- Joined
- Nov 10, 2016
- Messages
- 14,607
- Reaction score
- 9,303
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I did not know exactly how to phrase my heading. What I want to know is once a person is given a pardon they also give up their right to plead the 5th. So if requested to testify after being given a pardon and they refuse to do so they can be sent to jail for contempt. Can the president then just pardon them for contempt or is that beyond his ability to pardon someone?
The president can pardon somebody, then re-pardon them for contempt charges that comes from a witness refusing to testify against them - if that's the objective.
However, that would be a blatant abuse of his authority, and would be subject to impeachment.
It would also be incredibly risky for a witness to rely on such a cycle.
The president can pardon somebody, then re-pardon them for contempt charges that comes from a witness refusing to testify against them - if that's the objective.
However, that would be a blatant abuse of his authority, and would be subject to impeachment.
It would also be incredibly risky for a witness to rely on such a cycle.
I did not know exactly how to phrase my heading. What I want to know is once a person is given a pardon they also give up their right to plead the 5th. So if requested to testify after being given a pardon and they refuse to do so they can be sent to jail for contempt. Can the president then just pardon them for contempt or is that beyond his ability to pardon someone?
The president can pardon somebody, then re-pardon them for contempt charges that comes from a witness refusing to testify against them - if that's the objective.
However, that would be a blatant abuse of his authority, and would be subject to impeachment.
You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, and I'm going to show you again.In your opinion, not in fact.
While Congress can impeach for just about any "Trumped"-up charge (), currently absent an amendment to change the existing Constitution, Presidential pardon power is absolute in federal crimes and thus the exercise thereof cannot be an "abuse of authority."
Best example? Ford pardoning Nixon.
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:9.endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
The president can pardon somebody, then re-pardon them for contempt charges that comes from a witness refusing to testify against them - if that's the objective.
However, that would be a blatant abuse of his authority, and would be subject to impeachment.
It would also be incredibly risky for a witness to rely on such a cycle.
In your opinion, not in fact.
While Congress can impeach for just about any "Trumped"-up charge (), currently absent an amendment to change the existing Constitution, Presidential pardon power is absolute in federal crimes and thus the exercise thereof cannot be an "abuse of authority."
Best example? Ford pardoning Nixon.
Actually, a judge must first recognize a pardon and although they always have, it's not hard to imagine them rejecting one, where a president/governor is themselves a subject of the investigation and is giving witnesses pardons, and leaving the constitutionality up to the SCOTUS.Red:
True enough, but it wouldn't alter the pardon and the benefit of it to the pardoned person.
I did not know exactly how to phrase my heading. What I want to know is once a person is given a pardon they also give up their right to plead the 5th. So if requested to testify after being given a pardon and they refuse to do so they can be sent to jail for contempt. Can the president then just pardon them for contempt or is that beyond his ability to pardon someone?
You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, and I'm going to show you again.
Presidents are not allowed to use their powers with corrupt intent, whether the power is absolute or not. If a president was to pardon some random person over and over again, who he was pardoning for moral reasons that had nothing to do with him, it would indeed be within his power to do so.
But, when a president uses the power of clemency as a method to keep a witness silent, it is very, very illegal. And if you don't believe me, just look in the history of the Watergate scandal, where one of the infractions listed in the impeachment articles against president Nixon was promising witnesses clemency in exchange for them refusing to testify against him and remaining silent.
Watergate Articles Of Impeachment
It is not my opinion, it's established Congressional precedent.
...While Congress can impeach for just about any "Trumped"-up charge…
Actually, a judge must first recognize a pardon and although they always have, it's not hard to imagine them rejecting one, where a president/governor is themselves a subject of the investigation and is giving witnesses pardons, and leaving the constitutionality up to the SCOTUS.
That's why presidents don't just hand out pardons like candy, WH counsels for years have known this.
Now you're changing your tune.Again, you assert something I did not state. Did you miss this part:
Nothing you stated changes the fact that absent an amendment, the President's power to PARDON is absolute.
The fact that Congress has the power to impeach a President is also "absolute," on any allegation they wish. Where doe this indicate the person pardoned is not really pardoned?
Perhaps it is you who should consider what they are asserting before you decide it is dispositive. :coffeepap:
You weren't just talking about the witness being pardoned, you clearly stated right here that a president can't abuse the pardon power with criminal intent, and I just demonstrated that is simply not so.Captain Adverse said:While Congress can impeach for just about any "Trumped"-up charge ( ), currently absent an amendment to change the existing Constitution, Presidential pardon power is absolute in federal crimes and thus the exercise thereof cannot be an "abuse of authority."
A judge has to acknowledge a pardon and dismiss a case, but in theory he could refuse to dismiss the case on grounds that the president is bribing a witness.Red:
I can't say you're wrong, but I also can't find a thing that indicates that "a judge must recognize a pardon."
What is the context for your assertion? Are you merely referring to the fact that the rule of law and the letter and spirit of specific laws, in this case the Constitutional law governing presidents' pardon power, is meaningless if the polity, judiciary, legislature and LEO units fail, in a practical rather than formal sense, to acknowledge the legitimacy of a given lawfully taken action. If that's what you mean, well, yes, of course. To do otherwise is to, essentially, revolt.
Now you're changing your tune.
You said.
You weren't just talking about the witness being pardoned, you clearly stated right here that a president can't abuse the pardon power with criminal intent, and I just demonstrated that is simply not so.
You're blatantly misdirecting people as to what you alleged, and trying to pull a switcheroo.
You're one very confused person.Anyone can allege a crime, that does not make the person guilty absent trial and conviction.
Again, CONGRESS can IMPEACH for whatever they want. They can claim it is an "abuse of authority" and try to impeach him. They can also claim his bad hairstyle is an impeachable offense. So what?
The House voted to impeach Bill Clinton, and the Senate voted to acquit. Did that make Clinton "guilty" of anything?
The current House could vote to impeach Trump, and the current Senate has enough votes to acquit. Would that make Trump "guilty" of an allegation of abuse of authority?
The pardon power remains absolute and the President can pardon anyone for any Federal crime he wants.
You're one very confused person.
Presidents can not be removed from office for any reason - you don't know what you're talking about. They can only be impeached and removed from office for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanours, as the constitution clearly states.
If the House of Representatives impeaches a president, they must provide articles on the offenses the president is alleged to have committed. Otherwise, the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, who will preside of the Senate trial, can absolutely rule the trial as unconstitutional if the House wanted the president removed for a "bad hairstyle".
And the trials purpose is to remove the officer from their post, not to convict them of the crime legally.
Please, learn the constitution you talk about so much.
In your opinion, not in fact.
While Congress can impeach for just about any "Trumped"-up charge (), currently absent an amendment to change the existing Constitution, Presidential pardon power is absolute in federal crimes and thus the exercise thereof cannot be an "abuse of authority."
Best example? Ford pardoning Nixon.
You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, and I'm going to show you again.
Presidents are not allowed to use their powers with corrupt intent, whether the power is absolute or not. If a president was to pardon some random person over and over again, who he was pardoning for moral reasons that had nothing to do with him, it would indeed be within his power to do so.
But, when a president uses the power of clemency as a method to keep a witness silent, it is very, very illegal. And if you don't believe me, just look in the history of the Watergate scandal, where one of the infractions listed in the impeachment articles against president Nixon was promising witnesses clemency in exchange for them refusing to testify against him and remaining silent.
Watergate Articles Of Impeachment
It is not my opinion, it's established Congressional precedent.
Cease and desist in digging in on this.
My god, you're impossible.You keep adding more ancillary information as if you are making your point clearer. I am well aware of the authority of Congress under Article I.
I said the Congress can impeach for whatever they want. They just have to couch the rationale in terms of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Easy since they can pass laws (like the Tenure of Office Act, which led to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson for purely political reasons) to suit the need. Or did you forget that power lies with Congress?
We've already had what, at least four impeachment attempts I could find since his election:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/438
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/621
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/646
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/13
All alleging some form of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Meanwhile, nothing you have said in this long red herring discussion I got dragged into has refuted my original point which was:
Since I agreed that Congress can allege abuse of authority for purposes of impeachment, which still does not negate the sitting President's power to grant pardons for any reason while still holding office, nor if impeached, negate the legitimacy of those prior pardons. :coffeepap:
My god, you're impossible.
You literally stated "the Congress can impeach for a bad hairstyle if they want" and that's one of the most absurd things I've heard on this forum, so far. This idea that the Congress can impeach people for noncriminal conduct is absurdly unconstitutional, and you'd know that had you had actually read the constitution of this country.
My first post did not address whether pardons granted as part of a criminal cover-up would be illegitimate, you're the one that brought that point up. But you weren't just referring to that, you also made a clear statement that the pardon can be used for criminal purposes, because the president has the power to pardon. It's the old "it's not illegal when the president does it!" circular argument, and from a "libertarian" no less.
The idea that a person having a given legal power means there's no circumstance where that powers use is criminal is just absurd. That's like saying that because a CFO has authority over a corporation's finances, that means if he directs company money into his bank accounts, it's not embezzlement because he had that authority.
A judge has to acknowledge a pardon and dismiss a case, but in theory he could refuse to dismiss the case on grounds that the president is bribing a witness.
It would have to be VERY obvious and clear to the court.
Again, you assert something I did not state. Did you miss this part:
Nothing you stated changes the fact that absent an amendment, the President's power to PARDON is absolute.
The fact that Congress has the power to impeach a President is also "absolute," on any allegation they wish. Where doe this indicate the person pardoned is not really pardoned?
Perhaps it is you who should consider what they are asserting before you decide it is dispositive. :coffeepap:
It's a DB article but I've heard this opinion from a few legal scholars, too. I'm not saying that pardons granted as part of an effort to silence witnesses would be illegitimate - I'm not agnostic on that issue. All I'm saying is that it's limits have never been tested by a prosecutor.Red:
Perhaps you'r aware of a statute or ruling or something that corroborates that assertion. Your repeating it doesn't do that.
Procedurally, whenever a president issues a pardon to abort a criminal conviction, terminate criminal charges, or even prevent prospectively criminal charges from ever being brought, a judge typically has to issue a formal order dismissing the matter. The prosecutor certainly could condemn the pardon publicly as a “cover-up,” as Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh did in 1992 after the first President Bush pardoned six persons, including former defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, in the Iran-contra scandal. But Walsh never sought review by a court of the validity of the pardons as he theoretically could have done. He could have argued that the pardons were illegitimate, were granted in bad faith, and that the president was trying to shield persons from criminal accountability for political reasons and indeed may himself have been involved in a conspiracy to thwart the federal investigation. And presumably if Walsh lost he could have appealed to a higher court, even the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether the courts would have considered his appeal is unclear.
It's a DB article but I've heard this opinion from a few legal scholars, too. I'm not saying that pardons granted as part of an effort to silence witnesses would be illegitimate - I'm not agnostic on that issue. All I'm saying is that it's limits have never been tested by a prosecutor.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-russia-pardons-would-be-an-obstruction-of-justice
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?