Martha Stewart and Rod Blagojevich are in the “on deck circle.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...on-conservative-author-dinesh-d-souza-n878851
Personally I believe there ought to be limits imposed on presidential pardons. It's gotten silly.
Martha Stewart and Rod Blagojevich are in the “on deck circle.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...on-conservative-author-dinesh-d-souza-n878851
Personally I believe there ought to be limits imposed on presidential pardons. It's gotten silly.
Here's my take, being a supporter and defender of the US Constitution.
The US Constitution grants plenary power in Article Two, Section 2, to the President by stating that "... he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
When Obama granted pardons to people I thought unworthy I stated as much and then stated the above. I'm doing the exact same here. Don't allow it to deflect from what Trump is doing, but check out the link, it's an interesting list.
The only control we as a people have over this plenary power, is to ensure the person wielding it doesn't remain in office after the next general election. That didn't occur with Obama, because his supporters ignored such actions that they now vehemently and with great force of will take umbrage with Trump. That, the hypocrisy, is not surprising. What is good for the Democrat is often not good for the Republican in some eyes - you can also reverse the parties in that statement and it would be equally true.
Complain all we want, the man is exercising a power that no one can limit or overturn. What is being shown in these threads, however, is the true hypocrisy of those that remained silent or even defended Obama when he did the same or similar. For those that decried both? I tip my hat.
Sorry, but Blago and Stewart got what they deserved, and Blago is practically the poster child for corrupt politician.
Pardons and clemency should be approved by congress and only issued if the person can be proven innocent, the laws have changed, can be shown that the conviction was corrupt, or that its the right thing to do. An investigation should be done to decide which case it would be. If it falls under the right thing to do, then it should be compared to historic pardons to see if it measures up.
A independent investigation should try to clear the pardons of any corruption purposes. If that investigation finds that it was corruption related (the pardons or crimes) then congress would void the pardon(s) altogether.
Too bad you were not present to help write the US Constitution, eh?
Sorry, but Blago and Stewart got what they deserved, and Blago is practically the poster child for corrupt politician.
Personally I believe there ought to be limits imposed on presidential pardons. It's gotten silly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?