[QUOTE]“I don't want to talk about pardons for Michael Flynn yet. Let's see. I can say this, when you look at what's gone on with the FBI and with the justice department, people are very, very angry.”[/QUOTE]
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-rule-flynn-pardon/story?id=51812536[/url]
[url]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-on-a-flynn-pardon-lets-see/ar-BBGMvs8[/url]
Perhaps a non story? But to my mind, ruling out a pardon should be like, top of the list of things to say.
Why does the president even have the power to pardon people? Is there any good reason?
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;52981895]Why does the president even have the power to pardon people? Is there any good reason?[/QUOTE]
I think it is a check on the power of the courts or a fallback in case an innocent is locked up or something of the sort. But I'm not sure.
Just reminds me of the sheriff pardon. Still makes my stomach turn.
Someone slap his hand away from the documents, we don't need him obstructing justice further.
Flynn is working with Mueller because he's guilty, to prevent harsher punishment or something along those lines, correct? So a pardon would remove Flynn's motivation to be cooperative, or am I completely wrong?
[QUOTE=TestECull;52981898]I think it is a check on the power of the courts or a fallback in case an innocent is locked up or something of the sort. But I'm not sure.[/QUOTE]
Sad how that's turned out isn't it
[QUOTE=Riller;52982094]Flynn is working with Mueller because he's guilty, to prevent harsher punishment or something along those lines, correct? So a pardon would remove Flynn's motivation to be cooperative, or am I completely wrong?[/QUOTE]
That is probably Orange in Chief's logic.
[QUOTE=TestECull;52982107]That is probably Orange in Chief's logic.[/QUOTE]
And it honestly seems pretty sound. Flynn is much better served getting off for free than he is maybe getting off from snitching like mad.
It's also pretty much direct confirmation that Trump knows Flynn knows shit that'll get Trump thrown away.
[QUOTE=Riller;52982120]And it honestly seems pretty sound. Flynn is much better served getting off for free than he is maybe getting off from snitching like mad.
It's also pretty much direct confirmation that Trump knows Flynn knows shit that'll get Trump thrown away.[/QUOTE]
And probably too little too late. I highly doubt Mueller hasnt yet milked Flynn for every piece of info he can get, and beyond that, trump pardoning Flynn is A: No guarantee of Flynn's cooperation(Itd be hilarious for Flynn to sing like a songbird anyway!) and B: Constitute an obvious act of obstruction of justice.
Remember, Trump can only pardon federal crimes, and the docket on Flynn's guilty plea [I]explicitly[/I] stated that not all of the facts of the case have been included. It also explicitly stated that more charges may be pressed.
If Trump pardons Flynn for lying to Pence and the FBI, Mueller guaranteed has state-level charges he can hit him with, like money-laundering. And, not only did Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI, a pardon is an automatic confirmation of guilt and so Trump pardoning him would give Mueller all the justification needed to threaten Flynn with nailing his hide to the wall on the charges he [I]knows[/I] Flynn is guilty of (because he confessed to them while singing for his reduced sentence) that are directly tied to that [I]now-confirmed[/I] felonious lying to the FBI.
If Trump pardons Flynn, he just increases the size of the bus Flynn's already under by 10x.
What is dangerous is if Trump or Congressional Republicans attempt to fire Mueller or derail his investigation, because we can't know for sure that a Saturday Night Massacre II will be answered with impeachment until Democrats control Congress. Fortunately, some Senate Republicans are at least saying they have Mueller's back -- while not being willing to commit to that in legislation, so massive grain of salt here.
[QUOTE=Riller;52982094]Flynn is working with Mueller because he's guilty, to prevent harsher punishment or something along those lines, correct? So a pardon would remove Flynn's motivation to be cooperative, or am I completely wrong?[/QUOTE]
You're exactly right, and it's why Trump even [I]hinting[/I] that Flynn may be pardoned is tantamount to witness tampering and obstruction of justice in and of itself.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52982158]Remember, Trump can only pardon federal crimes, and the docket on Flynn's guilty plea [I]explicitly[/I] stated that not all of the facts of the case have been included. It also explicitly stated that more charges may be pressed.
If Trump pardons Flynn for lying to Pence and the FBI, Mueller guaranteed has state-level charges he can hit him with, like money-laundering. And, not only did Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI, a pardon is an automatic confirmation of guilt and so Trump pardoning him would give Mueller all the justification needed to threaten Flynn with nailing his hide to the wall on the charges he [I]knows[/I] Flynn is guilty of (because he confessed to them while singing for his reduced sentence) that are directly tied to that [I]now-confirmed[/I] felonious lying to the FBI.
If Trump pardons Flynn, he just increases the size of the bus Flynn's already under by 10x.
What is dangerous is if Trump or Congressional Republicans attempt to fire Mueller or derail his investigation, because we can't know for sure that a Saturday Night Massacre II will be answered with impeachment until Democrats control Congress. Fortunately, some Senate Republicans are at least saying they have Mueller's back -- while not being willing to commit to that in legislation, so massive grain of salt here.[/QUOTE]
A pardon is not an automatic admission of guilt, although in this case its moot since he has already pled guilty to the crime, a pardon at this point is just removing the punishment whichq again makes no sense since he has agreed to cooperate with the government
I mean its actually pointless, and trump is going to do it because everytime he waffles on something he does it, and hes gonna get away with it too because republicans will dive all over how flynn is a decorated military hero yada yada not checking trump yada
Trump won't actually pardon Flynn because he sees Flynn's cooperation with law enforcement as a betrayal.
Then again, Riller brings up a good point.
[QUOTE=Riller;52982094]Flynn is working with Mueller because he's guilty, to prevent harsher punishment or something along those lines, correct? So a pardon would remove Flynn's motivation to be cooperative, or am I completely wrong?[/QUOTE]
Mueller's probably got worse charges up his sleeve. Trump could pardon Flynn for lying and then Mueller could book him for something else.
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;52981895]Why does the president even have the power to pardon people? Is there any good reason?[/QUOTE]
The judicial branch doesn't have an army. The police and military [i]are[/i] the executive branch, that's how it's set up. If the executive does not want to act, the judiciary can make all the rulings it wants, but they're just paper without the executive's enforcement.
A pardon is not "court, I am ordering you to drop the charges," it's "court, I am putting you on notice that if you go forward with this, I won't bother to enforce your order, and there's nothing you can do to make me."
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52982377]Mueller's probably got worse charges up his sleeve. Trump could pardon Flynn for lying and then Mueller could book him for something else.[/QUOTE]
I think thinking like this gives Mueller too much credit, to be honest. He's an absolutely amazing prosecutor who's already gotten further than anyone would ever have faith in the US legal system getting, but I think he's closer to going all in, all the time than playing with an ace up the sleeve on literally everything he does.
[QUOTE=Riller;52982407]I think thinking like this gives Mueller too much credit, to be honest. He's an absolutely amazing prosecutor who's already gotten further than anyone would ever have faith in the US legal system getting, but I think he's closer to going all in, all the time than playing with an ace up the sleeve on literally everything he does.[/QUOTE]
While we can't really [B]know[/B], that Flynn took a plea deal in exchange for reduced charges is effectively a certainty. We know, at a minimum, that FARA charges could be filed against him, and yet were not. We can also speculate quite a bit as to money laundering, given that court documents revealed huge sums of money moving through Flynn and his son. What else there might be the public can only guess at, but the legal community has already offered several educated guesses.
Obvious disclosure: I am not a lawyer, but here is my understanding of the situation: Flynn is a cooperating witness who took a plea deal. If he stops cooperating because Trump has extended the possibility of a pardon, then Trump has just committed the federal crimes of witness tampering and obstruction of justice, and Flynn is now in violation of his plea deal and can have the withheld charges applied.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;52982405]The judicial branch doesn't have an army. The police and military [i]are[/i] the executive branch, that's how it's set up. If the executive does not want to act, the judiciary can make all the rulings it wants, but they're just paper without the executive's enforcement.
A pardon is not "court, I am ordering you to drop the charges," it's "court, I am putting you on notice that if you go forward with this, I won't bother to enforce your order, and there's nothing you can do to make me."[/QUOTE]
Wait what? And that's considered okay? Doesn't it make the judicial and legislative branches basically useless if the executive doesn't feel like enforcing anything?
[QUOTE=_Axel;52982434]Wait what? And that's considered okay? Doesn't it make the judicial and legislative branches basically useless if the executive doesn't feel like enforcing anything?[/QUOTE]
It's theoretically a vital part of the partition of power, so the judicial branch can't just order the executive branch throw anyone they please in prison.
[QUOTE=Riller;52982450]It's theoretically a vital part of the partition of power, so the judicial branch can't just order the executive branch throw anyone they please in prison.[/QUOTE]
What good is the partition of power if the executive branch can just do as they please? That sounds pretty stupid.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52982521]What good is the partition of power if the executive branch can just do as they please? That sounds pretty stupid.[/QUOTE]
Technically any branch can just do as it pleases. The thing that holds them back from doing so are the checks and balances that come from the other branches. In this case, the executive could try to do whatever it wants but by the Constitution that would mean anything they do could land them with impeachment charges.
In other words the executive only gets to do what it wants when the Congress decides it doesn't want to check it's power. The framers of the constitution felt that if it ever came to that, the people would simply rise up and remove them from office as they'd be enabling tyranny... which is the expressed paragraph one reason for the establishment of the United States constitution.
"It's a republic... if you can keep it."
[QUOTE=_Axel;52982521]What good is the partition of power if the executive branch can just do as they please? That sounds pretty stupid.[/QUOTE]
They can't, though. They can't throw anyone in prison, and they can't (theoretically, though due to the US being weird this isn't quite the case) write up any new laws. They are the branch that makes sure that the laws of the legislative branch are put into action, and that the people who break them are delivered to the judicial branch.
[QUOTE=Riller;52982589]They can't, though. They can't throw anyone in prison, and they can't (theoretically, though due to the US being weird this isn't quite the case) write up any new laws. They are the branch that makes sure that the laws of the legislative branch are put into action, and that the people who break them are delivered to the judicial branch.[/QUOTE]
Funnily enough it could do all those things. Trump could tell the director of the FBI to arrest someone or he'll fire them, which he has the power to do. He ckuld then tell the AG to prosecute them or he'll fire them, which he could also do. In either of those cases he has the ability to keep hiring people and demsnding they do as he wants until he gets someone who does. He can enact new laws through executive orders. He can tell the FBI to ignore particular laws and for Justice to ignore particular prosecutions. The test for how much standing those actions have in reality is how willing the other branches are to be bullied around.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52982112]I think Trump's presidency is making for a good case for seriously reducing the power of the office.
For instance, this and Mr. Concentration Camp's pardons are a good case for why that power should be either removed or require congressional approval.[/QUOTE]
I've been arguing for reducing the powers of the president for years here on FP and all I've gotten is grief for it. I cannot imagine it happening.
Both parties will always give more powers to the Prez because even if the other party wins the position, there's a chance their own man will be in the office to utilize them some day.
[editline]16th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52982588]Technically any branch can just do as it pleases. The thing that holds them back from doing so are the checks and balances that come from the other branches. In this case, the executive could try to do whatever it wants but by the Constitution that would mean anything they do could land them with impeachment charges.
In other words the executive only gets to do what it wants when the Congress decides it doesn't want to check it's power. The framers of the constitution felt that if it ever came to that, the people would simply rise up and remove them from office as they'd be enabling tyranny... which is the expressed paragraph one reason for the establishment of the United States constitution.
"It's a republic... if you can keep it."[/QUOTE]
Congress has the power to do anything it wants. Which is why it being dysfunctional is probably a good thing.
All it has to do is write in at the end of any law that "this effects interstate commerce" and suddenly the law is legitimate within the Constitution.
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;52981895]Why does the president even have the power to pardon people? Is there any good reason?[/QUOTE]
Pardoning people can be good, but I think the powers it gives does need some re-examination.
Jimmy Carter pardoned those that dodged the [I]enormously[/I] unpopular Vietnam war draft.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52982685]Congress has the power to do anything it wants. Which is why it being dysfunctional is probably a good thing.[/QUOTE]
Yep. The ability to pass sweeping reforms in one election cycle is not a good thing. It is a dangerous amount of power.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;52982889]Yep. The ability to pass sweeping reforms in one election cycle is not a good thing. It is a dangerous amount of power.[/QUOTE]
Sweeping reforms are good if most of the country wants them. Like free healthcare
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52982896]Sweeping reforms are good if most of the country wants them. Like free healthcare[/QUOTE]
Which is why a balancing act. But making it too easy to pass such reforms makes the system vulnerable to doing bad shit when public opinion shifts the other way. I wouldn’t even agree with your post as worded, since most just implies “more than half.” It should be easy to get shit done with a vast majority on your side, but hard to enact out bold changes with 51% support. I don’t want a system that’s a pendulum with radical changes coming every time there’s backlash to the last cycle’s big changes.
Much safer to have gradual, positive, sustainable change than something that’s vulnerable to shit like changing shit massively for the worse and then making it as hard as possible to undo while you have a tiny majority.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;52982995]Which is why a balancing act. But making it too easy to pass such reforms makes the system vulnerable to doing bad shit when public opinion shifts the other way. I wouldn’t even agree with your post as worded, since most just implies “more than half.” It should be easy to get shit done with a vast majority on your side, but hard to enact out bold changes with 51% support. I don’t want a system that’s a pendulum with radical changes coming every time there’s backlash to the last cycle’s big changes.
Much safer to have gradual, positive, sustainable change than something that’s vulnerable to shit like changing shit massively for the worse and then making it as hard as possible to undo while you have a tiny majority.[/QUOTE]
The system as designed works alright as long as you don't have a death cult as a major party, but alas. I don't think gradual change is really enough right now. The opioid crisis won't go away without some serious changes.
(Universal Health Care of some sort is polling around [URL="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-support-for-single-payer-health-coverage-grows-driven-by-democrats/"]60%[/URL] btw.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.