On the Issue of Pardons, Why Haven't They Been Handed out Like Confetti Already?

I was thinking: have people no honor anymore?

I wondered, starting weeks ago actually: why haven't people jumped ship from the White House considering all the West Wing dirt and scandal that has been putting a drag on the Executive's Branch’s performance and, for that matter, the performance of Congress, too?

In fact, a T.V. personality (I forget which one) expressed concern that there, so far, have been no significant wave(s) of resignations being announced by White House personnel as one would expect.

Well, it's been reported by the Washington Post, that the legal team of Donald Trump has been studying and exploring the possibility of the Presidential power of pardon being used for all staffers, family members, and even the President, himself.

Ahhhh, there you have it. People have been hanging on to their positions because to resign from the White House could very much be taken as a sign of disloyalty to the President, and such indication of disloyalty would disqualify such a turncoat from being granted a pardon and thus put the turncoat at risk for a prison term.

Huh? Just how many people in the White House have some sort of criminal exposure to a prison term?!?! (Let’s consider skank Sarah Huckabee-Sanders. She, not so long ago, lied by blasting the media saying that there was nothing to the Russia story, that it was going on for far too long, and that a lid should be put on it! Could this be considered aiding and abetting a cover-up? I don’t know.)

But there is more.

I just learned from MSNBC that the Supreme Court has ruled that, for a pardon to be effective, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED by the recipient, and such ACCEPTANCE IS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT!

So, if people like Jared and Ivanka Trump and The Donald, himself, accept pardons, their admission of guilt will destroy them as they return to their real-world business endeavors. (Note: Ivanka Trump Kushner may have criminal liability for failing to disclose family matters (hubby matters) as required under penalty of criminal law on her application for a security clearance.)

The chumps known as the Trumps, as hypothetically admitted felons due to hypothetical pardons, will go totally radioactive with their businesses. They will be shunned. Effectively, they will be boycotted. Being highly leveraged with debt, even a relatively minor drop-off of business revenues will put them over a financial cliff and on the fast track to bankruptcy. Why, they will even be considered to be radioactive to the Russians and Deutsche Bank. As I understand things, even Great Britain didn’t want anything to do with Benedict Arnold.

Trump the chump, being a hotelier, himself, should be well acquainted with the concept of a reservation for accommodations and should start lining up reserved accommodations at the nearest five-star homeless shelter.

Trump the chump apparently, just as he thought that it would be oh, so, easy to come up with a super fine replacement for Obamacare, likewise thought that it would be oh, so, easy to get away with anything he wanted to get away with as Commander-in-Chief-of-Supreme-Power of the world.

Errr, wasn't so easy, chump, now, was it?

BTW, a pardoning of himself will not spare The Donald from being impeached and kicked to the curb with a "Will work for food” sign. There are already substantial grounds for impeachment proceedings which can be put on the very fast express track. He has got to go, go, go now, now, now before he continues to wreak havoc on the country beyond repair. (It kinda looks that way already. Sad.)

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

LOL....rough day?

I'd like to add an issue.

Here's the question: how will a pardon affect a pardonee's ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment before a Congressional hearing with a refusal to testify if the pardonee already admitted guilt to crimes, and so, self-incrimination will not put him in jeopardy under criminal law?

If the pardonee refuses to testify citing the Fifth Amendment, will he be found guilty of a new crime not covered by the pardon, to wit, contempt of Congress?

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Let’s consider skank Sarah Huckabee-Sanders

You're really going out of your way to show your tolerance.

I just learned from MSNBC that the Supreme Court 

Pro tip:

Don't base your legal arguments on a 3 minute segment from msnbc.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Let’s consider skank Sarah Huckabee-Sanders

You're really going out of your way to show your tolerance.

I just learned from MSNBC that the Supreme Court 

Pro tip:

Don't base your legal arguments on a 3 minute segment from msnbc.

I've already been hit with criticism regarding my media citations, but I have yet to hear any valid refutations from the peanut gallery.

If there is something inaccurate with what I've stated (in this case the Supreme Court ruling on pardons), then, by all means, point it out.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Acceptance of a pardon is required.
It is not an admission of guilt if no one is charged / tried / convicted. The DOJ policy requires an admission in order to qualify to receive one, in addition to a conviction. That policy does not apply to pardons issued by the President and accepted by the intended recipient.

A person does not have to be charged nor convicted in order to be pardoned. A Presidential pardon only applies to federal law violations.

Impeachment is the only offense pardons do not affect.

Burdick vs. United States is the case law and it only refers to people who are already convicted. It does not say anything about people being pardoned when they are never charged. It set the precedent that a pardon cannot be forced if it is rejected. It also established the need for the person pardoned to submit the pardon to the courts for the legal side of things.

MSNBC is wrong on the blanket admission of guilt claim. All one has to do is look at Richard Nixons pardon, which MSNBC ignored.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

I've already been hit with criticism regarding my media citations, but I have yet to hear any valid refutations from the peanut gallery.

Dont have to . You do enough self-inflicted damage . We just set back and smirk.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

I've already been hit with criticism regarding my media citations

Checks OP again.. no citations. A TV personality? Msnbc?


Who's gonna be pardoned? For what exactly?

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Let’s consider skank Sarah Huckabee-Sanders

You're really going out of your way to show your tolerance.

I just learned from MSNBC that the Supreme Court 

Pro tip:

Don't base your legal arguments on a 3 minute segment from msnbc.

I've already been hit with criticism regarding my media citations, but I have yet to hear any valid refutations from the peanut gallery.

If there is something inaccurate with what I've stated (in this case the Supreme Court ruling on pardons), then, by all means, point it out.

No one with any intelligence is going to bother refuting your nonsense because you use words like skank and chump and say things like trump will be holding a will work for food sign.
You discredit yourself. Why would we stop you from looking foolish?
Adults don't do name calling when we are trying to make a point because we want to appear mature enough to have an experienced viewpoint.
In other words: we know you're screaming because you have nothing to say.
If you are so much smarter than us then act like it. We love smart people. We will listen.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

I've already been hit with criticism regarding my media citations, but I have yet to hear any valid refutations from the peanut gallery.

Dont have to . You do enough self-inflicted damage . We just set back and smirk.

Oh wow. You beat me to it. And said it more efficiently.

I think you're full of crap, but hey that's just my opinion. Maybe one day you will cite a source and prove me wrong. Until then good luck with the fake news you spread on ATS.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Acceptance of a pardon is required.
It is not an admission of guilt if no one is charged / tried / convicted. The DOJ policy requires an admission in order to qualify to receive one, in addition to a conviction. That policy does not apply to pardons issued by the President and accepted by the intended recipient.

A person does not have to be charged nor convicted in order to be pardoned. A Presidential pardon only applies to federal law violations.

Impeachment is the only offense pardons do not affect.

Burdick vs. United States is the case law and it only refers to people who are already convicted. It does not say anything about people being pardoned when they are never charged. It set the precedent that a pardon cannot be forced if it is rejected. It also established the need for the person pardoned to submit the pardon to the courts for the legal side of things.

MSNBC is wrong on the blanket admission of guilt claim. All one has to do is look at Richard Nixons pardon, which MSNBC ignored.

Thank you for the tutorial.

Now let's get back to the original question: why haven't pardons been handed out like confetti especially in light of the anxiety attacks and lack of self-control on the part of The Donald? You'd think that one way or another he'd be more than eager to put a lid on the Mueller investigation. Then again, as noted in the OP, The Donald may be concerned about his business future.

And let's get back to the follow-up question: how will a pardon affect a pardonee's Congressional testimony and the invocation of the Fifth Amendment?

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

They shouldnt be needed but when its a partisan investigation who is set on destroying the President and people around him simply by leaking investigative material with no charges a line must be drawn. Democrats already stated they want to drag this russia bs out to the midterms, even after they admitted time and again no collusion occurred.

In case you ignored it, people on the Trump side have been asking to testify to Congress. In case you ignored it Democrats on the committees kept delaying their testimony, now to an indefinite date.

Mueller is hanging himself with the rope he was provided. Trump only needs to pardon when it becomes obvious to everyone that Mueller is acting in a manner inconsistent with that of special counsel.

Pardons would preempt any need to comply with subpoenas for testimony however since they could no longer be charged for anything they testify to its a moot point. The 5th amendment would technically not be needed.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: theworldisnotenough
Mueller is hanging himself with the rope he was provided.

Hanging himself?? How do you figure that?

The closest thing to that is the making himself a martyr in a Saturday Night Massacre. (It looks like Jeff Sessions is attempting this.)

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Pardons would preempt any need to comply with subpoenas for testimony however since they could no longer be charged for anything they testify to its a moot point. The 5th amendment would technically not be needed.

Excuse me. What if a pardonee is subpoenaed to testify about someone else's alleged crime. If things get touchy, can the pardonee invoke the Fifth Amendment?

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Rod Rosenstein's Letter Appointing Mueller Special Counsel ***PDF LINK***





28 CFR 600.4 - jurisdiction

§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.

(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

Read the above... Mueller is hanging himself by going after stuff thats not covered in the AAG letter authorizing the special counsel.

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Pardons would preempt any need to comply with subpoenas for testimony however since they could no longer be charged for anything they testify to its a moot point. The 5th amendment would technically not be needed.

Excuse me. What if a pardonee is subpoenaed to testify about someone else's alleged crime. If things get touchy, can the pardonee invoke the Fifth Amendment?

Being subpoenaed for someone elses crime would mean the person is not a subject of any criminal investigation and the pardon would not apply. Since the person is not the subject of the investigation he has no grounds to invoke his 5th amendment right.

This is not hard to understand.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

peanut gallery.

Keep up the circus, better to be an observer in the gallery throwing peanuts at the great orator - thezooisnotenough

I have some watermelon for you

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Pardons would preempt any need to comply with subpoenas for testimony however since they could no longer be charged for anything they testify to its a moot point. The 5th amendment would technically not be needed.

Excuse me. What if a pardonee is subpoenaed to testify about someone else's alleged crime. If things get touchy, can the pardonee invoke the Fifth Amendment?

Being subpoenaed for someone elses crime would mean the person is not a subject of any criminal investigation and the pardon would not apply. Since the person is not the subject of the investigation he has no grounds to invoke his 5th amendment right.

This is not hard to understand.

Actually, yes, because you never know where things will go during a Congressional investigation. I certainly would not want pardonees testifying about me!!

Think about it, If pardons at the White House are handed out in any significant number, there will be a divide between pardon-haves and pardon-have-nots. Then, if you thought there were knife fights during the transition period, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Shills gona shill