# Trump gives full pardon to conservative fraudster **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 31, 2018, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200 "2018-05-31T16:10:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2018, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/21 "2018-05-31T23:51:31Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > [Hamilton, Federalist #74.](https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-74) I liked the rap version better. \*Commit the crime, you do the time But every now and then You have to wonder when The wheels of justice grind A little too hard, so we make them pause For the guy behind bars And let the man go free Back into society. Now it’s only the prez He’s the one who says Where justice was denied And where amnesty is applied. Now I have to take a dump 'Cause we didn’t foresee Trump!\* ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/22 "2018-06-01T00:40:45Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > Should Ford have been able to pardon Nixon BEFORE Nixon was even charged with wrongdoing? This very point was raised and debated at the Constitutional Convention of 1787; the debate was won by the delegates who urged that pardons be permitted before conviction, and the language of Article II, section 2 reflects the unlimited nature of the pardon power. See, e.g., Macgill, H. C.: 1974, “Nixon Pardon: Limits on the Benign Prerogative,” Connecticut Law Review, VII, 56. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/23 "2018-06-01T11:33:52Z")
Ah, more “swamp draining” of course. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/24 "2018-06-01T20:40:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because the Founding Fathers thought it was a good idea.Not IMO. Future Presidents should not be deprived of this power, even if you think Trump should be. > > It’s one of the checks the President has on the judiciary. Should Gerry Ford not have been able to pardon Nixon, or Clinton Mark Rich? Should Trump not pardon the grandmother who is supposedly in prison for marijuana? > > Regards, > Shodan I’m sure you are aware that there is a process that has been set up to recommend pardons, which Trump has not followed. And we all know why Trump is pardoning people left and right, don’t we? Would you agree that pardoning one of the people who might be giving evidence against him is obstruction of justice? And should be an impeachable offense? Let’s get to the heart of the matter here, which is not Jack Johnson. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/25 "2018-06-01T21:02:11Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’m sure you are aware that there is a process that has been set up to recommend pardons, which Trump has not followed. > And we all know why Trump is pardoning people left and right, don’t we? > Would you agree that pardoning one of the people who might be giving evidence against him is obstruction of justice? And should be an impeachable offense? > > Let’s get to the heart of the matter here, which is not Jack Johnson. There is a process that recent Presidents have followed but that process is not mandated by the Constitution. He’s not required to follow their process. It doesn’t matter why he is doing it. It is certainly not obstruction of justice which is a specific crime that he is not guilty of doing in relation to the pardons. Impeachable is whatever Congress says it is. I doubt any Congress ever would think that this would fit. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2018, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/26 "2018-06-02T22:49:40Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > There is a process that recent Presidents have followed but that process is not mandated by the Constitution. He’s not required to follow their process. It doesn’t matter why he is doing it. It is certainly not obstruction of justice which is a specific crime that he is not guilty of doing in relation to the pardons. Impeachable is whatever Congress says it is. I doubt any Congress ever would think that this would fit. What he is doing now is not directly obstruction of justice. If he is signaling to those thinking about cooperating with the investigation not to because he will pardon them if they get charged then it is approaching obstruction. If he does pardon them it very likely is. Nixon brought up a pardon to H R Halderman, something unknown during the Watergate investigation. Halderman knew it would be obstruction. One of the people in the investigation said that if they had know this would have merited an additional article of indictment. Of course whether the current lot of Republicans would impeach Trump even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue is another matter. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/27 "2018-06-04T20:21:47Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Impeachable is whatever Congress says it is. I doubt any Congress ever would think that this would fit. On its own, the pardon of Double-Duh would not be impeachable, but if it’s one piece of a pattern of obstruction, then yes it should be considered. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/28 "2018-06-04T20:43:00Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’m sure you are aware that there is a process that has been set up to recommend pardons, which Trump has not followed. As **hajario** points out, there is no legal or Constitutional reason that the President has to follow that process. So the answer is Yes, I’m aware of that - so what? > [@](#): > > And we all know why Trump is pardoning people left and right, don’t we? I assume it isn’t because he is afraid Dinesh D’Souza or Joe Arpaio or Jack Johnson is going to give evidence against him. > [@](#): > > Would you agree that pardoning one of the people who might be giving evidence against him is obstruction of justice? No. > [@](#): > > And should be an impeachable offense? That would be an interesting court case. There are no limits on the power of the President to grant pardons, and no definition of the high crimes and misdemeanors that justify impeachment. Does Congress have the power to define a President’s Constitutional powers as a high crime? I would say No - too much like an attempt to amend the Constitution without ratifying an amendment. They would need to come up with something more plausible. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/29 "2018-06-04T22:46:13Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > What he is doing now is not directly obstruction of justice. If he is signaling to those thinking about cooperating with the investigation not to because he will pardon them if they get charged then it is approaching obstruction. If he does pardon them it very likely is. Obstruction of justice is a statute. The president’s authority to pardon is explicitly there in the Constitution, with the only restraint being no pardons for impeachments. Congress cannot pass a statute that overrides a part of the Constitution. If you want to claim that it’s abuse of power and impeachable, that’s one thing. But it is not a violation of a statute. It can’t be. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/30 "2018-06-04T23:52:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That would be an interesting court case. According to the Supreme Court in _Nixon v. United States_ (not that Nixon), it wouldn’t be a court case at all. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2018, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/31 "2018-06-05T00:25:06Z")
This is interesting. Trump got something right. Will he follow through with the commutation? [https://www.axios.com/eric-holder-rod-blagojevich-commutation-trump-da5fb425-9f86-4384-b8e7-6b7c39bd72e3.html](https://www.axios.com/eric-holder-rod-blagojevich-commutation-trump-da5fb425-9f86-4384-b8e7-6b7c39bd72e3.html) > [@](#): > > Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and former attorney general Eric Holder both sided with President Trump today, supporting a commutation for former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s 18-year prison sentence for corruption ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2018, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/32 "2018-06-05T12:42:58Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > According to the Supreme Court in _Nixon v. United States_ (not that Nixon), it wouldn’t be a court case at all. WADR I don’t think the case you mention covers whether or not a President can be impeached for exercising his Constitutional power of pardon. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides, I believe, over the Senate hearings. Maybe he would rule right at the beginning of the Senate trial that the grounds for the impeachment were un-Constitutional. Because it certainly can be seen as an attempt by Congress to make an end run around the Constitution. Like I said, Congress would need to come up with some other grounds for impeachment besides “he pardoned someone”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2018, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/33 "2018-06-05T13:43:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > WADR I don’t think the case you mention covers whether or not a President can be impeached for exercising his Constitutional power of pardon. > > The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides, I believe, over the Senate hearings. Maybe he would rule right at the beginning of the Senate trial that the grounds for the impeachment were un-Constitutional. Because it certainly can be seen as an attempt by Congress to make an end run around the Constitution. > > Like I said, Congress would need to come up with some other grounds for impeachment besides “he pardoned someone”. > > Regards, > Shodan I don’t think the CJ has the authority to do that, and if he tried to, I would expect the Senate to ignore him. But talk about your constitutional crisis!! On that note alone, I would hope the CJ would be wise enough not to precepitate one. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2018, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/34 "2018-06-05T19:24:39Z")
What, if anything, did Rehnquist do during the Clinton trial? I would expect, if Congress impeached a President for using his pardon power, we have a Constitutional crisis already. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2018, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/35 "2018-06-05T21:19:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What, if anything, did Rehnquist do during the Clinton trial? I don’t know. Is there something you wanted to point out? > [@](#): > > I would expect, if Congress impeached a President for using his pardon power, we have a Constitutional crisis already. > > Regards, > Shodan It’s not “using his pardon power”, but “using his pardon power in a corrupt manner”. Remember, high crimes and misdemeanors don’t have to be actual crimes. If Congress thinks the president is abusing the authority given to him, they can impeach him and remove him from office. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2018, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/36 "2018-06-05T21:30:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I would expect, if Congress impeached a President for using his pardon power, we have a Constitutional crisis already. It depends on _how_ it is used. E.g., if someone paid Trump$10M for a pardon, that would be a crime. Note that Clinton was accused of doing this in the last days of his Presidency and Certain People wanted him prosecuted for it. Plausible-ish scenario. One of Trump’s campaign people is given immunity to prosecution in order to force testimony. The person refuses and is charged. Trump pardons. Again asked to testify, refused. Repeat. That would be viewed as obstruction to many people. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2018, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/37 "2018-06-05T21:53:37Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What, if anything, did Rehnquist do during the Clinton trial? He showed off those spiffy Iolanthe stripes on his robe sleeves. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2018, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/38 "2018-06-05T23:21:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > WADR I don’t think the case you mention covers whether or not a President can be impeached for exercising his Constitutional power of pardon. It covers whether or not the courts have a role in the impeachment process. They don’t. The House has the “ **sole** Power of Impeachment” and the Senate has the “ **sole** Power to try all Impeachments.” ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2018, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/39 "2018-06-06T12:55:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t know. Is there something you wanted to point out? You said you didn’t think the Chief Justice could rule the proceedings out of order. The Chief Justice presides over Senate trials to remove a President. What does “preside” mean in that context? Does he rule on anything? > [@](#): > > It’s not “using his pardon power”, but “using his pardon power in a corrupt manner”. Remember, high crimes and misdemeanors don’t have to be actual crimes. If Congress thinks the president is abusing the authority given to him, they can impeach him and remove him from office. You are correct that it doesn’t have to be a crime. Can it be something he is Constitutionally empowered to do? I think it is an open question, as well as a Constitutional question. If “in a corrupt manner” means “in a way Congress doesn’t like even if it doesn’t break any statute” then that strikes me as an end run around the Constitution. That’s why I think it would be a Constitutional crisis no matter what, and long before it got to a Senate trial. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2018, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200/40 "2018-06-06T13:29:38Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You said you didn’t think the Chief Justice could rule the proceedings out of order. The Chief Justice presides over Senate trials to remove a President. What does “preside” mean in that context? Does he rule on anything? OK, I probably was too absolute in that statement. We would be in uncharted territory, so we don’t know whether he could do that or not. But I think the key part is that it would precipitate a real constitutional crisis and I would hope a CJ wold avoid that at all cost. Because: > [@](#): > > You are correct that it doesn’t have to be a crime. Can it be something he is Constitutionally empowered to do? I think it is an open question, as well as a Constitutional question. > > If “in a corrupt manner” means “in a way Congress doesn’t like even if it doesn’t break any statute” then that strikes me as an end run around the Constitution. > > That’s why I think it would be a Constitutional crisis no matter what, and long before it got to a Senate trial. > > Regards, > Shodan The constitution specifically contains a phrase that was known to mean “abuse of office”. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that one can abuse the office while following the rules. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-gives-full-pardon-to-conservative-fraudster/815200.md?page=3)