The Trump implosion thread!

Quote: aceofspades

But see the SCOTUS case, Ex parte Garland (regarding the effects of a pardon - not regarding whether a lawsuit would be sustained):

Quote: SCOTUS

“[T]he inquiry arises as to the effect and operation of a pardon, and on this point all the authorities concur. A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.”

Thanks, Ace. There it is in black
and white.

Quote: aceofspades

But see the SCOTUS case, Ex parte Garland (regarding the effects of a pardon - not regarding whether a lawsuit would be sustained):

Quote: SCOTUS

“[T]he inquiry arises as to the effect and operation of a pardon, and on this point all the authorities concur. A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.”

Haha the wannabe attorney just got pwned by an actual attorney! 😂😂

This is what ace just did to him 🤣🤣🤣

Quote: aceofspades

But see the SCOTUS case, Ex parte Garland (regarding the effects of a pardon - not regarding whether a lawsuit would be sustained):

Quote: SCOTUS

“[T]he inquiry arises as to the effect and operation of a pardon, and on this point all the authorities concur. A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.”

Unless I am misinterpreting, once conivicted of a crime the conviction still stands?

You just gain back your rights and are exempted from further punishment? It does not erase the convition from your record?

Which was my original point.



Either way, he is not getting pardoned.

Trump fired him for a reason. He was dirty and lied to investigators. Trump fired him for the same reason he is going to jail....

He was a general and the head of an intelligence agency. Don't come back and say "Well he was strong armed or mislead" if a 3 star general and intel leader can't handle an FBI interview properly, without lying or blundering, well that does not say much about him..... The idea that the FBI pressured him is absurd. He dug his own grave by his actions, and then filled it in by lying about it on the record.

Bad person. I have faith that the courts will come to the right decision as they usually do.
The FBI acted spectacularly.

Quote: Gandler

Quote: aceofspades

But see the SCOTUS case, Ex parte Garland (regarding the effects of a pardon - not regarding whether a lawsuit would be sustained):

Quote: SCOTUS

“[T]he inquiry arises as to the effect and operation of a pardon, and on this point all the authorities concur. A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.”

Unless I am misinterpreting, once conivicted of a crime the conviction still stands?

You just gain back your rights and are exempted from further punishment? It does not erase the convition from your record?

Which was my original point.



Either way, he is not getting pardoned.

Trump fired him for a reason. He was dirty and lied to investigators. Trump fired him for the same reason he is going to jail....

He was a general and the head of an intelligence agency. Don't come back and say "Well he was strong armed or mislead" if a 3 star general and intel leader can't handle an FBI interview properly, without lying or blundering, well that does not say much about him..... The idea that the FBI pressured him is absurd. He dug his own grave by his actions, and then filled it in by lying about it on the record.

Bad person. I have faith that the courts will come to the right decision as they usually do.
The FBI acted spectacularly.

See bolded text above

Quote: aceofspades

Quote: Gandler

Quote: aceofspades

But see the SCOTUS case, Ex parte Garland (regarding the effects of a pardon - not regarding whether a lawsuit would be sustained):

Quote: SCOTUS

“[T]he inquiry arises as to the effect and operation of a pardon, and on this point all the authorities concur. A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.”

Unless I am misinterpreting, once conivicted of a crime the conviction still stands?

You just gain back your rights and are exempted from further punishment? It does not erase the convition from your record?

Which was my original point.



Either way, he is not getting pardoned.

Trump fired him for a reason. He was dirty and lied to investigators. Trump fired him for the same reason he is going to jail....

He was a general and the head of an intelligence agency. Don't come back and say "Well he was strong armed or mislead" if a 3 star general and intel leader can't handle an FBI interview properly, without lying or blundering, well that does not say much about him..... The idea that the FBI pressured him is absurd. He dug his own grave by his actions, and then filled it in by lying about it on the record.

Bad person. I have faith that the courts will come to the right decision as they usually do.
The FBI acted spectacularly.

See bolded text above

I would need to read the full case when I can access my school's online legal library. But, based on what I can find on Google it is about an attorney petitioning to practice after being pardoned (in the 1800s).

The public summary of the case also has this segment:

"
9. The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.

10. A pardon reaches the punishment prescribed for an offence and the guilt of the offender. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. It gives him a new credit and capacity. There is only this limitation to its operation: it does not restore offices forfeited, or property of interests vested in others in consequence of the conviction and judgment.
"


Bear in mind Trump has been impeached..... (Yes not convivted).

I am pretty sure convictions still stay on criminal records....


This is what I can find on the DOJ website on pardons:
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions

"Does a presidential pardon expunge or erase the conviction for which the pardon was granted?

No.  Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President.  Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record.  Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record.  However, a pardon will facilitate removal of legal disabilities imposed because of the conviction, and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from the conviction.  In addition, a pardon may be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment.  If you are seeking expungement of a federal offense, please contact the court of conviction.  If you are seeking expungement of a state conviction, which the Office of the Pardon Attorney also does not have authority to handle, states have different procedures for “expunging” a conviction or “clearing” the record of a criminal conviction.  To pursue relief of a state conviction, you should contact the Governor or state Attorney General in the state in which you were convicted for assistance. "





Sir I am not a lawyer, but I think you are wrong. It appears it does stay on your record unless the DOJ is wrong.... I think you are citing a case that may or may not be relevant to what is being discussed.....

On Jan 19, 2021, or perhaps Jan 19, 2025, can DJT legally pardon Ivanka, Jared, Melania, etc... 'for all potential crimes alleged' even if no criminal case has been brought before a court?

Is there a prohibition from pardoning himself?

Quote: SOOPOO

On Jan 19, 2021, or perhaps Jan 19, 2025, can DJT legally pardon Ivanka, Jared, Melania, etc... 'for all potential crimes alleged' even if no criminal case has been brought before a court?

Is there a prohibition from pardoning himself?

None have been charged with anything so I doubt it. They have not committed any crimes so no need to do so except to stop Democrats from inventing a crime.

He has until 2029 in office in any case......

Quote: SOOPOO

On Jan 19, 2021, or perhaps Jan 19, 2025, can DJT legally pardon Ivanka, Jared, Melania, etc... 'for all potential crimes alleged' even if no criminal case has been brought before a court?

Is there a prohibition from pardoning himself?

This was actually in the DOJ FAQ I posted above.

"Can the President pardon himself?
That is a question best answered by the Department's Office of Legal Counsel. You may contact them directly at www.justice.gov/olc/contact-olc. "
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions

I don't know the answer, but this is one of the few answers that they don't post directly on their website (maybe because of the political implications) or maybe because it has just never been tried and they don't know.



However, on their same site there is this memo from 1974 from the Assistant AG when asked:
https://www.justice.gov/file/20856/download


"Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon
himself.
If under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment the President declared that he was temporarily unable to perform
the duties of the office, the Vice President would become Acting President and as such could pardon
the President. Thereafter the President could either resign or resume the duties of his office.
Although as a general matter Congress cannot enact amnesty or pardoning legislation, because to do so
would interfere with the pardoning power vested expressly in the President by the Constitution, it
could be argued that a congressional pardon granted to the President would not interfere with the
President’s pardoning power because that power does not extend to the President himself.
August 5, 1974"




So it would appear the answer is no.

Conservatives like to talk about intent of the founders when considering constitutional questions. Do any of them actually believe the founders would want a President to rule on his own punishment? That's more like a power of royalty. Kings did all kinds of things to help themselves over their own laws.

Quote: rxwine

Conservatives like to talk about intent of the founders when considering constitutional questions. Do any of them actually believe the founders would want a President to rule on his own punishment? That's more like a power of royalty. Kings did all kinds of things to help themselves over their own laws.

The founding fathers were pretty smart. You don't think none of them could have foresaw a possibility of a bad President pardoning himself or his cronies? A single sentence, quite non controversial, could have taken care of this.... "The President may not pardon himself or any family member"

The fact that it is NOT specifically spelled out is interesting.
'