably isn't even effective anymore.

---

htaeD posted...

Has anyone from the lower class ever been pardoned?

yeah

Pardons are generally only talked about when they're high profile (and usually terrible) but there's a ton of them. And that's putting aside Carter issuing a blanket pardoning for Vietnam draft dodgers, for instance.

---

I think it's also an open question whether a blanket pardon is valid (since I believe it was only ever done for Nixon and obviously wasn't tested in court)

(blanket in the "for all crimes" sense, not in the "all people who did X" sense)

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I think it's also an open question whether a blanket pardon is valid (since I believe it was only ever done for Nixon and obviously wasn't tested in court)

(blanket in the "for all crimes" sense, not in the "all people who did X" sense)

That's a precedent. It wasn't tested in court because everyone knew the courts had no power to prosecute Nixon after the pardon was issued.

---

Everyone knew isnt a legal precedent!

---

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/527575-mnuchin-puts-455b-in-covid-19-relief-funds-beyond-successors-reach

Also, not to get this lost in the pardon talk, but Mnuchin is moving to put $455 billion of unspent COVID relief money from CARES back into the Treasury's General Fund which would make it unavailable for the Biden administration to use absent another act of Congress authorizing more relief.

Rare case where the Federal Reserve (who is the target of this) released a statement in response to the announcement like "uh not a good idea"

Forget Congress passing more relief, this administration is pulling back the relief that Congress already passed so Biden can't act on it.


---

Wanglicious posted...

absolute pardon power also makes sure there's no concern of legal arguments or bulls*** to weave through. it's just done and whoever is the target of it is free to go.

also governors pardon too.

seriously, you want more pardons, not less, not more restrictions on it. you want this thing to be broad for maximum value and effect.

...You wanna elaborate this position?


---

https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1331695953645068288?s=21

Crazy

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

...You wanna elaborate this position?

I thought we learned from the last argument that Wang is in support of presidential corruption, that seems like all there is to it.

Wang appears to get his jollies from watching corrupt government officials be able to do corrupt things because "fuck the rest of government" or something...?

---

Was already expanded on in the rest of the topic.

StealThisSheen posted...

I thought we learned from the last argument that Wang is in support of presidential corruption, that seems like all there is to it.

That's a pretty dumb and incomprehensible take but hey, you do you there. Heaven forbid a pro defendant stance is had.

---

Kinglicious posted...

That's a pretty dumb and incomprehensible take but hey, you do you there. Heaven forbid a pro defendant stance is had.

"The president should be able to unconditionally pardon his corrupt cronies" is in fact not a pro-defendant stance, but rather a pro-corruption stance.

---

Kinglicious posted...

Was already expanded on in the rest of the topic.

That's a pretty dumb and incomprehensible take but hey, you do you there. Heaven forbid a pro defendant stance is had.

Wanglicious posted...

you don't go for a single target for reform and the pardon isn't really something of a target for this either. it's the ultimate, last ditch hail mary available that is as absolute as it gets. logically it makes sense too since it's the executive who enforces the law after all; if the executive says you're free to go, then you're free to go, regardless of what anyone in any other branch says.

Your position appears to be its important because its so powerful and its so powerful because its important.

Would you mind giving a genuine explanation?


---

Kinglicious posted...

Was already expanded on in the rest of the topic.

That's a pretty dumb and incomprehensible take but hey, you do you there. Heaven forbid a pro defendant stance is had.

Really? Because this is two days in a row now where you looked at blatantly corrupt actions and went "Yeeeeah boy, gimme some more of that, we need more of that. Exactly as it should be!"

---

Wang has no values.

Just a GG loser.

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

"The president should be able to unconditionally pardon his corrupt cronies" is in fact not a pro-defendant stance, but rather a pro-corruption stance.

No, pro defendant because it doesn't care who or what they are. It's not going to be a question for law to decide who qualifies for it, it's just going to be applied to all equally. The law is a hammer.

Basically I don't care what the position of the defendant is. It can be a corrupt person, it can be a mass murderer, the power being absolute is what's guaranteeing that it'll always be available and always be applicable no matter how things get. It's a power that only can favor the defendant and only limit the government.

StealThisSheen posted...

Really? Because this is two days in a row now where you looked at blatantly corrupt actions and went "Yeeeeah boy, gimme some more of that, we need more of that. Exactly as it should be!"

Because the corrupt action is irrelevant. Only the system matters. Don't care about who it is, only care about the way it's done. Fortunately that's also the way courts rule, which also goes just as hard on protecting defendants as I do.

---

Kinglicious posted...

Because the corrupt action is irrelevant. Only the system matters. Don't care about who it is, only care about the way it's done.

you're "system neutral" the way corrik is lawful neutral?

---

Kinglicious posted...

Because the corrupt action is irrelevant. Only the system matters.

So in other words, you don't care if corruption occurs as long as it occurs within the deeply flawed system. Moreso, you're calling for even MORE flawed/unchecked power.

Meaning you support presidential corruption.

Nothing I said is incorrect.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

you're "system neutral" the way corrik is lawful neutral?

No, people are setting up strawmen and putting words in his mouth, because they don't like his conclusion and don't want to do the work of explaining ways that we can distinguish between different types of cases.

---

I actually can see what Wang is saying here, mostly because he talked about if you have a problem with this action you need other actions that limit the executive not calling an audible on something that could be majorly abused in the future in theory. Wang is not for presidential corruption here, but a uniform standard. I at least understand the thought, but Trump and especially Mitch have proven that they can twist our poor laws to do horrible things, which is why I am okay with a judge going "yup no, that's not how this is going to work."

Basically for or against a defendant if no valid reason can be given after the facts have been presented... I mean, that's just a sham at that point. Which this is. It's different than say "in light of new evidence we are dropping the charges."

---

I don't see how it qualifies as limiting the power of the government. If anything, it empowers the executive to do literally anything so long as it's a federal crime and not a state one.

---

red sox 777 posted...

No, people are setting up strawmen and putting words in his mouth, because they don't like his conclusion and don't want to do the work of explaining ways that we can distinguish between different types of cases.

i mean, that's just what wang reminds me of. corrik always says "if people suffer because of the way the law works, that's fine because the law is the law." substitute "law" with "system" and it seems to be a pretty good representation of what wang is saying here.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

mostly because he talked about if you have a problem with this action you need other actions that limit the executive not calling an audible on something that could be majorly abused in the future in theory.

That's for the Flynn case and yeah, issue there is the court pretty much has to do what it's being told to do. Or did anyway. I don't know what rules or limits are on the executive or Barr to limit the executive in corruption cases but the answer isn't going against hundreds of years of precedent and towards a policy that actually is fascistic. Courts fortunately see that and we're good there.

Pardoning is a bigger extreme because it's just that much more absolute. Mechanically though the logic works since the executive controls all practical elements that can define a criminal. You'd have to somehow remove that and if you do, it's not the executive anymore. More specifically the absolute nature is just beneficial since it can just be done without any analysis so it won't have issue. Pretty much the only question is the matter of self pardons and that runs into the issue of you can't be the judge of your own case. Technically there's some lower officials that have but nobody ever took them to court so there's no case law.

I don't have issue with calling it a sham, that's gonna happen. But would rather have a sham every so often if it means defendants are protected to the maximum ability.


---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i mean, that's just what wang reminds me of. corrik always says "if people suffer because of the way the law works, that's fine because the law is the law." substitute "law" with "system" and it seems to be a pretty good representation of what wang is saying here.

It's similar in that people are talking about different things and thus talk past each other. Wang is not talking about corruption, he's talking about the pardon power. When Corrik talks about the law he's not talking about whether it's good or bad or if he would write it differently, he's talking about what a judge or someone else enforcing the law should do given that it already exists in the form in which it exists. Whereas other people are talking about whether the law should be changed.

---

As a matter of "the system" pardons are an anomaly in that unlike essentially every other action or procedure laid out there is no check or remedy on pardons.

Can that power be put to good use? Yes, it can. There are bad laws and bad sentences that can be alleviated with its use. Can that power be put to utterly corrupt use? Yes it absolutely can and absolutely has been - here and in the past.

But in practically every other instance where we discuss things like this, there exists a - if only hypothetical given the state of partisan politics - remedy within at least one of the other two branches of government. Here? There's literally nothing. Even "well the electorate can vote out such a president putting it to corrupt use" doesn't actually exist as a true remedy here because it only prevents future abuses. Beyond that, we're talking about a lame duck president who has already lost election and so isn't even accountable in that vague sense. Beyond even that it fails to address the fact that it allows a corrupt executive to pardon agents of his who act contrary to the law for his benefit. Impeachment is a limited and still-misses-the-same-mark "remedy" in the same sense an election is.

Now, like I said, if you imposed a restriction in the vein of "If Congress overrules a pardon with 2/3s votes in both houses" like a veto override that would at least be a hypothetical check on corrupt use of the pardon power even if - in this particular case of Flynn - I suspect the GOP would not exercise it and would just happily let the corrupt use go by. The idea of eliminating the power in a lame duck period is... interesting, I could see there being something to that if it was explored out even if the exact implementation differed slightly but on a macro scale that still doesn't really address the core issue of it being an irregular power in the context of other authorities granted to the government but it might help slightly with the typical "lame duck pardon fest" that we always get in every administration.

---

xp1337 posted...

As a matter of "the system" pardons are an anomaly in that unlike essentially every other action or procedure laid out there is no check or remedy on pardons.

Technically the check on a president abusing pardons is impeachment. ahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahaha

---

red sox 777 posted...

When Corrik talks about the law he's not talking about whether it's good or bad or if he would write it differently, he's talking about what a judge or someone else enforcing the law should do given that it already exists in the form in which it exists. Whereas other people are talking about whether the law should be changed.

i don't think they're talking about different things there. in those arguments, people aren't just saying "the law should be changed," they're saying "it's fine for a judge to not enforce the law if the law is bad." whereas corrik says "no, the judge should always enforce the law to the letter, even if the law is 100% shit."

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Technically the check on a president abusing pardons is impeachment

So what you're saying is, in a hypothetical world, Trump gets impeached and removed from office for this (As opposed to him leaving office normally in January) with Flynn still pardoned, and that's the only real recourse the system has?

yeah, cool, totally no issues with this whatsoever

Not_an_Owl posted...

Technically the check on a president abusing pardons is impeachment. ahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahaha

I covered that!

That only prevents future abuse of pardons! There's no check on the actual pardon itself. Like let's say hypothetically Congress decided pardoning Flynn was worth impeachment. Let's further say that somehow the Senate agrees and convicts, removes, and disqualifies Trump for it.

...The Flynn pardon still happened! It doesn't get revoked here!

---

JeffreyRaze posted...

I don't see how it qualifies as limiting the power of the government. If anything, it empowers the executive to do literally anything so long as it's a federal crime and not a state one.

The pardon power? So the big limit there would be with courts, second biggest would be the rest of the executive. Once in jail the only legal way out is if the executive or the judiacry step in.

One classic way pardons get used is the court refuses to hear a case of a guy in jail, for whatever reason they come up with. Could even be something lower people in the executive do, like the jailers, the AG, etc. Well, president/governor issues a pardon, now the court can't do shit and others in the executive can't do shit. They are limited as a result and can't fight back with an excuse. It's just dictated and done, rest of the branch has to fall in or leave.

---

red sox 777 posted...

It's similar in that people are talking about different things and thus talk past each other. Wang is not talking about corruption, he's talking about the pardon power. When Corrik talks about the law he's not talking about whether it's good or bad or if he would write it differently, he's talking about what a judge or someone else enforcing the law should do given that it already exists in the form in which it exists. Whereas other people are talking about whether the law should be changed.

And see I get that, but when the starting point is someone saying "we don't believe X is moral and we believe X should be changed" then for someone else to come in and say "well X exists in its current for therefore X is the law/system/precedent that is in effect" is a woefully inadequate and is at the very least reasonably implying that you support the perceived immoralities.

---

in theory, i don't think impeachment is the worst check you can have on a president abusing their pardon power. at least then the president will presumably not be willing to abuse their power for most of their presidency because losing the presidency isn't worth an unjustified pardon.

we've recently seen that the impeachment process doesn't work for shit, though, so...

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

And see I get that, but when the starting point is someone saying "we don't believe X is moral and we believe X should be changed" then for someone else to come in and say "well X exists in its current for therefore X is the law/system/precedent that is in effect" is a woefully inadequate and is at the very least reasonably implying that you support the perceived immoralities.

yeah, it's worth noting that i've rarely - if ever - seen corrik actually argue that the law is ever bad and/or immoral. he's way more likely to say shit like "children of illegal immigrants are criminals and not victims! the united states is the REAL victim!"

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i don't think they're talking about different things there. in those arguments, people aren't just saying "the law should be changed," they're saying "it's fine for a judge to not enforce the law if the law is bad." whereas corrik says "no, the judge should always enforce the law to the letter, even if the law is 100% shit."

And this is because that Corrik doesn't realize that this is how legal precedents change. A judge somewhere enforces the law in a different way and provides reasons X, Y and Z and if the appeals process is unable to defeat this new method of interpretation it can become the standard.

Not every matter is going to get a public referendum, and that's honestly for the best. Look at shitty referendums like Brexit.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

in theory, i don't think impeachment is the worst check you can have on a president abusing their pardon power. at least then the president will presumably not be willing to abuse their power for most of their presidency because losing the presidency isn't worth an unjustified pardon.

we've recently seen that the impeachment process doesn't work for shit, though, so...

It does work. Impeachment is meant to protect the will of the People - the People should necessarily not lose their voice just because the person they chose committed a crime. 3 presidents have been impeached. 2 of them retained the confidence of a large part of the nation, and so were acquitted. The other one was enormously unpopular publicly, but also did not commit any crime, and he was also acquitted. 1 president both committed a crime and lost the confidence of the nation, and he resigned.

But impeachment is not the only check on a president - the next election also is. And for that reason, I think we should reconsider term limits - impeachment is too blunt an instrument to be the only check on a president, and that's what it is in a president's 2nd term.

---

Speaking of the pardon, I will again have to emphasize that Kasich is essentially a republican.

---

Kasich is a Republican, and if he dislikes Trump so much, he is welcome to run in the 2024 Republican Primary.

---

https://twitter.com/CoreyAStewart/status/1329273503732953088?s=19

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I actually can see what Wang is saying here, mostly because he talked about if you have a problem with this action you need other actions that limit the executive not calling an audible on something that could be majorly abused in the future in theory. Wang is not for presidential corruption here, but a uniform standard. I at least understand the thought, but Trump and especially Mitch have proven that they can twist our poor laws to do horrible things, which is why I am okay with a judge going "yup no, that's not how this is going to work."

This doesnt make any sense in the context of our discussion.

If you think the Presidential pardon should be limited, then the ability for the Justice Department to start and drop cases should be limited

Thats the position? Literally who is saying the Justice Department dropping the Flynn charges is a good thing?

Also the idea that a pardon is defendant neutral is just utter wan(g)kery.

Literally the only time a person gets pardoned is if the President/Governor decides to do it. That doesnt just happen in a vacuum.

---

I misunderstood, I hadn't realized so much discussion had happened, I was talking about something wang and I were discussing last night so yeah, sorry I was talking about the wrong thing.

---

I don't know if I've seen a more 2020 headline than this one:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/11/25/covid-19-denmark-mink-rising-from-the-dead/6426378002/

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Speaking of the pardon, I will again have to emphasize that Kasich is essentially a republican.

"Essentially"? Did I miss something?

I meant literally in reference to how he's trying to be the Dems favorite R. "Essentially" was a brain fart <_<

---

Today's depressing fact for every sane American: One America I can't in good conscience call this News Network has over a million subscribers. I really hope it's just a bunch of old lunes, but the fact that it's online tells me younger people are a bigger portion of their demographic.

The internet was a fucking mistake.

---