“The Supreme Court has made clear that, subject to the exception for impeachment, the president’s power to grant pardons is “unlimited,” with virtually no oversight or limiting role for Congress.
The president can issue a pardon at any point after a crime is committed and before, during or after criminal proceedings have taken place. The president cannot, however, pardon someone for future crimes. A pardon covers both the offender’s conviction for the crime and the sentence for that crime.”
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/the-supreme-court-and-the-presidents-pardon-power/
Well, Joe was never the President, so the pardon has a purpose.
Trump could pardon himself for the so called underlying crime (federal part) of his kangaroo court hush money trial. Thus nullifying the whole thing.
He could but this would mean admission that he committed the crime. Trump is innocent and so don’t need a pardon.
Why? It’s so much better to make clown world dance around like clowns for the normies
If I understand correctly, then Hunter can still be charged for any other crime not listed in the pardon. Recalling back to that backstage voice recording of Hunter (suspected) saying he worked out a deal with the prosecution. I wonder how this will tie in? Will Hunter be called to testify against his own family? Would he?
no
Since a pardon relieves him of 5th Amendment protection (no protection needed), his refusal to testify would be contempt of Congress and he could be thrown in jail for as long as he liked.
We're not talking hush money here! We are talking extensive treason selling our country out. That requires hanging, not a fucking pardon.
The term "pardon" pertains to the absolution of a CONVICTION. This is the legal meaning that was understood by the writers of the Constitution, and that is understood in law today. The Supreme Court needs to be challenged on this, or it opens the door to absolution of the law altogether.
"I hereby pardon all Democrats of all and any crimes they may have committed in their lives." Including espionage, sabotage, and treason.
I agree. It’s a little scary that the President has absolute power in that it could be interpreted as to mean blankets are permitted. It does not say one have to be convicted before being pardoned it just states that crime must have occurred before the event. I suppose the forefathers didn’t consider someone might be that blatant corrupt and I agree it needs to be challenged before accepted. If we consider crime same as sin and apply the spiritual laws it does not hold up in court. Jesus saved us all on the cross and his forgiveness is available to ALL. Pardons are the same here. However no one is born with a blanket check that clears them of any future sin. We must come before Jesus and confess the sin, admit our guilt, rebuke and repent. If you are not aware of a crime or sin committed a blanket forgiveness would devoid you going through the steps to receive forgiveness in the first place. This goes against the spiritual laws and so I believe it should be in the physical. Hopefully SCOTUS will get this on their desk and come to the right conclusion.
My point was that the word "pardon" in legal terminology (as used in the Constitution) signifies the absolution of a criminal conviction. A conviction requires an indictment and trial before it happens. A pardon cannot be made for a crime that, in the documentary sense, has not "occurred" or cannot be identified. What is being pardoned?
I believe you're correct. check this out https://rumble.com/v5vg1zw-corieosity-creations-pardon-me-dad-t.i.-pardon-ft.-lil-baby.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp
The 8-point rundown was informative. The rest, although being a good wrap-up, was slow scenery. I tend to reserve the word "lie" for false statements about a known past or present reality. What Biden did was more along the lines of a breach of promise (how do you really lie about an unknown future?). Still a serious breach of honesty.