So Trump has finally pardoned Michael Flynn. Once again, Trump has used his pardon power to help his cronies or protect himself, rather than correct some injustice or for the benefit of the nation.
Obviously this is a terrible state of affairs, not only does another lackey duck justice, but it sets the precedent that one should never cooperate with investigations that might incriminate the president.
I guess for discussion, I was wondering:
Could the pardon power be amended to prevent this kind of misuse? How would the new pardon power be defined?
Would republicans vote for such an amendment? Would they prefer to keep a literal get out of jail card?
Presidential pardon power should be suspended between election day and the inauguration. In a better world, anyway. You want to engage in corrupt practices? You’d have to do it while the voters still have a say.
Is there anything in law that prevents Trump from pardoning himself for anything past present or future?
Obviously there would be a conflict of interest, but is there anything that spells it out that a self-pardon would be void ab initio? Would malum in se apply?
Not surprisingly, this has been the source of a great deal of debate over the past few years. The answer appears to be “it’s not clear that he can or can’t.”
My guess is that even if the judge tries to void Flynn’s pardon, the Orange Peril will take it to the Supreme Court, where the toadies he installed will dutifully do his bidding, along with the two other lunatics. John Roberts being the voice of reason – something I could never have imagined saying just a few years ago – is no longer enough, as we saw in the recent “theocracy trumps rationality” ruling, in which theocracy prevailed over COVID precautions. It’s like the Dark Ages all over again.
It’s “Marc” Rich (for Marcell). And Clinton later expressed regret for doing it. Against Marc Rich, I give you (among dozens of others) Trump pardons or commutations for: Joe Arpaio, Scooter Libby, Dinesh D’Souza, Conrad Black, Rod Blagojevich, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, and a great many other criminal friends of his.
He certainly can’t pardon himself (or anyone else) for future crimes. The Supreme Court has ruled that the act for which the pardon is issued must be in the past.
Setting aside for the moment if he can pardon himself, I find myself wondering if the dude is even capable of issuing a pardon for himself. That would imply that he had done something wrong. That level of self-awareness is not part of his make-up.
Firstly, it’s incredible that anyone would try to imply that this is “both sides”. As I alluded (and wolfpup elaborated), Trump has pardoned a long list of his cronies. Meanwhile you needed to go all the way back to the Clinton years to even find one Democrat example.
But secondly, even if it were both sides, so what? I am talking about limiting the pardon power, so if it’s “both sides”, does that mean you agree? Do you think “both sides” should be able to continue to misuse this power?