Presidential Pardons - when would you call it corrupt?

[Stewy]

In reference to this CNN article - https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/18/politics/donald-trump-eleventh-hour-pardons/index.html

Presidential Pardons from a leaving president is a tradition. This article is interesting, in that aside from a little bias against Trump, it for the most part goes on about how other Presidents have used the power (more informational than opinion), which is what interested me.

There is a system to be followed through the Justice Dpt. to get your case in front of the President. But it is not required. One can go around it and appeal to the President directly if you have the connections TO the President or have the money to pay someone who has access to the President, which is where we come to Trump.

The extremes were as follows:
George Bush jr - Used the power very sparingly, and was disgusted how many people pulled him aside in his last days trying to get pardons for friends/allies/associates
Obama - pardoned the most ever, but it was philosophical it appears; he pardoned mostly low level drug offenders (users) with mandatory sentences. Obama's way of thumbing his nose at something he disagreed with.
Clinton - Made some very questionable pardons, allies, friends of allies, white collar

I will not go over what Trump is going to do with pardons. My question is essentially, do you believe a President can go to far? What Clinton did was questionable to some, fine to others and murderously corrupt to still others. However, it is a question of ethics, and not law. It is a power that the president can wield how they see fit.

How far is too far? When does it go from questionable to corruption, if at all?







As for my opinion, if you're interested? Trump is doing essentially what I expected of him and it surprises me not at all.

[Belsnickel]

I mean, if the pardon is due to a quid pro quo, or something, that's corrupt. This doesn't have to be monetary, but just like "I'll pardon you so you won't testify against me" or whatever. That's corrupt. Still legal, but corrupt.

Trump is a shit bag and he has pardoned a bunch of shit bags. It is what it is. I haven't really made up my mind regarding the pardon power, in general, though.

[Dill]

(01-18-2021, 02:15 PM)Stewy Wrote: I will not go over what Trump is going to do with pardons.  My question is essentially, do you believe a President can go to far?  What Clinton did was questionable to some, fine to others and murderously corrupt to still others.  However, it is a question of ethics, and not law.  It is a power that the president can wield how they see fit.  

How far is too far?  When does it go from questionable to corruption, if at all?

As for my opinion, if you're interested?  Trump is doing essentially what I expected of him and it surprises me not at all.

Well I agree with you on the bolded.

Clinton made questionable pardons, but it seems like W and Obama where much more principled.

E.g. Obama was helping those either wronged by the law or who showed contrition--and in that case the more the better I say.

Bush thought going around proper channels and relying on access was unfair to those with no access; a president who allowed that abused his power.

Trump seems diametrically the opposite of Bush and Obama:

He is pardoning people whose advocates have, or can pay for, access.

And he is pardoning people who not contrite.

Worse, it appears he is pardoning some as a reward for covering his own crimes.

So in answer to your question, for people who take ethics seriously, a president certainly can go to far. Trump has show us how.

[hollodero]

The ultimate pardon power of the US president is one example of one person having way too much power. It invites corruption for those willing to go down that way.

Case in point, a president could hire someone to intimidate, beat up or straight out kill someone and then completely legally just pardon him after the deed. Trump could pardon the insurrectionists if he so pleases. Many believe a president could even pardon himself, which is real close to absolute power. What if Trump just killed Comey, as Giuliani suggested, and then pardons himself for it? You seriously don't seem to know what then. Possibly nothing beyond an impeachment attempt.

This, imho, is all quite crazy. In a state of law, pardons should have to pass some kind of independent ethics committee. Also it should be made clear that a president can not pardon anyone he has a personal connection with. Else, it can have the clear appearance of corruption. Eg. Trump pardoning Flynn or Papadopoulos or first and foremost Paul Manafort seems blatantly corrupt and some banana republic stuff. It seems or easily could be a reward for holding still.

[Dill]

(01-18-2021, 03:15 PM)hollodero Wrote: The ultimate pardon power of the US president is one example of one person having way too much power. It invites corruption for those willing to go down that way.

Case in point, a president could hire someone to intimidate, beat up or straight out kill someone and then completely legally just pardon him after the deed. Trump could pardon the insurrectionists if he so pleases. Many believe a president could even pardon himself, which is real close to absolute power. What if Trump just killed Comey, as Giuliani suggested, and then pardons himself for it? You seriously don't seem to know what then. Possibly nothing beyond an impeachment attempt.

Yes, of course. All that is true.

It's just that Americans have never had to think very much about such dangers, because most of our presidents are at least aware of what looks bad, and have avoided staining their legacy with appearance of corruption.

There is a value in presidential prerogatives, if given to people who have internalized the civic norms and ethical ideals upon which rule of law is supposed to rest. Obama's pardons tend to illustrate that value.

But if you hand that power to a malignant narcissist, then it is a tremendous power, incentive, and opportunity to abuse. 

That is one of the criteria people are supposed to think about when choosing a president--will he/she have those internal controls that guide ethical decisions? 

Someone who thinks we should have "kept the oil," and constantly wonders why we can't use nukes if we have them, and that insists running his business while in public office entails no conflict of interest, and brings four Clinton accusers to a foreign policy debate isn't just ignorant of international law and government, but also utterly lacking those traditionally expected internal ethical controls. There is no internal voice telling him "this behavior is shamefully wrong."

There are several reasons why Americans would vote such a person into office: 1) many voters themselves lack the expected ethical controls, and so don't miss them in their party's candidate, or 2) since presidents have generally respected legal and civic norms, voters have not given much thought to the possibility that an autocratic candidate, once in office, might gradually explore and expand his/her power to disregard norms to serve his own interests rather than those of the nation as a whole--especially where the president is able to avoid accountability. Or 3) some might indeed see the risk, but accept it in the hope that tax cuts or judges appointed might balance the damage.

(01-18-2021, 03:15 PM)hollodero Wrote: This, imho, is all quite crazy. In a state of law, pardons should have to pass some kind of independent ethics committee. Also it should be made clear that a president can not pardon anyone he has a personal connection with. Else, it can have the clear appearance of corruption. Eg. Trump pardoning Flynn or Papadopoulos or first and foremost Paul Manafort seems blatantly corrupt and some banana republic stuff. It seems or easily could be a reward for holding still.

As part of Trump's corrupt legacy, I think such restraints will be discussed in the coming year.

E.g., there is an office (Pardon attorney) which reviews pardons and makes non-binding recommendations, but pre-Trump the recommendations were part of an honor system intended to maximize the social benefits of the pardon power. Reviewing and recommending pardons showed that people were honoring ideals law and the greater good.

Because one president looked at that system and thought "Wow, no real controls; I can do what I want," it may have to be changed now, making the once voluntary controls a requirement.

[Belsnickel]

(01-18-2021, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: As part of Trump's corrupt legacy, I think such restraints will be discussed in the coming year.

E.g., there is an office (Pardon attorney) which reviews pardons and makes non-binding recommendations, but pre-Trump the recommendations were part of an honor system intended to maximize the social benefits of the pardon power. Reviewing and recommending pardons showed that people were honoring ideals law and the greater good.

Because one president looked at that system and thought "Wow, no real controls; I can do what I want," it may have to changed now, making the once voluntary controls a requirement.

The pardon power is the one executive power that is absolute. There is no way to put constraints on that power without a constitutional amendment. There will not be enough backing to do that.

[Benton]

Bel pretty much sums up my thoughts.

For an example of what I think is corrupt (and possibly should be able to be overturned by lawmakers) is our last governor. He pardoned more than 400 people at the end. Some were ok, but a lot of them were tied to campaign donors, including a guy serving a large chunk of time for child pornography. In his case, he wasn't out long, he got arrested on the same charge in less than a year. Another guy was convicted of murder, but his family donated $20,000 and BAM, he was back on the street.

[hollodero]

(01-18-2021, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, of course. All that is true.

It's just that Americans have never had to think very much about such dangers, because most of our presidents are at least aware of what looks bad, and have avoided staining their legacy with appearance of corruption.

There is a value in presidential prerogatives, if given to people who have internalized the civic norms and ethical ideals upon which rule of law is supposed to rest. Obama's pardons tend to illustrate that value.

Sure, I get that. Our president has pardon and clemency powers too. I see the general sense behind that.

(01-18-2021, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: But if you hand that power to a malignant narcissist, then it is a tremendous power, incentive, and opportunity to abuse. 

Yes. Which is a problem of the system, eg. relying on thoughts and rules written in the 18th century.

(01-18-2021, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: That is one of the criteria people are supposed to think about when choosing a president--will he/she have those internal controls that guide ethical decisions? 

Someone who thinks we should have "kept the oil," and constantly wonders why we can't use nukes if we have them, and that insists running his business while in public office entails no conflict of interest, and brings four Clinton accusers to a foreign policy debate isn't just ignorant of international law and government, but also utterly lacking those traditionally expected internal ethical controls. There is no internal voice telling him "this behavior is shamefully wrong."

There are several reasons why Americans would vote such a person into office: 1) many voters themselves lack the expected ethical controls, and so don't miss them in their party's candidate, or 2) since presidents have generally respected legal and civic norms, voters have not given much thought to the possibility that an autocratic candidate, once in office, might gradually explore and expand his/her power to disregard norms to serve his own interests rather than those of the nation as a whole--especially where the president is able to avoid accountability. Or 3) some might indeed see the risk, but accept it in the hope that tax cuts or judges appointed might balance the damage.

I see all that points, but I feel you leave out the one most important factor. Which imho is that you live in such a deeply polarized time that someone from the own side can do no wrong and gets defended by all means necessary. It's not about the issue really. In that environment, a president can do almost whatever and simply not care about "optics". Whose optics, whose perspective? The leftist MSM? Liberals? Well, that does not really matter much, does it. It probably did matter in the end, but just barely, Trump got elected and almost got reelected after all. He was guaranteed almost half of the vote from the start, and nothing but the "R" mattered for that. Same goes for Biden.

That's what Trump figured out about you, probably by just watching FOX all day. You're deeply divided and entrenched, always out to argue a win for your own side and a loss for the other side, up to a willingness to ignore reality and defend the indefensible. You hardly lose anyone of "your people". Something that is not true for our own way more diverse political spectrum. That, imho, is the root of all your current problems, yet another 18th century heritage, the strict political duality where it's always an "us vs. them", nowadays by all means necessary.

And while imho the left side is way less extreme in that regard, this truth to a certain degree applies for both sides. Democrats got away with a lot and could get away with a lot more too now, eg. with pardoning a personal friend or political ally. One can easily tell a critic that Trump did way worse and hence all outrage is hypocritical. Which would be true.

[Dill]

(01-18-2021, 05:25 PM)hollodero Wrote: I see all that points, but I feel you leave out the one most important factor. Which imho is that you live in such a deeply polarized time that someone from the own side can do no wrong and gets defended by all means necessary. It's not about the issue really. In that environment, a president can do almost whatever and simply not care about "optics". Whose optics, whose perspective? The leftist MSM? Liberals? Well, that does not really matter much, does it. It probably did matter in the end, but just barely, Trump got elected and almost got reelected after all. He was guaranteed almost half of the vote from the start, and nothing but the "R" mattered for that. Same goes for Biden.

That's what Trump figured out about you, probably by just watching FOX all day. You're deeply divided and entrenched, always out to argue a win for your own side and a loss for the other side, up to a willingness to ignore reality and defend the indefensible. You hardly lose anyone of "your people". Something that is not true for our own way more diverse political spectrum. That, imho, is the root of all your current problems, yet another 18th century heritage, the strict political duality where it's always an "us vs. them", nowadays by all means necessary.

And while imho the left side is way less extreme in that regard, this truth to a certain degree applies for both sides. Democrats got away with a lot and could get away with a lot more too now, eg. with pardoning a personal friend or political ally. One can easily tell a critic that Trump did way worse and hence all outrage is hypocritical. Which would be true.

Two quick points: 1) "both sides do it" is rarely the basis of accurate political analysis. We hear it sometimes from one side (usually the liberal) when they want to find common policy ground and know they cannot begin by just blaming others, even if (as you recognize) one side does it more. We also hear it from one side (usually the conservative) when some incident casts doubt on party character--like a president's impeachable behavior. It then becomes a means of spreading or mitigating blame, deflecting any implication that a party's judgement as a whole might be flawed. Most of the time, it is a mirror image imposed on the surface of a political conflict, in which each side may indeed be accusing the other of the same thing, which may look very different once one looks deeper into material/social causes of division--and whether the accusations are actually true. It is rarely a useful analytical tool, how ever politically useful it might sometimes be. Rather it superimposes a pattern upon conflict which may not really be there and so distorts analysis.

2) If we are really trying to understand causes, which may be necessary to finding workable solutions, then we ought to begin by trying to understand what material/social forces have conditioned the aforementioned division. When we do that, I don't think we'll find find the two major parties have somehow became mirror images of one another, each equally willing to "ignore reality and defend the indefensible."  The divisive rhetoric from Congressional leaders, for example, was simply not there through most of the '70s and '80s. There is a before and after. It its origins can be dated, traced to  individuals, to one party, as can the incremental ratcheting up of that rhetoric, aided and abetted by new technologies and legal innovations, leading us to a point where now 74% of Republicans believe that Biden was not legitimately elected president. The other side has sometimes attempted to respond in kind, but generally without success because its constituents for the most part do not respond to that rhetoric. That is a very thin summary, but accurate enough to dispute the notion of a mirror image.

Some added notes: The "strict political duality" in the U.S. has, since the 18th century, not been "us vs them," but compromisers, pragmatists and unifiers vs those who embrace "us-vs-them."  And that is still what we have.

I don't think Trump figured out that we're "always out to argue a win for [our] own side and a loss for the other side, up to a willingness to ignore reality and defend the indefensible."  I think he just noticed that when he promised racist and xenophobic policies, a segment of the public responded quickly. When he did it more, they responded more, and he responded to them, thereby building, organizing and fixing that previously suppressed xenophobia into a formidable political force and some terrible short term policies. Along the way he discovered that some checks and balances would fail if he pushed against them hard enough. And so he pushed harder. A right wing media machine primed this audience for him two decades before his election, and he rode it into office and out all accountability, until Jan. 6.  All this has not happened because "both sides" are equally ready to "defend the indefensible."

Even if a president can still legally "do what he wants" in this environment, it is not at all clear that each side wants to elect someone who will JUST do what he wants. You yourself think rule of law is important. If people want to live under rule of law, then they must elect representatives who also think that and hold them accountable. That is one reason why so many the "D" mattered to so many people. The division in the US right now appears to be between people who agree with you about the importance of rule of law and those who want a form of law and order, which can trump rule of law.  I don't think Biden will be defended by "all means necessary" in the coming year, as Trump was over the last four. 

[Au165]

The rumor is Joe Exotic may be getting a pardon...we have jumped the shark.

[Big Boss]

Of those listed below, who gets one today?

Donald Trump
Donald Trump Jr.
Eric Trump
Ivanka Trump
Jared Kushner
Ken Paxton
Lin Wood
Rudy Giuliani

[Au165]

(01-19-2021, 11:30 AM)Big Boss Wrote: Of those listed below, who gets one today?

Donald Trump
Donald Trump Jr.
Eric Trump
Ivanka Trump
Jared Kushner
Ken Paxton
Lin Wood
Rudy Giuliani

I think the kids could be. I don't actually think Trump will try the self-pardon.

[*Nately120*]

(01-19-2021, 11:37 AM)Au165 Wrote: I don't actually think Trump will try the self-pardon.

Why not?  Everything else he does is self-serving and unprecedented for a president.  This seems like the slammiest of slam dunks to me.

[Stewy]

(01-19-2021, 11:37 AM)Au165 Wrote: I think the kids could be. I don't actually think Trump will try the self-pardon.

(01-19-2021, 11:56 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Why not?  Everything else he does is self-serving and unprecedented for a president.  This seems like the slammiest of slam dunks to me.

I agree.  I think Trump pardons everyone of interest to him, and anyone who he feels might spite those he wants spiting, which is essentially everyone not kissing his ass on this particular day.

[Stewy]

On a side note, I'd like to thank everyone for their open and interesting thoughts on this matter. Topics in this forum too easily devolve into the same partisan back and forths, so I want to thank everyone for the open discussion.

cheers!

[Benton]

(01-19-2021, 11:56 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Why not?  Everything else he does is self-serving and unprecedented for a president.  This seems like the slammiest of slam dunks to me.

I don't think he will pardon himself or his kids because I don't think he thinks any of them did anything wrong.

[Arturo Bandini]

In France we have pardons too.

For example, our last president pardonned 3 people, the actual only pardonned one.

[*Nately120*]

(01-19-2021, 01:53 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't think he will pardon himself or his kids because I don't think he thinks any of them did anything wrong.

A pardon is only an admission of guilt when you have someone who is capable of feeling guilt and/or has a reputation based on logic.  Trump will pardon himself and his kids and he and his family will figure that's just the protection you get for being rich and important enough to get away with stuff and his fanbase will toss the pardons in the same pile as all the evidence against him as just liberal witch hunting. 

Trump has admitted to guilt before, but he doesn't feel remorse because he knows that laws and rules apply to lesser people...and he's right.  He's guilty, but he's better than the rest of us so it doesn't matter to him and it doesn't matter to his supporters.

[Rotobeast]

(01-19-2021, 01:53 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't think he will pardon himself or his kids because I don't think he thinks any of them did anything wrong.

If he were to pardon himself or resign to have Pence pardon him, would the admission of guilt open him up to civil suits ?

[*Nately120*]

(01-19-2021, 06:05 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: If he were to pardon himself or resign to have Pence pardon him, would the admission of guilt open him up to civil suits ?

I'm no lawyer, but as long as you can get 1 MAGA nut on any jury Trump will skate by.