If you knew your neighbor had plead guilty to procuring a child prostitute and had been accused of sexually assaulting 36 underage girls, would you assume that was all in the past and he’s perfectly fine to invite to your family BBQ?
The files have proven that a lot of that “shock and surprise” was feigned by people who knew better, and either were indifferent, were okay with it, or were active participants.
Suppose the answer is yes for DrDeth, or, more likely, some other poster.
Since that poster hasn’t been banned from SDMB, no paleontology committee for anyone of us here!
Good on DinoCon for making a stand for themselves. Hey, they’re a private entity and apply their own standards.
Now, though, I’ve said before we’ll need at some point some sort of consensus other than “burn ‘em all!” as how far in the game of degrees-from-Jeffrey-Epstein we’re going to draw the lines. We may not like that but we’ll have to.
Appreciated. 
More from Michael Reiter:
I would just like to remind the world, again, that the House of Representatives has the power to block Presidential pardons, if it believes that there’s a risk of the power being used to avoid impeachment:
https://www.axios.com/2026/02/09/ghislaine-maxwell-pleads-fifth-oversight-epstein
What can stop him pardoning anyone who was involved in the crimes for which the president is being impeached or whose testimony might put him in jeopardy? The president, according to Madison, still holds office, but he no longer has the power to pardon.
This series of debates was the last go-round on the final text of the Constitution, prior to the signing. It’s what they all understood the text to mean, when they put their names on the line.
Pelosi could have blocked the pardon of Paul Manafort. A discharge petition, today, could block pardons of Maxwell.
Although that is Madison’s and other scholars’ position on the matter, I believe it is not settled Law that this is what that line means. It’s likely so, but SCOTUS would almost surely have to rule.
The Framers’ consistent practice of going “everyone understands what we mean by this” has been causing us pain for over two centuries.
I suspect it was inevitable, half because some parts were left ambiguous in order to get a consensus and half because language and context drift can make any text confusing given enough time.
Yes, but just as the Executive Branch pushes to flesh out the limits of its power, Congress can and should do the same.
And in this particular instance, while the precise process is largely unclear, that’s not particularly unique when it comes to Constitutional matters. Like, “How does the advise and consent process work?” Or, “What does the Supreme Court actually do?” The Constitution is largely silent, simply giving the rough outlines. It’s up to someone, later, to propose something that feels like it reasonably aligns with the original intent.
So long as you’ve done that, precedent would say that it should be accepted.
The Constitution certainly gives concern to the idea of impeachment and pardons being connected. The framers talked about and understood there to be room to pass laws that would allow Congress to restrict pardons where they doubted the President. You can also find reference in other documents (I believe in the Federalist papers and Hamilton’s initial draft of the Constitution).
There was certainly an intent to allow for such a procedure. Not defining it doesn’t mean that its against the Constitution, just that it’s within the greater realm of Constitutional ambiguities.
And if it was true for some poster, and we as a collective were “okay” with that, I wouldn’t be part of the SDMB.
I do not think so- cite? And one that isnt paywalled or about Epstein.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
The only time the Executive cant pardon someone is if they have been impeached.
Mind you your other cite says "The president, according to Madison, still holds office, but he no longer has the power to pardon. The House can “suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the Vice-President. Should he be suspected, also, he may likewise be suspended till he be impeached and removed, and the legislature may make a temporary appointment. This is a great security. But that is Madisons opinion.
Correct.
This seems to say it is a no go-
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-8/ALDE_00013325/
I will state it again- the idea of a “Blacklist” for anyone even briefly associated with Epstein, plus also those who wont blacklist those- in anti-american.
We did it in the 50’s with a Communist blacklist, now totally derided as a abuse of power. Now at least Stalin was a mass murderer and caused a genocide vs the Ukrainians. Mao maybe killed 50 million of his own people. So hating on commies was at least a normal reaction to mass murders in the tens of millions.
…is not what is being discussed or has been enacted.
By Dinocon it has, and in effect it is happening right now.
Read their statement again and quote the part that says they’re blacklisting everyone who has ever been tangentially associated with Epstein.
Yeah, “allegedly engaged in correspondence after his first conviction” . So an email asking for a donation- blacklisted- even if it is just an allegation. And any organization that doesnt ban those people. Which isnt even tangentially associated. Blacklists are ethically and morally wrong.
You can hang out with pedophile protectors if you want. DinoCon is not obligated to do so.
Hollywood film makers could theoretically make any film, but if anyone was blacklisted by the House Un-American committee, no one would finance it or see it.
And it isnt “hanging out” it is anyone who wrote Epstein a letter or email.
Please, tell us more about how voluntarily associating with a convicted pedophile is morally equivalent to being persecuted by the government for your political beliefs.
Looks like Leslie Wexner was a co-conspirator with Epstein.
He’s free as a bird right now, should probably be locked up.
And as said, it was his opinion that compelled all those people to sign the Constitution. To our best understanding, that was their shared understanding of what they’d written into the document.
There’s no reason to read a strict interpretation of an ability to block pardons related to impeachment.
The general rule of Constitutional interpretation is that once a “category” of interest has been opened up by the Constitution, the relevant owner (the interested party) has large, unreviewable discretion within that realm.