They arent. Pardons are granted to the Executive Branch and he can pardon anyone except himself in the case of impeachment. The only thing that could limit it is if the Supreme Court decided to reinterpret the pardon powers of the President. Luckily ignorance of the law is not an excuse when you break it. I stand by my demand that proof must be presented to convict someone of collusion, but the whole administration is tainted regardless of any crime committed. I still think Trump survives this term and has a good shot at 2020 though, based on current information anyway.
I am following, with great amusement, comments all over the internet. Folks from the left are screaming "Drumf is done! Impeach him!" They are absolutely giddy with this story. I don't think they even realize what they are rooting for. Right now we have a bumbling fool in the WH, who hasn't a clue how to get anything done, and may never learn. Waiting in the wings to take his place in case Trump resigns or is tossed from office is a career politician who knows how to get things done A career politician who happens to be a fundamentalist "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" Christian who is openly anti gay and anti abortion. The left apparently doesn't realize the scenario they are rooting for would place Pence in office with the ability to shape the Supreme Court for the next 20-40 years. Yet they continue to cheer on this outcome. It reminds of an episode of Charles in Charge where they're in a cabin and the wood stove starts to fill the cabin with smoke. Someone screams "Oh my God! There's nothing worse than smoke!" and they all rush to the front door to escape the smoke, open it....and there stand a bear.
So, if Trump Jr. gets convicted of say, treason or a federal campaign law violation, Daddy can pardon him? And the Republican party will stand for that? Like there's no conflict of interest, or nepotism laws? This keeps getting better and better. Playing this out: if no evidence exists that Trump knew of the meeting, and Trump Jr./Kushner/Manafort go to trial for let's say a campaign finance law violation, with the certainty that Trump will pardon or commute whatever sentence they get...what Republican will work with this guy, especially considering this potential drama will unfold near the mid-term elections? God help us, Paul Ryan is the best option? Pence scares me worse than Trump, and I don't think that was accidental. The folks from Indiana aren't exactly fond of him, and it feels much more likely that Pence legitimately had no idea about the Russia stuff, thus would be difficult to bring down.
Demanding justice when someone commits a crime is a perfectly reasonable request, but you shouldn't want to bring someone down because you disagree with them politically. Thats the opposite of how things should work.
Shouldn't want to bring them down illegally. Bringing them down politically by destroying their arguments or credibility is certainly part of how things should work. That can be done without being a criminal or immoral person. I guess we could go back to duels, Burr shooting Hamilton and all that.
The Heritage Foundation is basically making Trump's judicial picks right now anyway. Judicial nominations are probably the the thing least likely to change between Trump/Pence.
No stance implied. I legitimately can't imagine how a politician would survive the shit-storm of collaborating with Trump after pardoning his son for a high-level crime. I think in terms of political capital: Trump never had much, based on his campaign, history and popular perception. If he does something like pardoning his staff/family for crimes, I can't imagine him being able to generate political capital. The only comparable case I can think of is Ford/Nixon, where Ford essentially accepted Nixon's resignation as "case closed". A lot of this skirts ethics, and while technically within his powers, it would have dramatic repercussions.
The Ford/Nixon thing is a strange one. He didnt pardon him for anything specific, he pardoned him for any crime he might have committed and he hadnt even been convicted of anything, yet.
What kind of shit-storm? Several presidents have pardoned shitty people or shitty relatives, some in their last minutes as president, and continued on in their political careers, including giving endorsements.
Ford didn't want to admit that he looked up to a complete piece of shit, so he basically created a law that said you're not allowed to call him that. A childish, super-corrupt dodge.
I wasn't sure if this was off topic since we're all abuzz with Trump but today is net neutrality day. This is another reason I find it hard to believe that Republicans want what's best for the country and for me. www.battleforthenet.com
Every time I talk to a Republican about NN I either get some wild eyed conspiracy theory back, or just a total adherence to borderline anarcho-capitalist dogma with no allowances for how things actually work in the real world. It's quite frustrating. Yes, markets are wonderful. No, eliminating all regulations will not lead to a utopia.
Wait, you really think people haven't thought about this? I can assure you everyone liberal I know has. The conclusion remains the same: Donald Trump is more dangerous for America. Maybe not more dangerous for the Democratic Party, but more dangerous for the entire country. He is an unhinged and incoherent mess incapable of performing his duties with anything resembling competence. What you're seeing is democrats putting country over party.
There's also the fact that whatever damage Pence wanted to do, he'd only have one year to do it. Unless his prayers to Saint Gerry of the Mander resulted in GOP pulling an absolute miracle out of their ass and retaining control next year.
What are his duties? This is one of the funniest things that has ever been posted on this board. Neither party is capable of that in general. There are certainly members of Congress who can, but they are rarely the ones you hear from. No way that blanket statement can be made about "democrats." (or republicans)
What are you trying to say? Are you blaming the democrats for his victory? I think more than a tad bit of responsibility goes to the GOP for that one. Technically or broadly speaking? But he can't be trusted either way. Do really think he can adequately even explain what our policies are? At best you get to a point where we say "oh he has delegated that to so and so." But 1) those people will make mistakes and he will have to correct them 2) he is responsible for the apppointment of these people and these aren't our A team at all. If Jim Mattis died, how safe would you feel about our ability to navigate foreign policy? If a healthcare reform bill gets to his desk, do you think he will understand what he is signing? I'm confident that statement can be made about Democratic Party leadership on the whole.
Were you in a coma for the past 24 months or something? Obviously the GOP nominated him and ignored far more qualified candidates, but does it really need to be stated yet again how the Democrats continually fucked up? If you think Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid was putting country before party, you're delusional. "But... but... the GOP/Russia/Trump..." is not an acceptable defense how the Democratic leadership have acted with hubris and antipathy toward the average voter. I make a real effort to not lob bombs in this thread and explain perspectives and points based on data, but how can you genuinely arrive at that conclusion?
Well, not really. I think he's a dingbat and morally repugnant. (Among the many reasons I didn't vote for him.) But, if Jim Mattis dies, I assume he'll replace him. I don't know if Trump has ever hung a piece of drywall in his life, but he's "built hotels and casinos." He can get someone to give him the bullet points of what he's signing, just like any other CEO does. Nobody in Congress even understood the last Healthcare bill that was signed by a president, so that may not be a good example to make your point. We'll just have to disagree then, because that is a confidence I am not even close to sharing.