[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-28, 21:40, said:

Grow up or go away. The adults are trying to have a conversation.

Ah, another smug condescending argument. How precious!

Obeying the rule of law means exactly that. The law currently permits the President to pardon whomever. If you do not agree with the law, move to change it. Otherwise, obey it. Do not rant against the person complying with the law because you don't like the outcome, that is infantile. Adults don't do that.

[mike777]

You do understand they rant because it is Trump....not a democrat...

In any case this will be passed by events.....


btw I don't see anything wrong or bad with ranting about current laws if you feel strongly....that the law sucks...but agree with your suggested solution.


Ranting is often step one in changing sucky laws.

In this case...the power of the pardon.....the founding fathers were wise to grant the power. No change...we live with it...

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-29, 14:25, said:

This is a good recap of the problem with the Arpaio pardon. By Barbara McQuade:

A recap from 538 through the lens of historical precedent.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-August-29, 20:15, said:

Ah, another smug condescending argument. How precious!

Obeying the rule of law means exactly that. The law currently permits the President to pardon whomever. If you do not agree with the law, move to change it. Otherwise, obey it. Do not rant against the person complying with the law because you don't like the outcome, that is infantile. Adults don't do that.

Larry, Larry, Larry...

A bunch of people, myself included posted to detailed explanations of why your argument is incorrect.
Rather than actually responding to any of this, you have chosen to insult Winston and restate your original assertion.

Perhaps this is the reason that you're treated with condescension...
Your behavior demands nothing less.

Oh, btw, the President's unlimited authority to pardon is primarily based on judicial interpretation rather than formal statute.
If / when it gets reined in, I suspect that it will be the judiciary that does so rather than congress.
The Arpaio pardon would make an interesting test.

If congress were to act with respect to Arpaio, its much more likely that they would start impeachment proceedings than ammending the constitution.

Personally, I don't think that congress will kick off an impeachment drive solely based on this pardon.
However, this will almost certainly get larded on once things get rolling in a few months.

[Zelandakh]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-30, 02:37, said:

A bunch of people, myself included posted to detailed explanations of why yourargument is incorrect.
Rather than actually responding to any of this, you have chosen to insult Winston and restate your original assertion.

If not will to believe you and the others, perhaps he will consider the words of James Madison:

Quote

There is one security in this case to which gentlemen may not have adverted: if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty; they can suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the Vice-President. Should he be suspected, also, he may likewise be suspended till he be impeached and removed, and the legislature may make a temporary appointment. This is a great security.

He was apparently a very naive man! Between the influence of political parties, gerrymandering and electoral roll manipulation, the impeachment process has little to do with how I would guess it was originally envisioned. That the "Father of the Constitution" saw it as an effective control in such cases shows just how far removed the modern-day USA is from the original concept.

[jjbrr]

An example of a pardon that would be obviously against the law would be a promise to Manafort of pardons in exchange for not taking any deals with investigators.

I would also argue that it is obviously impeachable to use pardons as a campaign tactic to rally your supporters, but here we are.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-30, 02:37, said:

Larry, Larry, Larry...

A bunch of people, myself included posted to detailed explanations of why your argument is incorrect.
Rather than actually responding to any of this, you have chosen to insult Winston and restate your original assertion.

Perhaps this is the reason that you're treated with condescension...
Your behavior demands nothing less.

Oh, btw, the President's unlimited authority to pardon is primarily based on judicial interpretation rather than formal statute.
If / when it gets reined in, I suspect that it will be the judiciary that does so rather than congress.
The Arpaio pardon would make an interesting test.

If congress were to act with respect to Arpaio, its much more likely that they would start impeachment proceedings than ammending the constitution.

Personally, I don't think that congress will kick off an impeachment drive solely based on this pardon.
However, this will almost certainly get larded on once things get rolling in a few months.

Quote

The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

I fail to see how the above is primarily based on judicial interpretation. It comes directly from the Constitution.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-30, 02:37, said:

Perhaps this is the reason that you're treated with condescension...
Your behavior demands nothing less.

So you do agree that Winstonm was condescending?

[barmar]

ldrews, on 2017-August-29, 20:15, said:

Ah, another smug condescending argument. How precious!

Obeying the rule of law means exactly that. The law currently permits the President to pardon whomever. If you do not agree with the law, move to change it. Otherwise, obey it. Do not rant against the person complying with the law because you don't like the outcome, that is infantile. Adults don't do that.

No one is saying that Trump didn't have the legal right to pardon Arpaio. The issues are whether it was appropriate, and what message it sends.

He wasn't "complying with the law" -- there's no law requiring him to pardon anyone.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-30, 02:37, said:

Personally, I don't think that congress will kick off an impeachment drive solely based on this pardon.
However, this will almost certainly get larded on once things get rolling in a few months.

As long as the GOP is in charge, there's practically nothing he could do that would kick off an impeachment drive. His campaign about shooting someone in Times Square comes to mind as maybe the only thing.

[Winstonm]

This is an interesting legal challenge to the Arpaio pardon.

Quote

Meanwhile, Protect Democracy, an activist group seeking to thwart Trump’s violations of legal norms, and a group of lawyers have sent a letter to Raymond N. Hulser and John Dixon Keller of the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division of the Justice Department, arguing that the pardon goes beyond constitutional limits. In their letter obtained by Right Turn, they argue:

While the Constitution’s pardon power is broad, it is not unlimited. Like all provisions of the original Constitution of 1787, it is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Similarly, issuance of a pardon that violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is also suspect. Under the Due Process Clause, no one in the United States (citizen or otherwise) may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But for due process and judicial review to function, courts must be able to restrain government officials. Due process requires that, when a government official is found by a court to be violating individuals’ constitutional rights, the court can issue effective relief (such as an injunction) ordering the official to cease this unconstitutional conduct. And for an injunction to be effective, there must be a penalty for violation of the injunction—principally, contempt of court.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2017-August-30, 09:21, said:

As long as the GOP is in charge, there's practically nothing he could do that would kick off an impeachment drive. His campaign about shooting someone in Times Square comes to mind as maybe the only thing.

Actually, I believe that doing nothing will be the critical determining factor.

If the GOP fails on Tax reform congress and Trump will turn on each other.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-August-30, 08:29, said:

So you do agree that Winstonm was condescending?

Yes, but not nearly enough so...

[jjbrr]

Historians, can anyone remember another time when the SecDef openly and defiantly contradicted the president?

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2017-August-30, 09:21, said:

As long as the GOP is in charge, there's practically nothing he could do that would kick off an impeachment drive. His campaign about shooting someone in Times Square comes to mind as maybe the only thing.

I am no longer so sure of this. I think some sort of invisible threshold has been crossed. I don't monitor these things closely enough to make a strong case, but it seems to me that quite a few Republicans are saying some version of "I will tell you what I think, the president speaks for himself, not for me". Trump has acted throughout his presidency as if he sees no need for friends. He will push people around, they will do as he says or the hell with them. We will see how this works.

The pardon, on its own, is presumably legal. But, again on its own, it has no merit. And it was done in an unusual manner. So naturally people wonder, and it is not hard to see where their thoughts will lead. A message. What message? Well, again it is not hard to see where this thinking will go. Hey guys, don't worry about Mueller. I got the power of the pardon, no need to roll over.That's a message many many people of all political leanings will not be comfortable with. We may well be headed for a major confrontation.


An impeachment cannot be , or at least I hope it will not be, "well the country has changed its mind so we will impeach you". But if we think back to Nixon, it also does not have to be because a specific crime was suddenly unearthed. As far as I know, Nixon had the legal right to order the firing of Archibald Cox. But it was the end. All over but the mopping up.

History never repeats itself exactly, but my sense is that something has changed.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2017-August-30, 11:49, said:

I am no longer so sure of this. I think some sort of invisible threshold has been crossed. I don't monitor these things closely enough to make a strong case, but it seems to me that quite a few Republicans are saying some version of "I will tell you what I think, the president speaks for himself, not for me". Trump has acted throughout his presidency as if he sees no need for friends. He will push people around, they will do as he says or the hell with them. We will see how this works.

The pardon, on its own, is presumably legal. But, again on its own, it has no merit. And it was done in an unusual manner. So naturally people wonder, and it is not hard to see where their thoughts will lead. A message. What message? Well, again it is not hard to see where this thinking will go. Hey guys, don't worry about Mueller. I got the power of the pardon, no need to roll over.That's a message many many people of all political leanings will not be comfortable with. We may well be headed for a major confrontation.


An impeachment cannot be , or at least I hope it will not be, "well the country has changed its mind so we will impeach you". But if we think back to Nixon, it also does not have to be because a specific crime was suddenly unearthed. As far as I know, Nixon had the legal right to order the firing of Archibald Cox. But it was the end. All over but the mopping up.

History never repeats itself exactly, but my sense is that something has changed.

The crime that tipped the scales against Nixon was his taped "Uh-huh" agreement to Haldeman's idea to use the CIA to force the FBI to drop the probe into Watergate, i.e., obstruction of justice.

How times have changed.

[Al_U_Card]

Well, Nixon did also say that Agnew was his "assassination insurance", so perhaps Pence is Trump's "Impeachment insurance".

Once Spiro pleaded nolo contendere and Gerry Ford was ready to go, the CIA could organize the "break-in" and start the ball rolling. Detente and China were all against the CIA's idea of good governance so he had to go.

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-August-30, 08:23, said:

I fail to see how the above is primarily based on judicial interpretation. It comes directly from the Constitution.

The judicial interpretation come from the case of Philip Grossman, where the Supreme Court ruled that criminal contempt was covered by the given Article. In ruling, the court did discuss the possibility of preisdential abuse, such as with:

Quote

Our Constitution confers this discretion on the highest officer in the nation in confidence that he will not abuse it.

and

Quote

Exceptional cases like this if to be imagined at all would suggest a resort to impeachment

If the SC had ruled otherwise on any of the arguments of interpreting the Constitution then the power of pardon would not cover criminal contempt in cases such as Arpaio. To say "comes directly from the Constitution" rather misses the point and suggests a level of ignorance well beyond what I would have expected.

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-30, 14:45, said:

The judicial interpretation come from the case of Philip Grossman, where the Supreme Court ruled that criminal contempt was covered by the given Article. In ruling, the court did discuss the possibility of preisdential abuse, such as with:

and


If the SC had ruled otherwise on any of the arguments of interpreting the Constitution then the power of pardon would not cover criminal contempt in cases such as Arpaio. To say "comes directly from the Constitution" rather misses the point and suggests a level of ignorance well beyond what I would have expected.

Well, if we are going to give authority to the intent of the Founding Fathers ("not to abuse"), then much of modern interpretation of the Constitution is somewhat invalidated, isn't it?

In any case, as has been pointed out, the egregious use of the Pardon is subject to control via impeachment. If the Congress feels that the recent pardon is a serious abuse then impeachment proceedings are imminent. But don't hold your breath.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-30, 10:57, said:

Yes, but not nearly enough so...

So, how is that condescension thing working out for you? My take is that the condescension of those who seem to share your outlook is one of the significant reasons Trump was elected. Condescension pisses people off.