503
Trump could legally sell pardons under 'blueprint for totalitarianism' from Supreme Court
(www.rawstory.com)
I thought we already knew that he was selling pardons.
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
503 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3659 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yes, but now he could do it legally (well full immunity making legality ~~mute~~ moot).
Hey, just FYI, the term is actually "moot".
Not trying to be rude, I just I know I prefer to be told about stuff like this ❤️
I thought it was "moo."
naw. that's when legality needs less cowbell
It's a cow's opinion. It's moo.
He made sense there
Less cowbell? How am I supposed to cure my fever?
Have I been living with Joey too long, or did that actually make sense?
Ah good catch, not sure if I mistyped or mobile auto-correct got me. I think I even looked the word up to make sure I was spelling it correct (I always want to add an "e" on the end). And no rudeness taken on this side, I appreciate it. Thanks! =)
Yes but now he can be even more explicit about it, put it right in official communications.
Now fortified with immunity! A part of a complete ~~breakfast~~ autocracy.
And wasn't it basically already legal? I don't think there's a lot of regulation around it (at least as codified in law, I know in the last few decades presidents deferred to a vetting process through DOJ, but none of that is mandatory).
The president's power to pardon federal crimes is not really limited in the constitution except to exclude cases of impeachment. That is generally accepted to mean that the power of the pardon is otherwise nearly unlimited except perhaps that one cannot pardon oneself. There is no specific rule or law against giving a pardon in exchange for payment, though it is clearly considered by most as unethical.
There is no specific rule or law against giving a pardon in exchange for payment
Yes there is: 18 USC § 201 (b) (2).
Granting the pardon isn't the part that's illegal; soliciting or receiving the payment in exchange is. The ruling doesn't change that, but could make the prosecution of that act more difficult in certain edge cases.
Thanks for correcting me. Always happy to learn!
wouldn’t they be called “indulgences”?
Good question. Someone could write a thesis or two about it.
And nail it to the doors of the Capitol
No, Trump needs to brand everything. There's be Trumpulgences, or Trumpdons.
Oh, just one more pardon. Treat yourself!
Price: your help in overthrowing the American government for me.
Line forms on the right.
He has stated that he wants to pardon everyone for Jan 6th, and will likely pardon anyone willing to be his militia against the Left/immigrants. The Supreme Court has thrown gas on how fast they are going to be able to go through the whole Project 2025 playbook.
And all the people saying "but the lower courts get to decide if it's an official act" are ignoring the fact that the courts are so slow it won't even matter, all the damage will be long done
If it makes you feel any better, with the age of these two candidates and the speed of the courts it's likely that it didn't actually matter before the ruling. They're not exactly consequences if they happen after you've died peacefully of old age.
Trump dying before everything hits the fan and resolves would be an unmitigated catastrophe.
One of the major saving graces about this quite credible attempt by fascistic forces to take over the US is that Trump is at the helm, and he is literally one of the planet’s most incompetent and unlikable humans.
If the whole machinery gets set up as well as it is right now, and then someone who’s capable of doing more than being the world’s biggest asshole and thief gets in charge of it, then God help us, for real.
And they’re also ignoring that every single one of the courts to which the Supreme Court are referring are subordinate to the Supreme Court and may be overruled by the Supreme Court at any point after a case enters the federal court system.
I’m baffled at how people can completely miss such an obvious progression.
And Mr. Kiriakou was separately told that Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani could help him secure a pardon for $2 million. Mr. Kiriakou rejected the offer, but an associate, fearing that Mr. Giuliani was illegally selling pardons, alerted the F.B.I. Mr. Giuliani challenged this characterization.
2021
wont someone rid us of this orange turd
"could"? Will (if elected).
A cursory reading of the decision (PDF), and most reporting on it do suggest that it allows the president to sell pardons. Clarity that it does not can be found in a footnote, which reads in part:
JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” ... But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act.... What the prosecutor may not do,however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself.
Who’s going to prosecute him? He can just imprison or fire anyone who tries.
This is presumably in reference to a past president, who would not have those powers. The legal issues surrounding prosecuting a sitting president have not been explored, and this ruling does not address them directly as they were not relevant to the case.
But Trump won’t be a past president because he won’t leave office until he’s dead. He’ll never be prosecuted, and he knows it.
The risk of something like that happening is not closely connected to anything in the ruling we're discussing here. If a president manages to hold on to power after losing an election or reaching a term limit, the situation has devolved far beyond ordinary criminal prosecution; the constitution is no longer being enforced at that point.
This ruling is what gives him the immunity to prevent enforcement of the constitution.
Have you read the ruling?
I have a different take and I think the Chief Justice is being intentionally vague here. He references a bribery prosecution but never specifically mentions in the footnote whether he is referring to the issuance of a pardon, which is a core function, and thus entitled to absolute immunity based on the rest of the opinion. It’s also not clear whether he is referring to a prosecution of the briber or the person being bribed.
Reading Justice Barrett's partial concurrence, which is what the footnote responds to and also included in the linked ruling addresses your concern. Justice Barrett is unambiguously talking about prosecuting the president for accepting a bribe.
The federal bribery statute forbids any public official to seek or accept a thing of value “for or because of any official act.” 18 U. S. C. §201(c). The Constitution, of course, does not authorize a President to seek or accept bribes, so the Government may prosecute him if he does so.
Except a pardon is a core function within the president’s constitutional authority, not just an official act, thus based on the opinion entitled to absolute immunity. The footnote exchange is only referencing official acts (which are entitled to presumptive immunity) not core constitutional functions (like a pardon).
Accepting a bribe is, however not an official act. It's the acceptance of the bribe that's illegal, not the official act itself.
Yes please and I bought a really nice house but the neighbors giant sequoia tree keeps dumping debris on my roof tiles. Can we legally cut it or burn it down?