Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Amid relentless scrutiny over possible ties between his presidential campaign and Russia, an extraordinary suggestion has emerged - that Donald Trump could pardon himself or his family.
Source: BBC News
US President Donald Trump has insisted he has the "complete power" to pardon people, amid reports he is considering presidential pardons for family members, aides and even himself.
A Democratic Party spokesman has called the reports "extremely disturbing".
The US authorities are probing possible collusion between the Trump team and Russia. Intelligence agencies think Russia tried to help Mr Trump to power.
Russia denies this, and the president says there was no collusion.
The Washington Post reported on Thursday that Mr Trump and his team were looking at ways to pardon people close to him.
Source: BBC News
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday July 24 2017, @11:46AM (56 children)
I think, technically, he's right. There are no limits on the presidential power of pardon I've ever heard of. It was discussed extensively recently around the possibility that Obama might pardon Hillary for crimes she committed with her email server, even if they had not yet been determined in a court of law to be crimes she committed. The most anyone can do to stop a president doing such a thing is to impeach him, convict him in the Senate, and remove him from office. That's never happened in American history and probably will never happen. It would certainly never happen when the House and Senate are controlled by the president's own party, even if the Senators and Congressmen from that party despise the guy who's president. It would be politically impossible.
In this particular case Trump has set up a narrative where any move they might take against him would play right into his hands: the Deep State will do anything, say anything to stop him from Making America Great Again.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday July 24 2017, @12:12PM (3 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by martyb on Monday July 24 2017, @12:53PM (2 children)
From what I've read on presidential pardons, the president is able to pardon for offenses that have not even been charged. In other words, could pardon a priori.
What I am wondering is this: Assuming president Trump pardons himself, what would the follow-on effect be to all his properties and holdings? Would it tank in value?
His name would be, presumably, tarnished. Who would be willing to pay big money to stay at his hotels and avail themselves of his other products/services? In large part, his name is what allows him to charge premium prices for what he sells. Right?
I could well see a pardon causing him to go bankrupt (again).
Then again, based on this report on Frontline [pbs.org], I suspect that, knowing full well that this might happen, he might be willing to try, anyway. (Say something enough so that people will believe it, and even when you lose, claim victory.)
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday July 24 2017, @06:05PM (1 child)
The one element of case law you're missing in those "a priori"(I don't think you're using that in the legal sense) cases is that the supreme court has established that accepting a pardon is admission of guilt, for the purposes of establishing fact. I'm not sure of the exact nuances that implies, but I've heard from bullshit internet lawyer types that means potentially waiving the 5th amendment against self-incrimination, meaning people could be compelled to testify about their actions under oath? Not sure I believe that, but fuck it, literally treasonous presidents really ought to be kicked out by congress regardless of who they pardon.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:54PM
Yes, I was probably not using the term correctly -- I appreciate your gentle correction!
Wasn't aware that accepting a pardon assumed acceptance/presumption of guilt. TIL!
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday July 24 2017, @12:14PM (23 children)
An argument against self-pardon authority is that the Constitution also creates a process for impeachment, which self-pardon would render meaningless:
From a list of the canons of statutory construction (which also apply to the Constitution): https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/canons_w_commentary.pdf [idaho.gov]
I think Trump would argue that impeachment is still possible even if he self-pardons because there is a distinction between being impeached and being convicted of a crime -- impeachment just removes you from office.
I think the counter argument to this is that to impeach someone, they must have committed a criminal act and self-pardon takes that out of the equation at least potentially: does the pardon merely remove punishment for an acknowledged crime or does it remove all taint as if the crime never happened? If the latter, that fundamentally undermines the concept of separation of powers and a tripartite governmental system by making the Executive untouchable (see first point -- that would erase a large swathe of the Constitution).
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 24 2017, @12:51PM (14 children)
"to impeach someone, they must have committed a criminal act"
High crimes and misdemeanors
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors [wikipedia.org]
There need not be any criminal act committed to impeach an office holder.
And, this is where politics really enters into the picture. The president, or any other office holder, may be convicted of offenses that truly are not illegal. The senate gets to decide what "misdemeanors" are. If your party controls the senate, then your actions are probably not a misdemeanor. If the opposition controls the senate, your offense will almost certainly be found to be a misdemeanor, unless of course, they can prove a crime took place.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Monday July 24 2017, @01:12PM (8 children)
Either way, the bit I find more interesting about this is that while there's certainly a lot of smoke being blown by MSM, etc., so far at least there's no real sign of a smoking gun. Trump insists it's all fake news, a witch hunt (and since it is Trump. it's "the greatest witch hunt in history", no less) and they are all totally innocent of any wrong doing, yet seems staunchly opposed to any attempt to discover the truth that would presumably end the matter. Whether that's because he actually has something to hide, because he has no faith in the judicial process or the checks and balances of the country he's leading, or all of the above, it's an ugly situation for any country to be in, and I suspect it's going to get a lot worse before it's over.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday July 24 2017, @01:41PM (6 children)
That's a valid fear. We have so many Federal Crimes they can't even be counted, and "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." http://quotationsbook.com/quote/19331/ [quotationsbook.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @02:59PM
Six lines? For some people, half a tweet is enough :)
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Monday July 24 2017, @04:08PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @07:02PM
If that really is a valid fear (for him) then why did he swear an oath at his inauguration to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." After all, what exactly is he swearing to defend? Or do you (and he) have some sort of weird notion that the judiciary is not a legitimate part of the federal government? Please note that I am not advocating for blanket approval for everything that the judiciary does; on the other hand, there is a legitimate process for countering judicial abuse, imperfect though it may be.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 25 2017, @03:07AM
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25 2017, @08:15AM (1 child)
===
There's your six lines. Good luck.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday July 25 2017, @05:29PM
I've found something to hang you. It's a rope. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @03:04AM
In all fairness, it sure did take Obama quite awhile to finally release his birth certificate when Trump was the one banging on the door making accusations of wrongdoing. Now, you could say that this is because the accusations were so outrageous that Obama didn't feel they were worth giving credence to, but then, Trump might make the same claim. And while those on the left would roll their eyes at such a claim, I'm not sure it's that much different than those on the right who rolled their eyes at Obama's claim, believing him actually not to have been native born.
I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here (I can't say I care much for either of them, even if both have some limited beneficial aspects to tout), but it certainly serves to illustrate the vast divide in the more radical wings of either party. Without some event to tone down the sabre rattling and bring us back to a more diplomatic arena of compromises, I'd almost be surprised if we're not headed to a second civil war.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @01:15PM (2 children)
I guess self-pardon would count as abuse of authority and/or unbecoming conduct and therefore would by itself be sufficient for impeachment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @01:41PM (1 child)
Um, no. The framers of the Constitution were smart enough to preclude circular firing squads.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday July 24 2017, @03:46PM
Where, exactly?
Seems to me impeachment rests pretty much entirely on the whims of congress.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday July 24 2017, @06:15PM (1 child)
This is on par with your confusion between laws and bills to become a law, brought about by your reliance on alt-wrong right-wing nut-job alleged journalism, Runaway! Indictment is not the same as conviction. Commission is not the same as being found guilty. But, being pardoned does necessarily entail that a crime was committed, and guilt of the same is acknowledged by the acceptance of the pardon. And yes, the Senate does get to decide.
Now imagine, if it was possible for a President to pardon himself for crimes not specified, or even for unspecified crimes not yet committed! We are back to Tricky Dick! If the president does it, it is not illegal! You Nixonian supporter, Runaway!
On the other hand, if the president does pardon himself, there's your crime right there.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @07:09PM
Indeed. The real danger of pardoning himself (or members of his family) is that we would be in danger that he really could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Ave and not be held accountable for it. Just pause to consider how that kind of unbridled power could be abused not just by Trump but by any future President sworn into office.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday July 24 2017, @01:01PM (3 children)
So, I think he can pardon himself of the criminal act, but impeachment can still find him guilty of the act sufficient to remove him from office.
The interesting angle to me is: if he pardons himself for something, is that a tacit admission of guilt leaving him open to impeachment?
Actually, the whole thing is rather boring - I'm much more interested in how federal funding patterns are (and are not) changing behind all the stage lights, cameras and noise.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @02:49PM
BINGO!
Everyone keeps on watching the
KardashianTrump family shit show. Great ratings, believe me!(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @06:29PM (1 child)
Impeachment of the president is something more for clickbait than reality. Clinton was impeached under two counts - lying under oath and impeding an investigation. He undeniably and with 100% certainty was guilty of lying under oath - multiple times. Even he admitted as much in later testimony. Regardless of this literally not a single democrat senator voted guilty on the charge of lying under oath. And conviction in the senate doesn't require just a majority, but a supermajority.
You need to get every single democrat, every single independent, and then a good chunk of all republicans to vote guilty in order to have an impeachment that does not result in immediate acquittal in the senate. That's simply not happening. That'd not only blow a large amount of 'political capital' for no real gain for the individual politicians who'd have to turn coat, but it'd also arguably destroy the party in question. For instance today among like voters, 27% [rasmussenreports.com] of people strongly approve of the job Trump is doing and a total of 46% approve overall. That's extremely close to a party line roll call. Turn-coating to impeach somebody who a huge chunk of your electorate supports is basically the same as signing your own death warrant. Clinton lost in large part due to losing the support of many Bernie supporters. In spite of a ~15 [wikipedia.org] million man increase in voting age population from 2012 to 2016 (presumably an increase heavily weighted towards democrat friendly demographics), Clinton actually managed to get fewer votes in total than Obama did in 2012 (as well as 2008). This collapse would be dwarfed by the fallout of impeaching Trump. It won't happen in a million years. For that matter, I think it's unlikely any US president will ever be impeached (so long as we have a two party system) for similar reasons.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 25 2017, @11:52AM
>I think it's unlikely any US president will ever be impeached (so long as we have a two party system) for similar reasons.
Or, for the paranoid, perhaps we have a two party system, in part, for this very reason.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @01:50PM
It was talked about and settled during the tail end of the Bush administration when there was speculation that he might pardon himself for all those crimes against humanity that he was committed that the President can pardon himself for anything he likes.
The only real limitation on it is that it only applies to US laws, not to anything that would involve criminal proceedings at the Hague.
Impeachment only applies to high crimes and misdemeanors and can at most result in the President being removed from office following votes for impeachment and removal from office. Nobody has ever been removed from office. Nixon was really the closest and the only reason he wasn't was that he resigned prior to the proceedings.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday July 24 2017, @02:45PM (2 children)
What counts as an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says is an impeachable offense. The two times we've actually had a president impeached and put on trial in the Senate, the pretexts were extremely flimsy legally (Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing his Secretary of War breaking a law the Supreme Court said later was unconstitutional, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex). Impeachment is fundamentally a political process, not a legal one. If enough people, especially enough congresscritters, want a president's scalp, he'll be impeached, if not, he won't.
Right now, Trump is putting a lot of effort into trying to secure the personal loyalty of Republicans in Congress. That is right now his primary defense against being ousted. For another comparison, Richard Nixon resigned after it became clear the Republicans in Congress were no longer willing to protect him.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @03:40PM (1 child)
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to Congress. As an example, imagine he had sworn under oath, "I have not broken an embargo to sell guns to Iran, in order to fund a rebellion in Africa" when he in fact had. That the thing he was lying about was professionally minor doesn't change the fact that he had lied while under oath: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."
It is like a prosecutor throwing the book at somebody and seeking a 90-day prison sentence for somebody jaywalking. From a legal perspective it is absolutely sound.
This I'll agree with.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 24 2017, @03:44PM
No, he was impeached for lying under oath in a lawsuit deposition. I agree that's perjury, although as far as presidential lies go (including those made under oath) it's far from the biggest or most consequential whopper. I have to assume that most of the tailors in Washington DC line suit trousers with asbestos as a standard precaution.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday July 24 2017, @12:26PM (7 children)
A interesting situation can show up if any of Trumps proteges is sued then Trump can sue Hillary for various crimes. Something akin to a Mexican standoff. There's something wrong when he didn't follow through with suing Hillary despite clearly saying he would on election.
Impeachment will probably self defeat as you suggest. Because then he definitely can swing a damaging accusation of conspiracy and make it stick. Someone could try to take him out, otoh that would likely have repercussions too in a similar way. Mexican standoff #2 ?
House and Senate are controlled by the president's own party, BUT it can be suspected there's a crack between Trump and the Republican party. How much it would take to break it publicly is the question.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by quacking duck on Monday July 24 2017, @01:45PM (4 children)
Nothing will break it. House and Senate republicans individually might make noises from time to time, but collectively they're all the worst sort of cowards and place party ahead of country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @02:53PM
The best outcome may well be to keep them on the throne the full 4 years and give them plenty of sunlight to show them off in all their swampy glory.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Monday July 24 2017, @03:48PM (1 child)
This may be disclosing a state secret, but here goes. The R in RNC is for Russian.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday July 25 2017, @04:20PM
Russkies Nefarious Conspiracy? :p
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Monday July 24 2017, @10:41PM
Actually, There is one thing that will break party loyalty... Re-election.
This is why the same congress-critters break party lines. If they are in a district that is not gerrymandered to the point of a guaranteed win, they actually have to care about the opinion of their voters. Self-preservation above all else.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday July 24 2017, @02:52PM (1 child)
1. So what? As someone on the left wing of the political spectrum, I consider Hillary Clinton to be completely expendable. Hostage-taking only works if the person making the decisions cares about the well-being of the hostages.
2. You don't sue for crimes. If there's sufficient evidence that Hillary Clinton committed a crime, she should be arrested and prosecuted, not sued. Lawsuits are for torts, e.g. contract violations or defamation.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday July 25 2017, @04:02PM
1. Other people in the Democrat-Hillary sphere might consider her worth to keep. Not minding that she can have her own dirty secrets to ensure she's not sacrificed by her own (Hoover style).
2. Regardless of evidence on Hillary. It doesn't seem far fetched to think it's a tit-for-tat. If no one prosecutes Trump associates, then Hillary won't be prosecuted either kind of deal.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by stormreaver on Monday July 24 2017, @01:06PM (8 children)
Then you should read the actual text of the Constitution. Here is the relevant passage (Article 2, Section 2):
So if he were to attempt pardoning himself for any given offense, that is tacit admission that he committed that offense. As such, he could be impeached for that conduct, thereby stripping him of the power to pardon himself. His own party would have to impeach him, or face the shit storm that would result from all the accusations of supporting a self-confessed criminal President.
Trump would be taking a HUGE gamble by pardoning himself, or those close to him, for anything. The act itself would generate an investigation that would most likely end with his impeachment, and quite possibly his removal from office.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @01:53PM (5 children)
Yes, but the point you're missing here is that impeachment is the step before being removed from office. Clinton pardoned many people after being impeached.
So, Trump could easily be impeached, then pardon himself,and not do any jail time for anything criminal he's done. Then they could vote to remove him from office. The only consequence for him would be the embarrassment of being the first President removed from office. He'd see no jail time at all.
So yes, he can pardon himself, the pardoning really doesn't have anything to do with impeachment, impeachment is just a method of removing dangerous criminals from the office.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday July 24 2017, @02:41PM (4 children)
Wondering:
if you pardon someone (yourself?) do you have to state what the pardon is for?
Do you have to say "I pardon myself for the crime of...."?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @03:05PM
You can pardon for all crimes if i'm not mistaken.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 24 2017, @03:52PM (1 child)
Does a pardon save one from civil suits? In a purely hypothetical scenario, could the president pardon himself or others for "grabbing them by the covfefe"?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Wednesday July 26 2017, @03:17AM
This is a very good question. In many civil suits, criminal law enforcement reports are a crux in the judges determination. I'm getting all my info from watching Judge Judy. Here is an example, a person punches you. You have no pictures, and for one reason or another (the dog ate my homework) you didn't file a police report. You are suing for $5,000 dollars. She will want to see medical bills for $5,000 and the official police report of assault and battery.
Let's change the hypothetical situation from grabbing genitalia to something more malleable (no pun intended). Let's say he accidentally killed someone in a car accident and was charged with involuntary manslaughter. Could he pardon himself before he was convicted, thereby removing any criminal evidence from a future civil suit from the victims family? Can the family prove there was involuntary manslaughter with no criminal evidence? This is a sticky wicket indeed.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Tuesday July 25 2017, @01:31PM
I'm pretty sure that a pardon must specify the offenses being forgiven.
(Score: 1) by Atatsu on Monday July 24 2017, @04:54PM (1 child)
Depends. Is impeachment an Instant or Sorcery?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @05:43PM
Impeachment is an old school interrupt. So treat as an instant.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Monday July 24 2017, @01:30PM (3 children)
Impeachment is explicitly excluded...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/21/4-questions-about-presidential-pardon-power/ [politifact.com]
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday July 24 2017, @02:31PM
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @04:14PM (1 child)
"...would be allowed is that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly prohibit it."
The 10th amendment says that the government only has powers explicitly listed in the Constitution.
If there is nothing saying it is allowed then it is, by default, illegal until granted the explicit power to do so by the people through their representatives.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday July 24 2017, @10:42PM
I'm sure the constitution doesn't explicitly allow to pardon anyone with name "John" either. So, bad luck if you are named "John" and hope for a presidential pardon. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @01:39PM
Tell that to Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @02:33PM (4 children)
I agree with your analysis.
I'm not ready to bail on the USA yet. Our republic is a democracy. I wish it were a bit more green and mindful of libertarian principles, but right now the system has derived something very different from the will of the people. I can say that I honestly believe that things are headed in a direction I had hoped they never would. I do not think that what I'm afraid of can happen here. History demonstrates that a statement like that is usually wishful thinking.
Trump will be good to continue with his shit as much as he wants. That's why we have checks and balances. The Republican Party has lost their collective mind. Don't get me wrong. My party of choice is Libertarian, and I am partial to the Greens. Maybe that's a contradiction, but at the risk of needing to turn in my Libertarian party membership, I think that, for certain things and in limited circumstances, sometimes big government is necessary. Ideological purity is not practical, and above all else I'm a practical person. I have been happy to sit back and tell myself that the Republicrats are just as bad as the Dempublicans. Things have changed.
I hope that enough people are paying attention. I may give the Democrat party a second chance to prove to me that they have what it takes to show the Republicans for the maniacs they've become. The chance is in 2018. In November 2018 there is a brief window where we may all go to the polls and provide a referendum of sorts on whether or not we want our congress critters to impeach Trump.
The Democrat party must have a credible plan to remove Trump from office, even if Trump is a lame duck and the action is symbolic only. We need symbolic action. We cannot remove a president from office with a simply majority. Anybody can read their Constitution, and it clearly spells out the process for removing a president from office. For everything, there is a first time.
Collateral damage from Trump's antics and immaturity is mounting. There will be more before the 2018 elections, and there will be a time of a national hangover for a while. It will be difficult.
Do I take the risk of extending a second chance to the political party whose machinations and back-room dealing put forward a candidate that was so weak that she lost to Donald Trump of all people? Hillary Clinton was the first Democrat I've ever voted for at a level higher than drain commissioner. I've voted for Republican governors. I've voted for Libertarian and Green state and federal congress critters and city-level offices. I feel the need to extend this second chance to the Democrat Party, but how do I do something like that?
(Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Monday July 24 2017, @05:19PM (3 children)
Unfortunately, there are a number of super-wealthy people who want to turn the USA into the type of democracy seen in Russia, or Brazil, or Chile a few decades ago (never mind that the Chilean economy crashed), with the assistance of the Supreme Court (Citizens United) and the sellouts mostly found in the Republican party.
These super-wealthy people see their proposed future as living like the Oligarchs found in Russia: mostly unimpeded by the law of the land.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 25 2017, @03:19AM (2 children)
So what? I'm more worried about what the government bureaucracies, like the US military, want. That's real power.
The Oligarchs are strongly beholden to Putin because he can take their stuff in Russia away. It's not law, but it's the analogue in a strongman despotism.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday July 25 2017, @05:36PM (1 child)
So, basically, you want to live in a dictatorship. Well done!
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 26 2017, @12:09AM
Or is it you who wants to live in a dictatorship? Cue dramatic music!
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Monday July 24 2017, @05:20PM
Technically the pardoning power is intended as a check on the judicial and legislative branches and there is an established tradition of it being used to remedy a perceived injustice. If the president uses a pardon in a manner that goes outside of these norms and pardons someone particularly odious without a significant body of supporters, you might as some challenges to the pardoning power. They might play out like this:
1. Both houses of congress pass a bill with an overriding majority that requires the Supreme Court to review whether the pardon was consistent with the president's oath of office, and subject to that ruling mandates the executive branch ignore the pardon.
2. The president is impeached and the new president issues an executive order to not honor the pardon. Again, Supreme Court review would be an expected element.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @12:55PM (7 children)
..to make a complete ass of himself
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @02:14PM (6 children)
Everyone expected him to make an ass out of himself since he announced he was running for POTUS. Now he's the biggest ass in the country and yet journalists still have to use half truths to take jabs at him rather than being honest with the people and letting them see him as he is. If he's a truly terrible individual then they don't need to use tabloid tactics to ruin his name when he should do that all on his own.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 24 2017, @03:54PM (5 children)
Trump can, at times, seem to rise up an be (somewhat) better. I almost literally expected him to poop on the carpet during the state of the union. But he did not, and that was surprising and commendable of him.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @04:35PM (4 children)
Well, that's just fine and dandy for you! On the other hand, some of us would really like to raise the bar for our President a bit higher than that. Just sayin'.
(Score: 4, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Monday July 24 2017, @05:43PM (3 children)
You want him to poop on the drapes?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Monday July 24 2017, @06:27PM (1 child)
Ceiling
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @09:06AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @07:19PM
No, I would rather he exercise some bowel control. Preferably at both ends.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @01:12PM
"While all agree the U. S. President has the complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us. FAKE NEWS." - Donald Trump
(Score: -1, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday July 24 2017, @02:24PM (31 children)
I'm not sure what I think of President Trump, but this Russia stuff has been beyond silly for a long time. The latest: a member of Trump's campaign meets with someone who claims to have dirt on his political opponent.
How many political campaigns have something like that happen? 100%, or only 99.9%?
The fact that the campaign member was Trump's son? Irrelevant. The fact that the person claiming to have dirt on Hillary was a Russian? Irrelevant.
According to TFA, the context of Trump's interest in the limits of his pardoning authority are simple: "With the Russia investigation continuing to widen, Trump’s lawyers are working to corral the probe and question the propriety of the special counsel’s work." In other words, he's tired of the witch hunt, and wondering if it might be possible to just end it. Likely that would be a politically stupid move, but one can hardly blame him for asking.
And there's this: "Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon" Some advisor needs to be fired.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @03:00PM (3 children)
I missed the part about Trump's son, but the part about Sessions does not seem "beyond silly".
Sessions: "I never had meetings with Russian operatives or Russian intermediaries about the Trump campaign”
Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, on the topic of Sessions:
Intercepted communications between Kislyak and Russia indicate that Kislyak and Sessions met, at least, twice during the campaign and "discussed campaign-related matters, including policy issues important to Moscow".
I certainly have alarm fatigue about the whole Russian:Trump connections, but officials need to be called-out when they are caught lying.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Monday July 24 2017, @06:27PM (1 child)
Agreed. With how deep into DC culture Sessions is, this does not surprise me.
Where crime exists, and I am sure it exists (Flynn), justice needs to be swift.
But this constant "muh Russia" behind every damn blade of grass is insane. Hell even if Russia meddled, it is fair game. Lest we forget Iran, Ukraine, Argentina, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc etc. Don't dish out unless you can take, our fault for doing a shitty job at defense.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @09:54PM
Well it is nice to see you crazies slowly making the transition to reality, but again the issue is not that Russia meddled but that the current POTUS was likely complicit and lied about such ties.
It just blows my mind to see propaganda work so well against you party liners.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday July 24 2017, @11:01PM
He learnt from Capone that you have to keep your taxes secret, but he hasn't learnt from Clinton that you shouldn't lie about silly investigations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @03:04PM
I hope the Trump family's legal team gives them advice of this quality... Yes, keep watching Fox n Friends, Mr. Trump. Yes, you're innocent, keep talking. Yes you can fire Mueller. Yes, you can hire more family members. Yes, they can talk to Russian agents. Everything's fine, keep on at it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday July 24 2017, @03:05PM (6 children)
I'll put it this way: The Democrats and their media mouthpieces at MSNBC have not done themselves any favors by making overblown claims about Trump's interactions with Russia.
On the other hand, I'm reasonably certain at this point that there is something there. I don't think it's what the Democrats claim, though, which is essentially that Trump is a Manchurian Candidate. What I am reasonably certain is going on, and there's substantial public information behind each of these steps:
1. Trump runs his personal finances like a giant Ponzi scheme. This completely matches everything we know about his business dealings: His longstanding philosophy is that if you owe a bank $100,000, you have a problem, but if you owe a bank $100,000,000, the bank has a problem.
2. He ran out of suckers in the New York and European banking worlds. Therefor, he turned to Russians to lend him money.
3. The Russians who would lend him yuge sums are not nice people who would, say, politely sue him in court if he didn't pay them back. This would not be even close to the first time Trump cut deals with mobsters.
4. In desperation, Trump hatches a plan to become president, with the idea that he can pay back his Russian creditors with money looted from the US Treasury. He figures that in a reasonably corrupt country like the US, that should be entirely possible (so far, it is).
5. The Russians, wanting their money back, helped him with his plan to the best of his ability.
Notice that this scenario doesn't need to involve Putin at all, just Trump trying to save his kneecaps.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @03:59PM (5 children)
This would be plausible, but it ignores evidence that state-level actors were involved (I think it was the FIS?). I guess you could argue that the Russian government is so corrupt that mobsters can co-opt government resources... but in my personal opinion that is a stretch.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 24 2017, @04:41PM (4 children)
That evidence amounts to claims by a private security firm hired by the Democratic Party to find evidence of Russian involvement in the election. And lo and behold, they found exactly what they were paid to find. Those findings have not been subject to independent verification: For instance, the FBI were not allowed to examine the affected servers at the DNC. And with the hack we did get some details about, the DNC was breached by a fairly simple phishing attack that a large number of Soylentils could have easily cooked up in their spare time, which could have been easily prevented by 2-factor authentication/. Which means that claims of a state-level actor have more to do with "Whoa, I don't understand how this happened, it must have been a super-genius working for the Russian government." than "Here's exactly what the FSB did, and how we know it was them."
By all appearances, the DNC is pretty clueless when it comes to technology, in large part because their tech work is done primarily by a firm that was chosen primarily because they had donated substantially to the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton. Choosing your contractors for their political loyalties rather than their competence is not a recipe for success.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 24 2017, @04:48PM (3 children)
That evidence amounts to claims by a private security firm hired by the Democratic Party...
Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security [soylentnews.org]
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. "
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 24 2017, @04:49PM
fixed link:
Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security [dhs.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @06:28PM (1 child)
Notice how Texalon doesnt respond?
Hes purposefully ill informed. He will ignore ALL contrary evidence and continue to spew his lies in the hopes that he can help sway opinion. Cause repeating lies over and over again will get the sheeple lined up behind you.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Monday July 24 2017, @10:19PM
Exactly! This is what I've been saying here an in related threads. We've all actually seen and heard the heads of these agencies say as much on fucking camera, yet the trolls keep rolling out there "nothing to see here but a bunch of leaks" bullshit in lock step with Trump's Twitter feed, and doing so in excruciating detail as if all sorts of research went into it. For Holy fucks sake...as if we're all drinking their fucking kool aide. This is fucking SN, not Breibart, though a really really noisy troll minority is making it very hard to tell.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Whoever on Monday July 24 2017, @03:08PM (9 children)
Only irrelevant to hard-line Trump supporters or people of such little imagination that they cannot see the problems this brings.
There is also significant evidence that Trump's wealth has come from the Russian Mafia (which in turn is controlled by the Russian Government). You still don't see a problem?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Monday July 24 2017, @04:11PM
+1000. The idea that an explanation would be needed is almost unimaginable. Even the likes of Lindsey Graham can see that. I have no clue what's going on with SN lately, and the level of right wing cool-aide apparently being doled out in bulk. I've seen multiple occasions recently where it's been suggested that the likes of McCarthyism would be a good thing. It's getting like fucking Breitbart around here FFS.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 24 2017, @04:59PM (1 child)
The link in the chain that is by far the weakest is the link between whichever Russians have dealt with Trump's organization, and Vladimir Putin. If the Russian mob is anything like the mob elsewhere in the world, they don't work for the government as much as do their own thing with an understanding by the government about what will or will not trigger a government response.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday July 25 2017, @04:46AM
I think that you mean "like the mob in western countries". The mob in Russia is much closer to the government. It's not a simple case of the government looking the other way.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Monday July 24 2017, @06:54PM (1 child)
"There is also significant evidence that Trump's wealth has come from the Russian Mafia "
[citation needed]
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday July 25 2017, @04:54AM
How childish. This isn't Wikipedia.
I'll resist the urge to post a link to LMGTFY, instead, I'll provide some reading material for you:
http://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/report-russian-mob-money-helped-build-trump-business-empire-1002228291948 [msnbc.com]
or this one:
https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate [newrepublic.com]
or this one:
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2017/05/donald_trump_closely_tied_to_r.html [oregonlive.com]
(Score: 1) by J053 on Tuesday July 25 2017, @12:44AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 26 2017, @12:29AM (2 children)
You do realize that vague insinuation of a problem is not actually a problem? Perhaps the real problem here is suddenly deciding that all conversations with Russians are proof of treason. We would normally call that a "witch hunt".
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Wednesday July 26 2017, @01:49AM (1 child)
There was only a vague insinuation of a problem early on in the Watergate scandal too.
In this case, there are many financial ties between Trump and the Russian mafia, going back decades. There is a lot more than a vague insinuation of a problem.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 26 2017, @02:42AM
No. There were several people who got caught and arrested for breaking and entering at the very start. That's felony crime not vague insinuations. The FBI quickly became involved and figures in the Nixon administration were quickly incriminated (G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, for example, were indicted along with the people who actually committed the break in at the Watergate complex). Perhaps you ought to look at a timeline of the subsequent events to the Watergate break in and see how quickly it fell apart for the Nixon administration. Eight months later Congress had authorized investigations of the Nixon administration over this matter. And a bit over two years later, despite considerable stonewalling, Nixon was facing certain impeachment and conviction, if he stayed on as president.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @03:56PM (1 child)
No, this is the very heart of the matter. As an analogy, imagine an Imam tells a girl how she should dress, and especially how she should not go out in public wearing that short skirt. Now imagine a father tells a girl how she should dress, and especially how she should not go out in public wearing that short skirt.
Context matters a lot. There is a reason why there are federal campaign contribution laws against international funding sources, but not against domestic ones.
The presumption is that US people are a collective group trying to figure out the best outcome for themselves. As such, if an American were to find out dirt on a candidate they didn't like and share it with the Trumps, they are looking out for their own interests and indirectly for the American people as a whole. On the other hand, if there was a Russian who found out dirt on a candidate they didn't like and share it with the Trumps, they are looking out for their own interests and indirectly working for the Russian people as a whole. There is a big difference, from the perspective of the US government and the American people.
This is completely ignoring accusations of breaking US laws (e.g. hacking computers... even if it were as simple as password guessing on a poorly designed website).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 26 2017, @12:31AM
So what? A "big difference" doesn't mean much, if the dirt is real and sufficiently dirty.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Non Sequor on Monday July 24 2017, @05:15PM (4 children)
Let's flip it a different way. Let's say that Trump and company are innocent, but the Russian government has staged a variety of things to create leads. They might have misdirected a couple of minor assets (Russian lawyer and Goldstone) with indirect Russia ties to set up a meeting that looks unusual. They may have directed Kislyak to report over monitored channels to say that Sessions discussed the campaign. Passing information about the Wikileaks dump to Stone would be another way to create an impression of collusion. They may have planted sources to generate an unverifiable dossier. Putin may have deliberately sought a conversation with Trump off the record wholly to create more gossip.
All of these actions have low risks and a low cost to benefit ratio. Actually controlling the American president would be a huge benefit to Russia, but the risks are massive because getting caught will precipitate an international response. All of the actions above have predictable outcomes because the parties involved are relatively psychologically predictable and the pattern of media and partisan response is also predictable. Organizationally, the presidency is crippled and without a secure majority in congress, sowing distrust cripples legislative progress. Any chance of Trump playing to his more centrist economic impulses are crippled if democrats are unwilling to cut deals. Russia may have incapacitated the US at relatively low cost.
This type of storyline is much more interesting than the narratives that either party is pushing.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @06:56PM (3 children)
Interesting idea, but all that puts the Trump administration into a position where they would antagonize Russian interests to demonstrate that they weren't working together.
This ignores how the Democrats have bent over for the Republicans even when they had a super majority. The Democrats seem to lack a spine or pretend to be powerless against the Republicans.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Monday July 24 2017, @08:25PM
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 26 2017, @12:35AM
Yet another predictable response which can be gamed. For example, what happens if the attempt to antagonize Russia also antagonizes the EU and India?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 26 2017, @03:00AM
I think it's educational what sort of issues the two parties have been willing to compromise on. Neither seems interested in weakening the intelligence agencies, for example.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday July 24 2017, @07:06PM
Boo hoo! He has long enthusiastically participated in this same sort of thing for far more vapid and scurrilous reasons. To complain when he faces the same sort (although Trump went far beyond this) of scrutiny is just the whining of an over-privileged crybaby.
(Score: 4, Informative) by https on Monday July 24 2017, @07:28PM
Apparently, a working memory of a fortnight is discouraged when discussing American politics. Not being American, I'm breaking your silly customs.
Junior was well aware that their contact was a Russian operative because Goldstone told him so [nytimes.com] as part of setting up the meeting.
Matt Tait (who was not privy to Goldstone's emails) correctly deduced [lawfareblog.com] that the information most likely came from the Russian intelligence apparatus and was a legal dumpster fire waiting to be lit - and explicitly warned against touching it. He was shocked and surprised, but smart enough to stay away.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @02:54PM (1 child)
What US politician has suggested actually securing the voting machines, etc after this supposed meddling? I don't think there is any sincere concern about the fidelity of the election results.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25 2017, @02:10AM
There were no verified or seriously suggested cases of voting fraud involving Russia. The entire fuss is about leaking information that was politically damaging to the Clinton machine.
They are not arguing that any of the information was untrue, just that if Hilary had been able to keep her dirty laundry secret she might have won.