The best answer I know:
🔹No, the pardons can't be overturned
🔹Corrupt pardons can be prosecuted as a separate crime
🔹Trump can't pardon himself, so if he pardons all the insurrectionists, he'll be left to take all the blame
🔹He'll hurt his chances of acquittal in the Senate
🔹No, the pardons can't be overturned
🔹Corrupt pardons can be prosecuted as a separate crime
🔹Trump can't pardon himself, so if he pardons all the insurrectionists, he'll be left to take all the blame
🔹He'll hurt his chances of acquittal in the Senate
https://twitter.com/Retrievers5/status/1351135851502301188
I doubt he will do it because it will hurt him.
On the other hand, not pardoning them creates a problem for him because the insurrectionists might start to realize they were duped, and he needs his base.
On the other hand, not pardoning them creates a problem for him because the insurrectionists might start to realize they were duped, and he needs his base.
You'd think some of his supporters will realize that he set them up: He encouraged them to commit a crime (assuring them they're saving the country) and then left them to face prison.
The idea is to take down a criminal organization by getting the Kingpin.
The idea is to take down a criminal organization by getting the Kingpin.
I stand by my earlier statement that this is a misreading of the pardon clause.
The scholars I am familiar with (and trust) say this is a misreading. I agree with them. There is an alternative viewpoint out there, which I disagree with.
The scholars I am familiar with (and trust) say this is a misreading. I agree with them. There is an alternative viewpoint out there, which I disagree with.
https://twitter.com/ykp0799/status/1351173076541702148
No, there is no way.
It is imperative that the FBI continue to arrest and charge every person who rioted. Ultimately that's how you bring down the organization.
https://twitter.com/MrConnieS/status/1351174071585792011
It is imperative that the FBI continue to arrest and charge every person who rioted. Ultimately that's how you bring down the organization.
The pardon clause is in the Constitution, and amending the Constitution is difficult.
House Democrats are doing what they can. See: schiff.house.gov/news/press-rel…
Once upon a time, when criminal law was different, the pardon power served an important purpose.
House Democrats are doing what they can. See: schiff.house.gov/news/press-rel…
https://twitter.com/love2laugh4ever/status/1351174868700721157
Once upon a time, when criminal law was different, the pardon power served an important purpose.
For clarity:
I think there are good arguments for overturning a certain kind of corrupt pardon, for example: "Kill that person and I will pardon you." After the murder, the murderer is pardoned. The counterargument is that the pardon is valid but other crimes are prosecutable.
I think there are good arguments for overturning a certain kind of corrupt pardon, for example: "Kill that person and I will pardon you." After the murder, the murderer is pardoned. The counterargument is that the pardon is valid but other crimes are prosecutable.
Conviction isn't needed. Famously, Ford pardoned Nixon.
Accepting a pardon is also not a sign of guilt: A good use of pardons is to get an innocent person to of jail when new evidence emerges but there is no procedural way to release the person.
Accepting a pardon is also not a sign of guilt: A good use of pardons is to get an innocent person to of jail when new evidence emerges but there is no procedural way to release the person.
https://twitter.com/talltalestogo/status/1351180081125875721
This is a good point.
I do think Trump is in a bind with this because allowing them to face charges means that lots of fingers will start pointing at him.
There is a legitimate defense called the "public authority" defense . . .
I do think Trump is in a bind with this because allowing them to face charges means that lots of fingers will start pointing at him.
There is a legitimate defense called the "public authority" defense . . .
https://twitter.com/bigolewannabe/status/1351182709314514944
I wrote about it in a Washington Post Op Ed with @reichellaw.
People are confusing this with "I was just following orders." Nope, it's completely different.
The defense will incriminate Trump, Cruz, Hawley, and pals.
Or see: terikanefield-blog.com/11692-2/
washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/0…
People are confusing this with "I was just following orders." Nope, it's completely different.
The defense will incriminate Trump, Cruz, Hawley, and pals.
Or see: terikanefield-blog.com/11692-2/
washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/0…
Apologies: I misunderstood the question. I was thinking of a case in which the person was trying to get out of jail or avoid prosecution.
The reason would be made public.
The reason would be made public.
https://twitter.com/damkina/status/1351356765233963008
I can't think of a reason it would have to be disclosed if the person isn't being prosecuted.
But consider this: if the person keeps the pardon secret until charged, the investigation would be complete and the charge would be made public.
But consider this: if the person keeps the pardon secret until charged, the investigation would be complete and the charge would be made public.
https://twitter.com/jocallag42/status/1351362400520290304
This is a bit out of sequence, but if anyone wants more information about the way the impeachment clause is largely* interpreted by scholars, see:
takecareblog.com/blog/regrettab…
*I say "largely" because not everyone agrees, as the article explains.
takecareblog.com/blog/regrettab…
*I say "largely" because not everyone agrees, as the article explains.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
