The rule of law is dead in the U.S.
“Law and Order”, to Trump, apparently means he can have the law do whatever he orders.
The message is loud and clear: If you stop lying to protect the President, then he will turn on you. If you continue lying to protect the President, then he will protect you.
It’s the standard Mafia boss rules.
I’m shocked, shocked to find that criminals are being pardoned by, and for, this government.
No low too low, no stupid too stupid.
To clarify, that was not a pardon, but a commutation.
Still, a shitty thing to do.
Presidents should not be able to pardon or commute sentences when the case involves the sitting president. It’s a mafia boss’ wet dream.
Maybe Trump will issue 140 pardons and commutations on his last day in office.
something something Monica Lewinsky!
Wait, what year is this?
Maybe that’s the other reason Trump wears Depends?
As an outsider, I have no idea why you allow the president to pardon people at all. The traditional ‘pardons on the way out’ seems ludicrous to most other civilised countries, particularly as it is used for political favours.
The judiciary should be separate to the political arm - but you already have a compromised supreme court, where the political leanings of the judges make up much of the discussion.
Ummmm… the power of the POTUS to pardon or commute is spelled out in the freaking CONSTITUTION. It is the ULTIMATE rule of law. You don’t like it, take it up with the Founding Fathers.
ETA, for reference, per Wikipedia:
-
Democratic president Barack Obama pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the conviction of 1,927 people
-
As of February 18, 2020, Republican president Donald Trump has issued 25 pardons and 10 commutations
It’s not that he commuted a sentence, it’s whose sentence he commuted. The majority of Obama’s pardons were for people who received disproportionately long (and sometimes life) sentences for minor drug offences under various Three Strikes laws. Three Strikes laws are widely recognised as both racist and terribly unjust, so most people don’t have a problem with this. Morally, Obama was on solid ground.
Roger Stone, on the other hand, is a bona fide crook and part of the Swamp that Trump promised to drain. He absolutely deserved his sentence. There’s no reasonable way to look at this excerpt as Trump misusing his authority to help out one of his friends - which is exactly the sort of corruption he was elected to fight.
Yes, well, unfortunately for you, the Constitution doesn’t give a crap about what crimes YOU deem worthy of pardon and what crimes you DON’T deem worthy of pardon. That is left for the duly elected POTUS to decide. You don’t like it? Get yourself elected POTUS.
But Trump promised to ‘Drain the swamp’. Do you think commuting the sentence of an old friend who was caught red-handed engaging in witness tampering qualifies as ‘Draining the swamp’?
There is no reading of the Constitution that enshrines nor protects corruption.
It is a short document that left definitions to the popular conceptions and traditions of the time but, even so, it starts straight off by stating what aims it was written to achieve and how one is to read it. If you read it to accept corruption then that is your soul, not the words of the Framers.
Why do you suppose he commuted the sentence instead of outright pardoning him?
Best guess: Stone wants to have a record as a guy who did it and got away with it.
From what I’ve read (sorry, no cite) Stone preferred it this way. He wanted to be free to fight his conviction in court in order to clear his name. I have no idea if that is true or not, but it is one interpretation.
IIRC Stone could still face New York state prosecution. If so, hopefully they’ll get on that, pronto.
Accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. And as a result prevents you from invoking the 5th amendment on the grounds of self-incrimination. I’m guessing this is a way to keep Stone from being subpoenaed in the future to testify against Trump - without a pardon he can still invoke the 5th.