Stone is flanked by members of the Oath Keepers militia group just hours before the deadly Capitol riot

[Sand Castle]

A newly surfaced video first reported by ABC News showing longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone in Washington, D.C., the morning of Jan. 6. In the video, Stone is flanked by members of the Oath Keepers militia group just hours before the deadly Capitol riots -- including one man who appeared to later have participated in the Capitol assault, according to online researchers.

MORE: Democrats call Trump to testify in upcoming impeachment trial
"So, hopefully we have this today, right?" one supporter asks Stone in the video. "We shall see," Stone replies

Congressional investigators probe videos of Trump associates' actions ahead of Capitol riot

Investigators preparing for former President Trump's impeachment trial are zeroing in on the actions of the president and his associates around the insurrection.

abcnews.go.com

Conspiracy?

 

[Excast]

Nixon LARPer hanging out with members of Y'all Qaeda.

 

[beefheart]

What a disgusting person...but the orange idiot pardoned him....

 

[Mr Person]

What a disgusting person...but the orange idiot pardoned him....

For crimes already committed. Was there a post-insurrection pardon I missed? Or is my memory completely ****ed?

(I didn't actually read the pardon, but I'd imagine that part of it wouldn't hold up in any court case if the relevant bit was "and for all future crimes he may commit")

 

[mrjurrs]

For crimes already committed. Was there a post-insurrection pardon I missed? Or is my memory completely ****ed?

(I didn't actually read the pardon, but I'd imagine that part of it wouldn't hold up in any court case if the relevant bit was "and for all future crimes he may commit")

Future crimes are not pardonable.

 

[Mr Person]

Future crimes are not pardonable.

I assumed that was the view, but I have to wonder: has it been tested in court? As in, are you thinking of a specific controlling case? Even just a circuit court?

Because if it's just a scholarly consensus that has not been tested, we don't know it's correct. We might just hope it is. If it has been tested, the next question becomes: in what case and how high did it go? District court and they didn't appeal? They appealed and a circuit decision said? En banc or no? Did SCOTUS take it after? etc.

 

[mrjurrs]

I assumed that was the view, but I have to wonder: has it been tested in court? As in, are you thinking of a specific controlling case? Even just a circuit court?

I don't know if it is in the law, but in the requirements of accepting a pardon. You have to attest to the facts of the crime you are being pardoned for, so you would not be allowed be pardoned. After I wrote that I'm less sure, but I'm 99.8% certain future crimes are not eligible.

 

[Mr Person]

I don't know if it is in the law, but in the requirements of accepting a pardon. You have to attest to the facts of the crime you are being pardoned for, so you would not be allowed be pardoned. After I wrote that I'm less sure, but I'm 99.8% certain future crimes are not eligible.

Do you have to attest? I've never represented someone who received a pardon but was charged so I never had a reason to look.

We'd need a case where someone was charged with a pardon for future crimes, got charged anyway, and made the argument you're mentioning...then got a ruling. I have no idea. But I'm not sure. If it hasn't been ruled on, it really is up in the air. I'd bet there is no such case, but then I haven't had a reason to look.




I mean, I'd be pretty surprised if SCOTUS said a president can lay out an all-time pardon. That would defeat the point; namely, correcting injustice. But courts do sometimes say things I think are more than a little ridiculous....

 

[mrjurrs]

Do you have to attest? I've never represented someone who received a pardon but was charged so I never had a reason to look.

We'd need a case where someone was charged with a pardon for future crimes, got charged anyway, and made the argument you're mentioning...then got a ruling. I have no idea. But I'm not sure. If it hasn't been ruled on, it really is up in the air. I'd bet there is no such case, but then I haven't had a reason to look.

Burdick v US, but even that is not directly on point. This blog post is interesting on the subject.

The Supreme Court and the president's pardon power

Correction appended. The Constitution gives the president the power “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.” In the days before Christmas, […]

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Mr Person]

Burdick v US, but even that is not directly on point. This blog post is interesting on the subject.

The Supreme Court and the president's pardon power

Correction appended. The Constitution gives the president the power “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.” In the days before Christmas, […]

www.scotusblog.com

Interesting. But the case description doesn't say what the allowable limits of a pardon are; the description indicates it's about whether it has been accepted.

In Burdick v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed the case of a newspaper editor who declined to testify before a grand jury, invoking the Fifth Amendment, even after the president pardoned him. Burdick declined to accept the pardon, and he was held in contempt for refusing to testify. The question before the Supreme Court was what effect, if any, the unaccepted pardon had. The court ruled that a pardon becomes effective only if it is accepted. The court also compared immunity, granted by Congress, and a pardon, explaining that the differences are “substantial.” Unlike immunity, the court reasoned, a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.”

To be clear, I'm not saying I think a president can prospectively pardon someone for all future federal crimes. I think that would be a stupid way to interpret the constitution. BUT, I just don't know that it has been decided.

Burdick sounds like it is about what happens with a person who is pardoned for past crimes but does not accept them, not wanting to admit guilt for public reasons, but then tries to invoke the 5th as to a crime he was pardoned for but did not accept the pardon. Therefore, he was still subject to prosecution for the crime and could plead the 5th.

It's fundamentally different from the president trying to pardon someone for all past and future crimes, the person accepting that absurdly general pardon, then committing a federal crime, then saying "but I was pardoned! And I accepted!"

I suppose there's a built-in question of specificity: can you really pardon someone for all crimes, or do you have to name the crimes they're pardoned for? Relatedly, what would happen if the president pardoned for all future crimes and made sure the pardon included an exhaustive list of every single ****ing federal statute regarding crime?





I'm guessing that would all go down in flames, but ya never know

 

[mrjurrs]

Interesting. But the case description doesn't say what the allowable limits of a pardon are; the description indicates it's about whether it has been accepted.

In Burdick v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed the case of a newspaper editor who declined to testify before a grand jury, invoking the Fifth Amendment, even after the president pardoned him. Burdick declined to accept the pardon, and he was held in contempt for refusing to testify. The question before the Supreme Court was what effect, if any, the unaccepted pardon had. The court ruled that a pardon becomes effective only if it is accepted. The court also compared immunity, granted by Congress, and a pardon, explaining that the differences are “substantial.” Unlike immunity, the court reasoned, a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.”

To be clear, I'm not saying I think a president can prospectively pardon someone for all future federal crimes. I think that would be a stupid way to interpret the constitution. BUT, I just don't know that it has been decided.

Burdick sounds like it is about what happens with a person who is pardoned for past crimes but does not accept them, not wanting to admit guilt for public reasons, but then tries to invoke the 5th as to a crime he was pardoned for but did not accept the pardon. Therefore, he was still subject to prosecution for the crime and could plead the 5th.

It's fundamentally different from the president trying to pardon someone for all past and future crimes, the person accepting that absurdly general pardon, then committing a federal crime, then saying "but I was pardoned! And I accepted!"

I suppose there's a built-in question of specificity: can you really pardon someone for all crimes, or do you have to name the crimes they're pardoned for? Relatedly, what would happen if the president pardoned for all future crimes and made sure the pardon included an exhaustive list of every single ****ing federal statute regarding crime?





I'm guessing that would all go down in flames, but ya never know

You do never know, but while I've seen SCOTUS lean right, I still have a level of trust that their rulings will be based on law (precedent I'm not so sure).

 

[Lisa]

Nixon LARPer hanging out with members of Y'all Qaeda.

Roger Stone was a Trump advisor and political dirty tricks magnate. This photo was not a coincidence.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General William Barr said on Wednesday the prosecution of Roger Stone, President Donald Trump’s longtime friend and adviser, was appropriate and his prison sentence of three years and four months was fair.

Trump has argued that Stone, a 67-year-old veteran Republican operative and self-described “dirty trickster,” was treated unfairly. Last month Trump declined to answer directly in a television interview when asked if he would issue Stone a pardon.

U.S. Attorney General Barr says Trump adviser Roger Stone's sentence fair

U.S. Attorney General William Barr said on Wednesday the prosecution of Roger Stone, President Donald Trump's longtime friend and adviser, was appropriate and his prison sentence of three years and four months was fair.

www.reuters.com

And this,

WASHINGTON (AP) — No more Instagram for Roger Stone. Facebook and Twitter are out, too.

A federal judge barred Stone from posting on social media Tuesday after concluding that the longtime confidant of President Donald Trump, who is charged with lying in the Russia investigation, repeatedly flouted her gag order.

Although U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson did not send Stone to jail or find him in contempt, she sharply scolded him for using social media — and his platform of tens of thousands of followers — to disparage the case against him and mock the broader probe into Russian election interference. She cast him as a publicity hound who either cannot or will not follow simple orders to not publicly comment on the case.

Judge restricts social media use of Trump friend Roger Stone

WASHINGTON (AP) — No more Instagram for Roger Stone. Facebook and Twitter are out, too. A federal judge barred Stone from posting on social media Tuesday after concluding that the longtime...

apnews.com