What's stopping trump from selling more pardons after he leaves office,

[duforsure]

Then later claim he gave one? With no complete full list given, he can exploit the pardon powers beyond holding office. Something maybe Congress need to address before, not after he abuses it.

[Thekaspervote]

1. Ppl can claim anything..courts will want proof

[duforsure]

4. He could write their name down on a piece of paper claiming proof.

At any time without a documented pardon list

[TwilightZone]

27. Nope.

There's a record of every pardon, even the secret ones, involving official documents.

Secret only means that it wouldn't be made public. It doesn't mean Trump can keep it secret from everyone else.

[pwb]

2. Well he won't be President?

Past Presidents cannot Pardon. So there's that.

[JHB]

8. I think the area of concern is so-called "secret pardons"...

...since the clauses which enumerate the pardon power don't explicitly require them to be made public. This would open the possibility of Trump trading favors in exchange for "secret" pardons that are backdated to his presidency. Or even ones that were actually made before he left office, and were dangled in front of people he wanted to pressure.

Naturally, the legitimacy of any such "secret pardon" that comes to light after his presidency is suspect and would almost automatically be challenged in court.

[pwb]

13. So invented thoughts need action? Secret pardons?

It never was done so never will be. Release from corrections is never private . Love the Toons JHB.

[grantcart]

18. Has been done in the past. Two FBI agents were pardoned by RR but

Information not released for a couple of months.

Expert on O'Donnell said pardons don't even need to be written raising the possibility that in the future Trump could say "I pardoned Guiliani on my last day in office in front of 3 people."

If they agreed to confirm he said that the "pardon" should be effective. Lots of frightening things we have never had to worry about before Trump.

[StarfishSaver]

30. There's secret and there's secret

Not being released to the public doesn't mean they're not secret. They would have to be some documentation of it, either including it in confidential but recorded presidential documents or some kind of witnessing / notarization.

He couldn't just give someone a piece of paper that they stick in their pocket and pull out later as I get out of jail free card.

[grantcart]

33. The OP was referring to a spot on O'Donnell by an expert on pardons

O'Donnell used the term secret for pardons that were unannounced and later released.

The expert said that pardons needed to be provable (ie have a witness) but did not need to be documented or notarized. It could be a verbal utterance as long as there were credible witnesses.

She also explained it could be done for an entire group. Trump could look into a camera and say "I pardon everyone who entered the capital for federal trespassing charges" and it would be legal.

Among the many things we have never had to worry about before.

Probably the only reason he doesn't do it is because he is worried about his civil exposure.

[StarfishSaver]

36. A few things

Yes. The pardon would have to be verifiable. I don't know if a witness verifying an oral pardon would be sufficient under these circumstances, given the lack of credibility of just about anyone who would be close enough to him to witness it. That would be too much of a chance for him to take, especially since it would be too late to go back and do it right. He would no doubt put it in writing, just to be sure. And most likely he'd submit it to the Justice Department, but just not release the name to the public.

He could try a blanket pardon of the trespassers, but that would be very problematic. The example you gave, for instance, would probably be a valid pardon since, while it doesn't clearly identify all of the persons pardoned, It does pardon them for a specific crime which probably would satisfy any specificity or particularity requirements of court would impose. It's very similar to the amnesty granted to the Vietnam War draft evaders.

But the problem is, by pardoning them for one specific crime, he still leaves them open to prosecution for any number of other crimes they committed i
at the Capitol that day. It doesn't do any good to get pardon for trespassing if you're still wide open to being prosecuted for assault, breaking and entering, illegal presence on federal property, insurrection, sedition, etc. Prosecutors would have a field day coming up with that weren't included in the pardon to nail these people on.

He could try to go broader, but I don't think that would work either. If he tried to pardon everyone who was there for every possible crime they could have committed at the Capitol that day, not only would that leave too many people out (what about the people who helped plan and carry it out, but weren't physically on site?) and too broadly include too many people (a Hill staffer not involved in the riot but who embezzled $100k from the office account that day), I don't think a court would find that to be a pardon at all since it's far too broad and unspecific.

[grantcart]

44. I was simply trying to recreate the context on "The Last Word" that the OP had obviously seen

as the OP repeated the "Secret Pardon" hypothetical that O'Donnell had raised.l

The reality is that if Mark Meadows today sent himself an email saying today the President officially pardoned Rudy Giuliani, Ivanka Trump and . . . . ." and then pulled it up 6 months from now as "proof" of a pardon we would be fucked.

It was clear that if Trump was, say on his way to leave the US (which is what I think he will do) and wanted to create more chaos on his way out could simply look at the camera before he boards the helicopter and say "I hereby pardon all federal prisoners of all crimes" we would have a massive problem. Of course I believe that the SC would find some way to find it unconstitutional but it would still be a mess.

Clearly the pardon power, as it now stands, gives an imperial power to our President which should not be.

We should have an amendment that states that all pardons must be sent in writing to the Senate to be considered official and the Senate should have 30 days to review and overturn a pardon by a two thirds majority.

More of the things we never had to consider before this idiot.

You would find that particular podcast of "The Last Word" interesting, and frieghtening.

[StarfishSaver]

46. I understand your concern about limiting the pardon. But that idea isn't a good one

The point of the pardon power is to allow it President to show mercy in order to protect people from the excesses of the justice system. Putting it up to a vote in the Senate would, even a 2/3 vote, would undo that and turn what has always been a rather pristine process into a partisan political football.

It's very frustrating watching Trump abuse the pardon power. But the power has been used for centuries for great good and overwhelmingly the power has been used properly. And while Trump's misuse of it has gotten a lot of deserved attention, in the scheme of things his abusive pardons are really very few and small. The pardon power is actually a very good thing. We can't let Trump force us into throwing out the baby with the bath water.

To me, more important and effective response to Trump's excesses would be to work harder to ensure that we never again put this kind of power into the hands of a despot.

That said, I completely understand and sympathize with your frustration and desire to do something about it.

[grantcart]

47. You misread my point about the 2/3 Senate vote

The suggestion is that the Senate could undo a pardon if 2/3 disagreed with which is a reasonable alternative to giving the President unlimited power. Virtually all other rights in the constitution (including the first amendment with near absolutist language) has developed checks through case law.

It is hubris to assume that we can safeguard against abuse by securing only good candidates. Look beyond the Presidents we have had and look at the highly questionable Vice Presidents we have had or who have recently been nominated. We were one Rev Wright (or similar bizarre revelation) from having Palin as VP to a President who survived cancer.

In a similar vein we have lost the right to have nuclear launch authority held by a single person. It should either be a group command decision or, (My preference) get rid of them, our smart weapon alternatives have made them obsolete.

We need to make constitutional changes that protect the country from the next Trump, he isn't the last.

[StarfishSaver]

49. I understood your point

I just don't think it's a good idea.

It's highly unlikely there will be any constitutional amendments any time soon. But even if that was possible, there are many more I'd like to see that would take precedence over limiting a president's power to pardon. But we all have different views on this, and you have yours.

[JHB]

3. Precisely. This is the big mark against allowing "secret" pardons...

...and would be central to challenging them in court. The legitimacy of any such pardon is inherently suspect.

But "Congress" can't address anything until Republican Leader McConnell becomes Minority Mitch.

[duforsure]

6. Exactly,

Without a documented list how would anyone, including prosecutors, know who has one, and who doesn't, then use it to obstruct justice, and delay consequences .

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Person w pardon, even public pardon, can be charged in court. See Burdick SCotUS 1915

Charge any and all of the criminals and force them to use (and reveal) their pardon!

According to the 1915 Supreme Court decision, you can be forced to use your pardon in court. And using the pardon is to admit guilt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

The pardon does not actually apply until the defendant proffers it in court in answer to a charge. Nobody can proffer it for them. If the defendant does not proffer the pardon, then they can be convicted.

So,

1) Prosecutors should formally ask every pardoned person if they admit guilt.

2) If they do not, they should be charged.

3) Then they would be forced to admit their guilt, formally, in a court of law, where it will be recorded.

The Supreme Court ruled in Burdick that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt, acceptance a confession of it".[2]

Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that:

* A pardoned person must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court.

* To do that, the pardoned person must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject.

A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private though official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended.... A private deed, not communicated to him, whatever may be its character, whether a pardon or release, is totally unknown and cannot be acted on.[1]

[duforsure]

15. Right, but he still could illegally sell pardons

Without a compleat list who was given one, what's stopping him from selling pardons after he leaves office claiming he gave it before he left office for money. I understand the in court actions to make them admit one way or another to find out, but what's stopping trump from doing this without having a documented list Couldn't he still illegitimately do it?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. He could try to sell them to suckers. But I don't think secret pardons have been tested in court. nt

[duforsure]

22. You're right,that's why the laws need to be expanded to eliminate loopholes

For people like trump to use for exploiting it, or to stall prosecution longer. To my knowledge their is no law trump has to give a full list of them to anyone before he leaves office.

[StarfishSaver]

32. No

No court is going to accept a pardon just on the word of a former president and defendant. There would have to be conclusive evidence that the pardon was granted when the president actually had power to grant it.

What makes a part in secret is that the general public would not be aware of it. It doesn't mean that no one else on earth knows about it. It would be documented in some way either by the Justice Department or with a notarized instrument - more likely the former.

[StarfishSaver]

31. Secret doesn't mean that no one on earth knows about it

It just means that it hasn't been made public. The Justice Department would probably have a record of i.

[JHB]

35. That's what /should/ happen (assuming "secret" in the first place) and what would...

...happen with any normal presidency that issued any.

But we're not talking about normal, we're talking about a president who is about as abnormal as it gets. If there's anyone who would try forging a presidential pardon, backdating it to when he was still in office, and claiming it was "secret" and that he was under no obligation to tell anyone, it's Donald Trump.

A pardon without a paper trail would inevitably be challenged, and I strongly doubt the SC would uphold its validity, but it would cause chaos, which would throw additional complications on investigations and prosecutions.

That said, I think this is much ado about nothing and he's not even going to try.

[StarfishSaver]

38. I'm not saying he wouldn't try it - he's likely to try anything

But it wouldn't go anywhere. I don't even think it would substantially delay anyone's prosecution. It would get tossed out pretty quickly.

[obamanut2012]

5. The fact he won't be President after noon tomorrow

Former Presidents have no pardon power.

[duforsure]

9. As long as there isn't a complete list given,

He can corrupt that power, claiming they were pardoned by him before he left office, and write their name down on a piece of paper, , and without a full list might do it to raise more money with it. Trump if given the chance will exploit anything for money for himself.

[obamanut2012]

10. Yeah, not gonna happen

[StarfishSaver]

39. Nope. Not even.

Won't happen.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Maybe the date/time of the pardon(s) have to be time-stamped and witnessed to prove

the pardon(s) were given during the valid term of presidency.

[JI7]

11. But he has many fools like Navarro and even his dumbass kids that could claim

to have witnessed it .

[StarfishSaver]

40. They need to have real-time proof, not just their word

such a pardon would probably be submitted to and documented by the Justice Department. It just wouldn't be released to the public.

[DeeDeeNY]

14. Is a president allowed to sell pardons?

Surely that must be illegal.

[duforsure]

17. Yes he could using his agents,

Using his campaign for them to funnel it through. Is it legal using this method, I don't know.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. He can use agents, but that does not make it legal in any way. . . . nt

[duforsure]

25. Right,

I suspect with shell companies and using others they could get it funneled to him using a campaign fund or PAC. That directly would be a bribe. Who would admit it, trump, no way, and the person paying him for a pardon, probably not.

[brooklynite]

16. Threads like this are beyond silly.

[duforsure]

21. It's a loophole that could be exploited ,

Secret pardons are legal now, but shouldn't be. In court it can be made public if someone has one, but what's stopping him from selling one after he leaves without a documented list? He could write a name down and have a minion claim he did it before he left office, for money.

[Arazi]

23. Why?

[brooklynite]

24. Because it assumes...

...that Trump would commit an overt felony, and that nobody around him would leak the fact.

[Arazi]

45. Trump has committed overt felonies and has been protected for decades

[dreamland]

26. I think there should be a numerical limitation on pardons whether secret or otherwise.

And only a certified, sitting president can issue pardon. We need to address this hole of an executive power immediately.

[TwilightZone]

28. There's no hole.

He can only give pardons if he's president, and they're only secret in the sense that they're not made public. Many seem to assume he can just lock some away for later use. This simply isn't the case.

[duforsure]

29. I know legally he can't give pardons after leaving office,

But is there someplace he has to give a complete list of who he has?

[apnu]

34. Pardons mean guilt.

All POTUS pardons, except Ford's pardon of Nixon, are for people who have gone through the court system and been found guilty.

A pre-conviction pardon would have to be worded carefully, and they have never been tested in courts so we don't know if they are actually legal. Trump is so sloppy in all things the wording of his pardons, on the last day of his term, may have city bus sized holes in them.

But common in all pardons is guilt. To get a pardon means you are guilty. If these pardons are for insurrection, as many suspect/fear/fantasize over, this would be an epic self-own on Trump's part. The insurrectionists insist they were there on Trump's invitation and working in his interests, if he pardons them today he admits his own guilt for inciting insurrection and sedition.

[onenote]

42. The Supreme Court has blessed pre-conviction pardons and not all pardons mean guilt

As to the status of a pre-conviction pardon: Ex Parte Garland, 1866:The president's pardon power extends to "every offence known to the law" and available "at any time after [a crime's] commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."

And pardons can be and are granted to people who maintain their innocence and, indeed, are pardoned specifically in order to prevent or rectify a miscarriage of justice.

[onenote]

37. Pardons are documented.

Just because they're not made public at the time they're granted, it doesn't mean that they aren't documented with the DOJ. No court would accept a pardon that wasn't properly documented (which would included the DOJ seal).

This paranoia about secret pardons really needs to stop.

[StarfishSaver]

41. Thank you.

We are one day away from waking up from a nightmare and some people are desperately trying to stay asleep so they can see where else the nightmare can go.

[niyad]

43. Thank you all for this most interesting and informative thread.

[Hugin]

48. Trump is touching the Pardon process. Ergo, the Pardon process will turn to crap.

Have faith.