I think that will be tested over the next few years.
3 Likes
True. Those pardons fit in the recently established trite category of “I’m not surprised, but I’m shocked.”
3 Likes
It’s moments like this when one is reminded of the words of John Betjeman.
1 Like
@El_Dorado and @redfanman What I mean is, can you put a person on trial after he/she has received Presidential Pardon???
According to LegalEagle on youtube, the pardon is all encompassing to the extent that the crime essentially did not happen (he wasn’t talking about this instance but had previously spoken about the pardon). In theory at least these four men could be back on Erik Prince’s payroll tomorrow.
He also interprets the law to say that he can pardon people for crimes they have not been convicted of. For example he could pardon everyone who works for him for any crimes he is aware of even if law enforcement are not. Although he cannot pardon himself, there is nothing stopping him from stepping down at 11.59pm and Mike Pence pardoning him.
4 Likes
You made me Google as you sparked my curiosity. I appreciate that. I think I am a few years too young to know his work well, as I haven’t studied much poetry (studied English litterature, but he wasnt part of the curriculum). But I am intrigued to know which poem you refered to if you dont mind.
Slough
“Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
It isn’t fit for humans now…”
I grew up in Windsor. The next nearest town (other than Eton) is Slough. It’s where The Office is set. Boring, soulless, it’s been the butt of jokes for decades. It’s almost the antithesis of Windsor (and Eton).
So bad is the place Betjeman was promoting the virtues of the Germans bombing it in the Second World War.
1 Like
The 5th amendment gives you protection from providing testimony that will expose you to criminal charges. If you have already been found guilty or plead guilty to those charges you have no further criminal exposure to them. There is therefore no application for the 5th amendment if you are compelled to testify about it afterwards. This is the basis of striking plea deals. Someone in that situation who is then not 100% forthcoming and honest in their testimony will face obstruction and/or perjury charges.
So, people given pre-emptive pardons like Flynn are now in a legally difficult situation.
I don’t think it is as clear cut as that. There is a lot of unsettled law around the pardon because challenging it would be such a monumental effort that even problematic ones have resulted in nothing other than outrage. That doesn’t mean it is settled law that the power is absolute though should someone be brave enough and committed enough to challenge it.
The clear intent of the Presidential Pardon was to provide a counter balance to a over reach from the other coequal branches of government. A clearly corrupt and self-serving pardon would be an obvious violation of that. The fact it has never been challenged doesn’t mean that there is not an avenue to do it. Interestingly, if you think of the two principal judicial ideologies that govern the supreme court - the originalist ideology that rules based on the founding intent of the law vs the liberal ideology that rules based on whether the interpretation produces fair outcomes, this is one of those cases where both sides would come down on restricting such pardons.
The interesting thing would be to watch the dance of the originalists trying to reconcile that with their commitment to unitary executive authority (if the president does it then it is legal) that they tend to also hold to.
3 Likes
Thanks for the story. Appreciate it. I can now see why you thought of him.
1 Like
@Magnus that tweet stream from Bill Krystal really pissed me off. I understand his larger point about concern for where we are going, but the initial comments were a clear attempt attempt at washing the reputation of Barr. It is important to remember who the pre-Trump Barr was, and he was just as a much as a crook then. But he was a crook who protected the people who advanced Krystal’s political ideology and so that was acceptable criminality. It was this reputation washing that saw him lauded as a candidate for AG again this time around when he should have black listed for his previous conduct. And now we’re starting all over again.
These fucking people never learn.
7 Likes
You misunderstood him.
I dont agree with his politics, at all in any way or form, but there was no attempt from him to white wash Barr. I know this because I have read many of his previous tweets concerning Barr. His point is that something is going on that even Barr, the very worst of them all (because he is competent), isn’t comfortable with, which should make one worry. His point isn’t to make Barr appear as a “good principled conservative”, that is actually a misunderstanding. But maybe it looks that way from this tweet thread. But it isn’t his point I can assure you. On this, I am certain.
1 Like
And it is actually true that Barr, after Biden won, have refused to do stuff, angering Trump. Barr is worried about the law probably. I dont know.
Doesnt mean that he isn’t a corrupt dangerous piece of shit enabler. He is. But right now, he is not helping Trump actively, as far as I know, in his coup attempt. And that was Kristols point. That he is uneasy concerning the coup. Thats why Kristol is worried about what comes next. When the worst people get cold fest, one should worry.
But Barr is an absolutely awful person and maybe the enabler that has some the most damage in his position.
Anyway, that is how I read it.
In any case I am on an airport and I got to put the phone away and put my gloves on. Can’t type on a smart phone with medical gloves. Me and my mother, we are traveling to Oslo and it’s time to put down the phone.
See you guys later and have a nice day ! 
2 Likes
I think the thing you need to appreciate is that conservatives like Kristol are fine with people in power ignoring the rule of law if it is in the interest of their political ideology and the people who advance that ideology. He and those like him criticized Barr over the past 2 years not because he was being a political crony who was debasing the office, but because he was doing it for someone who Kristol was not aligned with. In his pre-Trump career, Barr has been a very useful weapon for Kristol’s ideology and so has been successfully reputation washed once before. Now he is no longer working for the enemy he is in line to be washed again so he can he can be used for advancement of the ideology in the future.
The fact that Krystal even has a platform today is because he is a beneficiary of this system that he perpetuates with arguments that he’s making now.
As I said, I get what his larger point is, but you either see the insidious shit buried within it or you don’t. And the fact that many people don’t is precisely why they are so effective at it.
You are simply wrong and I am not a naive reader like you write above. It is taxing that you refuse to take my word for anything.
I dont like his politics at all, but he has been crystal clear stating several times that no one should ever forgive or rehabilitere the Trump enablers. He has also stated several times that he won’t vote Republican for a long time and that the party is dead. Very frustrating that you dont trust a word I write bur insist on my naivity .
Thanks for considering the different perspective of someone who actually lives here and actually has lived experiences of the way this stuff plays out.
One of my grad school friends is not very happy with his government right now.
7 Likes
No, because double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same offense) is specifically prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”
@Limiescouse, as you suggest, the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution, so it is perhaps not impossible that the pardon power could be challenged. It does seem absolute from the text. “he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” A pardon is a pardon. It doesn’t suggest an offense didn’t take place. It is merely absolution from that offense. There have been quite a number of pardons reprehensible from one perspective or another.
The last clause in the text (about impeachment) would seem to suggest a limit on that power extending to the president himself. I’m sure the Supreme Court would be asked to rule if a president pardoned himself.
4 Likes
It raises an interesting problem - Iraq is a member of Interpol. The crimes were committed on Iraqi soil, Iraq can claim jurisdiction so double jeopardy need not apply. Extradition does not apply, but it would at least be embarrassing to the US to ignore an international arrest warrant.
5 Likes
Sure. They could also be brought up on war crimes at The Hague.
4 Likes