2020 US General Election Thread XIII: Nocturne

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Merry Christmas family, I'm granting you all pardons from criminal charges, oh and here's one for you Rudy, you sweet bag of festive nuttiness..

Donald Trump has discussed granting “pre-emptive pardons” to his children and son-in-law in addition to his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, the New York Times reports.

The lame duck president is concerned that Joe Biden’s justice department might prosecute Donald Trump Jr, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, according to the report.

Pardons that pre-empt criminal charges are not common, but also not unprecedented, with the most famous example being Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon.

Giuliani denied that he had discussed a pardon with Trump on Twitter earlier today.

"The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion." -- Proverbs 28

Pre-emptive pardons should be illegal, because they quash the finding of fact at trial. And thus, protect associates who are not subject to the pardon. Pre-emptive pardons are an absolute slap in the face to due process. The time might be coming when they're challenged in court, and with no support in the Constitution I can't see how they will stand.

Another thing that bothers me is that dead people can't be put on trial. Collaborators of Nixon may well be alive today, enjoying the freedom they do not deserve.

[Farnhamia]

Your link said she was one of the Senators who could be counted on to stand against the usurpation of the election. My ... jest ... was meant to point out that she should not be depended upon for anything like that. McConnell like Kaa in The Jungle Book, never look directly into his eyes.

So we may have acting president Nancy Pelosi come January 20th? Hm.

I suppose there's a non-zero possibility but it's a tiny, tiny one.

[Bombadil]

Merry Christmas family, I'm granting you all pardons from criminal charges, oh and here's one for you Rudy, you sweet bag of festive nuttiness..

Donald Trump has discussed granting “pre-emptive pardons” to his children and son-in-law in addition to his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, the New York Times reports.

The lame duck president is concerned that Joe Biden’s justice department might prosecute Donald Trump Jr, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, according to the report.

Pardons that pre-empt criminal charges are not common, but also not unprecedented, with the most famous example being Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon.

Giuliani denied that he had discussed a pardon with Trump on Twitter earlier today.

Pre-emptive pardons definitely shouldn't be a thing for this reason. "Let's do a bunch of illegal shit, it's cool I'll clear us all on the way out the door."

Like, I'm not even sure how it works. Do you have to admit the shady shit they did specifically or just go, "Whatever they did they're not accountable for...whatever it is."

That's some bullshit.

Hey, you can get one as well if you've enough money..

The Department of Justice is investigating a potentially criminal scheme to lobby and bribe unnamed officials in exchange for a presidential pardon, according to a newly unsealed court document.

The heavily redacted filing relates to a search of various digital devices that uncovered potential evidence of both a “secret lobbying scheme” and a “related bribery conspiracy scheme” by individuals whose names are redacted.

Under the lobbying scheme, the individuals “acted as lobbyists to senior White House officials” without complying with disclosure rules “to secure ‘a pardon or reprieve of sentence for’” an individual whose name is redacted.

Under the bribery scheme, an individual whose name is redacted “would offer a substantial political contribution in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve of sentence for [redacted].”

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

So we may have acting president Nancy Pelosi come January 20th? Hm.

I suppose there's a non-zero possibility but it's a tiny, tiny one.

Can Congress really invalidate the election results?

[Bombadil]

Ok, but what does that has to do with the link I posted? I’m not following. Sorry.

Your link said she was one of the Senators who could be counted on to stand against the usurpation of the election. My ... jest ... was meant to point out that she should not be depended upon for anything like that. McConnell like Kaa in The Jungle Book, never look directly into his eyes.

Edit: Sure, Eldest, don't let me explain it to her!

You're old and slow and Nanatsu was getting fidgety, and when Nanatsu gets fidgety.. people die!

[Farnhamia]

Your link said she was one of the Senators who could be counted on to stand against the usurpation of the election. My ... jest ... was meant to point out that she should not be depended upon for anything like that. McConnell like Kaa in The Jungle Book, never look directly into his eyes.

Edit: Sure, Eldest, don't let me explain it to her!

You're old and slow and Nanatsu was getting fidgety, and when Nanatsu gets fidgety.. people die!

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Another thing that bothers me is that dead people can't be put on trial. Collaborators of Nixon may well be alive today, enjoying the freedom they do not deserve.

This makes zero sense. How is a court going to realistically try a dead person?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Pre-emptive pardons definitely shouldn't be a thing for this reason. "Let's do a bunch of illegal shit, it's cool I'll clear us all on the way out the door."

Like, I'm not even sure how it works. Do you have to admit the shady shit they did specifically or just go, "Whatever they did they're not accountable for...whatever it is."

That's some bullshit.

The second one.

But it also destroys their 5th amendment right against self incrimination. Since they can't be charged, they can't use the privilege.

That's hardly an impediment. Just avoid being put under oath, right? Or if that's not possible, use the Reagan move: "I don't recall ever hearing about that" or if that doesn't work "I don't recall anything from that year ... am I under oath? I don't remember taking an oath"

Interaction between the 5th and the pardon power might make it logically impossible to self-pardon. But I guess someone's already thought of that.

[Galloism]

The second one.

But it also destroys their 5th amendment right against self incrimination. Since they can't be charged, they can't use the privilege.

That's hardly an impediment. Just avoid being put under oath, right? Or if that's not possible, use the Reagan move: "I don't recall ever hearing about that" or if that doesn't work "I don't recall anything from that year ... am I under oath? I don't remember taking an oath"

Interaction between the 5th and the pardon power might make it logically impossible to self-pardon. But I guess someone's already thought of that.

So, we don’t know. No one has ever tried to self pardon before.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I suppose there's a non-zero possibility but it's a tiny, tiny one.

Can Congress really invalidate the election results?

The President of the Senate is responsible for counting the Elector votes, in the presence of House and Senate together.

Maybe if both House and Senate passed the same rule defining "count" as "add together the negatives of two numbers" then Trump with minus-232 would have the greater number, and be declared President.

Or maybe the ghosts of the Founding Fathers would cut loose some fentanyl gas they got from Putin, making the secretary of Agriculture the new President.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Another thing that bothers me is that dead people can't be put on trial. Collaborators of Nixon may well be alive today, enjoying the freedom they do not deserve.

This makes zero sense. How is a court going to realistically try a dead person?

The only impediments are that the accused has the right to "confront their accuser" (no longer honored in all cases), appoint and direct their own defense, give evidence in their own defense (if they choose) and presumably provide motive to the entire defense team (ie, avoiding conviction).

But since the only point to such a trial is to find the facts, those safeguards to protect the accused are hardly relevant. The most difficult is seeing that the defense is properly motivated: couldn't this be adequately ensured by surviving relatives and partisan supporters of the late President? The historical reputation of Nixon would be far better defended than a common murderer who can't afford a private lawyer.

After the trial, and regardless of the verdict, new facts would be established to a legal standard, which might allow other prosecutions.




Also, Jeffery Epstein. Whether it was suicide or murder, how can you be satisfied with the law being foiled that way?

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

This makes zero sense. How is a court going to realistically try a dead person?

The only impediments are that the accused has the right to "confront their accuser" (no longer honored in all cases), appoint and direct their own defense, give evidence in their own defense (if they choose) and presumably provide motive to the entire defense team (ie, avoiding conviction).

But since the only point to such a trial is to find the facts, those safeguards to protect the accused are hardly relevant. The most difficult is seeing that the defense is properly motivated: couldn't this be adequately ensured by surviving relatives and partisan supporters of the late President? The historical reputation of Nixon would be far better defended than a common murderer who can't afford a private lawyer.

After the trial, and regardless of the verdict, new facts would be established to a legal standard, which might allow other prosecutions.

This sounds completely ridiculous. Trying dead people, if allowed, could potentially create a common law slippery slope into who knows what

That’s the tricky part about common law vs. civil law

[The Black Forrest]

That's hardly an impediment. Just avoid being put under oath, right? Or if that's not possible, use the Reagan move: "I don't recall ever hearing about that" or if that doesn't work "I don't recall anything from that year ... am I under oath? I don't remember taking an oath"

Interaction between the 5th and the pardon power might make it logically impossible to self-pardon. But I guess someone's already thought of that.

So, we don’t know. No one has ever tried to self pardon before.

Wait. He said he was draining the swamp. Why does he need a self pardon?

What did he do?

[Farnhamia]

So, we don’t know. No one has ever tried to self pardon before.

Wait. He said he was draining the swamp. Why does he need a self pardon?

What did he do?

He ... didn't do ... anything but some unscrupulous people might try to put him on trial for things he never did.

[The Black Forrest]

Another thing that bothers me is that dead people can't be put on trial. Collaborators of Nixon may well be alive today, enjoying the freedom they do not deserve.

This makes zero sense. How is a court going to realistically try a dead person?

It lets victims go after the assets.

[Farnhamia]

Another thing that bothers me is that dead people can't be put on trial. Collaborators of Nixon may well be alive today, enjoying the freedom they do not deserve.

This makes zero sense. How is a court going to realistically try a dead person?

There is precedent.

[Galloism]

The only impediments are that the accused has the right to "confront their accuser" (no longer honored in all cases), appoint and direct their own defense, give evidence in their own defense (if they choose) and presumably provide motive to the entire defense team (ie, avoiding conviction).

But since the only point to such a trial is to find the facts, those safeguards to protect the accused are hardly relevant. The most difficult is seeing that the defense is properly motivated: couldn't this be adequately ensured by surviving relatives and partisan supporters of the late President? The historical reputation of Nixon would be far better defended than a common murderer who can't afford a private lawyer.

After the trial, and regardless of the verdict, new facts would be established to a legal standard, which might allow other prosecutions.

This sounds completely ridiculous. Trying dead people, if allowed, could potentially create a common law slippery slope into who knows what

That’s the tricky part about common law vs. civil law

There’s actually precedent for trying dead people.

[Galloism]

This makes zero sense. How is a court going to realistically try a dead person?

There is precedent.

Dammit Farn.

[Farnhamia]

There is precedent.

Dammit Farn.

Remember when we heard about that? Couldn't believe it.

[Rusozak]

Damn, beat me to it with the Cadaver Synod. Anyways, I'm not entirely sure how the power of pardon works, but doesn't someone have to actually be formally accused or convicted to receive a pardon? Why not just wait until January 21st to start nailing down the charges?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

This makes zero sense. How is a court going to realistically try a dead person?

It lets victims go after the assets.

And since I think inheritance to adults should be banned, I'm fine with that.

[Galloism]

Dammit Farn.

Remember when we heard about that? Couldn't believe it.

You’re the one who wanted to kidnap the deacon and get me in to play the voice of the pope, admitting to all sorts of extra unprompted craziness for the lulz.

[Arcturus Novus]

This sounds completely ridiculous. Trying dead people, if allowed, could potentially create a common law slippery slope into who knows what

That’s the tricky part about common law vs. civil law

There’s actually precedent for trying dead people.

B'awww, I was gonna post the Cadaver Synod!

[The Giant Space Wyrm]

I think we're all forgetting the Democrats are Necromancers. Obviously, with their Dark Magics they can resurrect the dead to face trial.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I think we're all forgetting the Democrats are Necromancers. Obviously, with their Dark Magics they can resurrect the dead to face trial.

That's hardly more absurd than a suicide bomber not being guilty of any crime.