President Trump and US politics catchall

[sockwithaticket]

The daft bint who stole Pelosi's laptop and wanted to sell it to Russia (how is that the act of a patriot?) has ben arrested, but only charged with illegal entry so far.

Could that not be considered an act of high treason? Can't imagine the yanks don't have the death penalty for that?

My, perhaps flawed, understanding is that yes, passing off any material of an elected US official even to a friendly foreign government fits the definition of treason and the death penalty is very much an available punishment for that crime.

Having read a couple of articles now, it seems they haven't recovered the laptop yet and her plan to get it to the Russkies was a little bit hairbrained - pass it on to a mate of her Russian ex who would then get it to the Russian authorities/intelligence services and pay her a share. Presumably charges will change in the event of turning up the laptop?

I don't really get how it can be so widely reported that she's the one who stole it, but there not being sufficient evidence to charge her with that.

[Biffer]

The daft bint who stole Pelosi's laptop and wanted to sell it to Russia (how is that the act of a patriot?) has ben arrested, but only charged with illegal entry so far.

Could that not be considered an act of high treason? Can't imagine the yanks don't have the death penalty for that?

My, perhaps flawed, understanding is that yes, passing off any material of an elected US official even to a friendly foreign government fits the definition of treason and the death penalty is very much an available punishment for that crime.

Having read a couple of articles now, it seems they haven't recovered the laptop yet and her plan to get it to the Russkies was a little bit hairbrained - pass it on to a mate of her Russian ex who would then get it to the Russian authorities/intelligence services and pay her a share. Presumably charges will change in the event of turning up the laptop?

I don't really get how it can be so widely reported that she's the one who stole it, but there not being sufficient evidence to charge her with that.

They'll have charged her with something very easy to prove so they can detain her longer in order to gather evidence for more serious charges.

[Uncle fester]

Brings to mind the Coen Brothers filum Burn After Reading with the inept "heroes" trying to sell info to the Russians.

[Woddy]

UK and USA both rapidly heading towards the tyranny of the majority.

While this quote does seem, on the face of it, to be quote profound, lately I've only every seen it used when a ruling minority are acting like a bunch of cunts, and the majority have told them to cut it out.

That's not really where I'm aiming it but I understand where you're coming from. It ties back to a lot of ideas from people like John Locke, the Levellers, the Founding Fathers etc. It's the acknowledgement that deprivation of individual rights doesn't just come from a despot, but can come from the mob as well (see the French Revolution). In order to protect your own rights you have to protect the rights of the smallest minorities right down to the individual who thinks differently, because when it comes down to it, society is a collection of minorities, not majorities. There is no such thing as 'the will of the people' because the people don't think with one mind.

In some ways they are, in some ways not. Arguably, the populist backlash against the Establishment that has fuelled the increasing division in the US and which Trump has been riding, and in the UK e.g. gave much of the impetus for Brexit, was by a (relatively large) minority that simply feels it is being overlooked and ignored by that governing Establishment (which covers most political parties). To that extent, it would represent a reaction against a tyrannous majority which must therefore exist. Of course, that the reaction is capable of happening shows the tyranny is not so strong.

On the other hand, the rise and power of identity politics causes many to complain of a tyranny of minorities over the majority.

[sockwithaticket]

Could that not be considered an act of high treason? Can't imagine the yanks don't have the death penalty for that?

My, perhaps flawed, understanding is that yes, passing off any material of an elected US official even to a friendly foreign government fits the definition of treason and the death penalty is very much an available punishment for that crime.

Having read a couple of articles now, it seems they haven't recovered the laptop yet and her plan to get it to the Russkies was a little bit hairbrained - pass it on to a mate of her Russian ex who would then get it to the Russian authorities/intelligence services and pay her a share. Presumably charges will change in the event of turning up the laptop?

I don't really get how it can be so widely reported that she's the one who stole it, but there not being sufficient evidence to charge her with that.

They'll have charged her with something very easy to prove so they can detain her longer in order to gather evidence for more serious charges.

Which I get, but I'd have thought they'd be able to stick her with theft rather than just illegal entry.

[Biffer]

While this quote does seem, on the face of it, to be quote profound, lately I've only every seen it used when a ruling minority are acting like a bunch of cunts, and the majority have told them to cut it out.

That's not really where I'm aiming it but I understand where you're coming from. It ties back to a lot of ideas from people like John Locke, the Levellers, the Founding Fathers etc. It's the acknowledgement that deprivation of individual rights doesn't just come from a despot, but can come from the mob as well (see the French Revolution). In order to protect your own rights you have to protect the rights of the smallest minorities right down to the individual who thinks differently, because when it comes down to it, society is a collection of minorities, not majorities. There is no such thing as 'the will of the people' because the people don't think with one mind.

In some ways they are, in some ways not. Arguably, the populist backlash against the Establishment that has fuelled the increasing division in the US and which Trump has been riding, and in the UK e.g. gave much of the impetus for Brexit, was by a (relatively large) minority that simply feels it is being overlooked and ignored by that governing Establishment (which covers most political parties). To that extent, it would represent a reaction against a tyrannous majority which must therefore exist. Of course, that the reaction is capable of happening shows the tyranny is not so strong.

On the other hand, the rise and power of identity politics causes many to complain of a tyranny of minorities over the majority.

Yeah, but the point about protecting the smallest minority plays in here. The subsection of brexiteers who are rabidly anti immigration are pursuing a smaller minority to exercise their own minority view. The whole thing about protecting small minorities as the only way to protect your own minority views comes into play and they don't realise that.

[Random1]

That's not really where I'm aiming it but I understand where you're coming from. It ties back to a lot of ideas from people like John Locke, the Levellers, the Founding Fathers etc. It's the acknowledgement that deprivation of individual rights doesn't just come from a despot, but can come from the mob as well (see the French Revolution). In order to protect your own rights you have to protect the rights of the smallest minorities right down to the individual who thinks differently, because when it comes down to it, society is a collection of minorities, not majorities. There is no such thing as 'the will of the people' because the people don't think with one mind.

In some ways they are, in some ways not. Arguably, the populist backlash against the Establishment that has fuelled the increasing division in the US and which Trump has been riding, and in the UK e.g. gave much of the impetus for Brexit, was by a (relatively large) minority that simply feels it is being overlooked and ignored by that governing Establishment (which covers most political parties). To that extent, it would represent a reaction against a tyrannous majority which must therefore exist. Of course, that the reaction is capable of happening shows the tyranny is not so strong.

On the other hand, the rise and power of identity politics causes many to complain of a tyranny of minorities over the majority.

Yeah, but the point about protecting the smallest minority plays in here. The subsection of brexiteers who are rabidly anti immigration are pursuing a smaller minority to exercise their own minority view. The whole thing about protecting small minorities as the only way to protect your own minority views comes into play and they don't realise that.

Biffer’s spot on for me - the individual is the level that rights matter most, as if the individual has inalienable rights, then so does any minority.

It’s one of the critical balances required to make a democracy work.

[fishfoodie]

In some ways they are, in some ways not. Arguably, the populist backlash against the Establishment that has fuelled the increasing division in the US and which Trump has been riding, and in the UK e.g. gave much of the impetus for Brexit, was by a (relatively large) minority that simply feels it is being overlooked and ignored by that governing Establishment (which covers most political parties). To that extent, it would represent a reaction against a tyrannous majority which must therefore exist. Of course, that the reaction is capable of happening shows the tyranny is not so strong.

On the other hand, the rise and power of identity politics causes many to complain of a tyranny of minorities over the majority.

Yeah, but the point about protecting the smallest minority plays in here. The subsection of brexiteers who are rabidly anti immigration are pursuing a smaller minority to exercise their own minority view. The whole thing about protecting small minorities as the only way to protect your own minority views comes into play and they don't realise that.

Biffer’s spot on for me - the individual is the level that rights matter most, as if the individual has inalienable rights, then so does any minority.

It’s one of the critical balances required to make a democracy work.

The problem is when one individual insists that their inalienable right to do x, overrides individual B's inalienable rights.

It's all very well to say that anti-vaxxers have a right not to take the vaccine; but there are always going to be people who legitimately can't be vaccinated; should they not have their rights protected ?

The US is full of contradictions like this, & they always seem to form part of the culture war; guns, racism, religion, abortion, free speech, etc, etc

[Biffer]

Yeah, but the point about protecting the smallest minority plays in here. The subsection of brexiteers who are rabidly anti immigration are pursuing a smaller minority to exercise their own minority view. The whole thing about protecting small minorities as the only way to protect your own minority views comes into play and they don't realise that.

Biffer’s spot on for me - the individual is the level that rights matter most, as if the individual has inalienable rights, then so does any minority.

It’s one of the critical balances required to make a democracy work.

The problem is when one individual insists that their inalienable right to do x, overrides individual B's inalienable rights.

It's all very well to say that anti-vaxxers have a right not to take the vaccine; but there are always going to be people who legitimately can't be vaccinated; should they not have their rights protected ?

The US is full of contradictions like this, & they always seem to form part of the culture war; guns, racism, religion, abortion, free speech, etc, etc

Again, look to John Locke. He took the view the individual liberty must be protected, but it could and should be violated in order to secure the life, health, liberty or possessions of people in general.

[fishfoodie]

Biffer’s spot on for me - the individual is the level that rights matter most, as if the individual has inalienable rights, then so does any minority.

It’s one of the critical balances required to make a democracy work.

The problem is when one individual insists that their inalienable right to do x, overrides individual B's inalienable rights.

It's all very well to say that anti-vaxxers have a right not to take the vaccine; but there are always going to be people who legitimately can't be vaccinated; should they not have their rights protected ?

The US is full of contradictions like this, & they always seem to form part of the culture war; guns, racism, religion, abortion, free speech, etc, etc

Again, look to John Locke. He took the view the individual liberty must be protected, but it could and should be violated in order to secure the life, health, liberty or possessions of people in general.

Exactly; but now try explaining that to the Gun nuts; that their right to bear arms doesn't mean they shouldn't have to pass a background check, so that the rest of society of protected from loons who want to buy semi-autos at gun shows

[Rinkals]

I notice that McConnell has explicitly stated that Trump fed the rioters lies and provoked them.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-inaugu ... _medium=AP

[Blake]

UK and USA both rapidly heading towards the tyranny of the majority.

While this quote does seem, on the face of it, to be quote profound, lately I've only every seen it used when a ruling minority are acting like a bunch of cunts, and the majority have told them to cut it out.

That's not really where I'm aiming it but I understand where you're coming from. It ties back to a lot of ideas from people like John Locke, the Levellers, the Founding Fathers etc. It's the acknowledgement that deprivation of individual rights doesn't just come from a despot, but can come from the mob as well (see the French Revolution). In order to protect your own rights you have to protect the rights of the smallest minorities right down to the individual who thinks differently, because when it comes down to it, society is a collection of minorities, not majorities. There is no such thing as 'the will of the people' because the people don't think with one mind.

Very well put and agree completely. When applied in that sense it’s hard to argue with it.

But unfortunately that is not what is happening, and in most cases it’s used in bad faith by “minorities” trying to justify their bigotry, intolerance and phobias.

[Random1]

Yeah, but the point about protecting the smallest minority plays in here. The subsection of brexiteers who are rabidly anti immigration are pursuing a smaller minority to exercise their own minority view. The whole thing about protecting small minorities as the only way to protect your own minority views comes into play and they don't realise that.

Biffer’s spot on for me - the individual is the level that rights matter most, as if the individual has inalienable rights, then so does any minority.

It’s one of the critical balances required to make a democracy work.

The problem is when one individual insists that their inalienable right to do x, overrides individual B's inalienable rights.

It's all very well to say that anti-vaxxers have a right not to take the vaccine; but there are always going to be people who legitimately can't be vaccinated; should they not have their rights protected ?

The US is full of contradictions like this, & they always seem to form part of the culture war; guns, racism, religion, abortion, free speech, etc, etc

There’ll always be a balance of competing rights, and generally it’ll fall down on the side of; you can’t force people to do something without an act of parliament or equivalent. Even with statute, there’ll be gay cakes and religion to argue about.

[PlanetGlyndwr]

Biden is going to be Obama era again after the covid fallout has been dealt with.

Obama telling Bernie that Biden has started incorporating more leftist ideas is bs.

Neoliberalism is beyond trash i would trade listening to The Big Day on repeat until my last breath for it to be eradicated.

Biden and Harris trying to parade as upstanding citizens is sickening they are about as pure as a Harvey Weinstein Fap.

US are too cowardly to be anti-imperialist and lift citizens out of poverty and to promote and equal landscape for all.

[Rinkals]

Ah.

Is this another "I'm not a Trump supporter, but Biden is worse or just as bad"?

I don't think Biden is the absolute best option, but, of the twenty-odd who put their hat in the ring, I'd say he was the most electable. Which, in retrospect and bearing in mind that Trump got over 74 million votes, was more important than fielding the perfect candidate, even if it was Bernie.

Frankly, Spongebob Squarepants would have made a better President than Trump, so it's less about perfection and more about who can get the vote.

[Biffer]

Ah.

Is this another "I'm not a Trump supporter, but Biden is worse or just as bad"?

I don't think Biden is the absolute best option, but, of the twenty-odd who put their hat in the ring, I'd say he was the most electable. Which, in retrospect and bearing in mind that Trump got over 74 million votes, was more important than fielding the perfect candidate, even if it was Bernie.

Frankly, Spongebob Squarepants would have made a better President than Trump, so it's less about perfection and more about who can get the vote.

Yeah, but it’s essential they do enough for another democratic victory next time up. Otherwise we might end up with someone as lunatic as Trump but with some competence, like Hawley.

[Hugo]

Biden is going to be Obama era again after the covid fallout has been dealt with.

Obama telling Bernie that Biden has started incorporating more leftist ideas is bs.

Neoliberalism is beyond trash i would trade listening to The Big Day on repeat until my last breath for it to be eradicated.

Biden and Harris trying to parade as upstanding citizens is sickening they are about as pure as a Harvey Weinstein Fap.

US are too cowardly to be anti-imperialist and lift citizens out of poverty and to promote and equal landscape for all.

The US spends $900 billion per annum on its military to have bases in all four corners of the earth but does not have the will or wherewithal to get ts own citizens universal, affordable healthcare. I've read that healthcare costs are one of the single biggest causes of bankruptcies in the country.

I wish we could just be spared the lectures.

[fishfoodie]

Well this just brightened my day up no end

[Biffer]

While this quote does seem, on the face of it, to be quote profound, lately I've only every seen it used when a ruling minority are acting like a bunch of cunts, and the majority have told them to cut it out.

That's not really where I'm aiming it but I understand where you're coming from. It ties back to a lot of ideas from people like John Locke, the Levellers, the Founding Fathers etc. It's the acknowledgement that deprivation of individual rights doesn't just come from a despot, but can come from the mob as well (see the French Revolution). In order to protect your own rights you have to protect the rights of the smallest minorities right down to the individual who thinks differently, because when it comes down to it, society is a collection of minorities, not majorities. There is no such thing as 'the will of the people' because the people don't think with one mind.

In some ways they are, in some ways not. Arguably, the populist backlash against the Establishment that has fuelled the increasing division in the US and which Trump has been riding, and in the UK e.g. gave much of the impetus for Brexit, was by a (relatively large) minority that simply feels it is being overlooked and ignored by that governing Establishment (which covers most political parties). To that extent, it would represent a reaction against a tyrannous majority which must therefore exist. Of course, that the reaction is capable of happening shows the tyranny is not so strong.

On the other hand, the rise and power of identity politics causes many to complain of a tyranny of minorities over the majority.

It’s also worth pointing out than John Stuart Mill (and Harriet Taylor) realised, over 150 years ago, that the will of the people would / could be recognised as the will of either the most numerous OR the most active and it was this that they called the tyranny of the majority. So majority is a bit of a misnomer in those terms, but it’s a shorthand which includes what you’ve described.

[Uncle fester]

The responses...

[Saint]

The responses...

It's probably fair to say that there's never been a VP more despised by more people. The left see him as an enabler, the right as a traitor. For someone so ineffectual, it's a serious achievement

[fishfoodie]

On the pardon stuff for the scumbags who tried murdering a bunch of elected officials...

I think the FBI, & DoJ are staging a bit of a fightback against the orange turd.

They've seen his willingness to pardon scum; & they know that he'd be perfectly happy to continue this; in the name of helping, "good people"; so even though, they have some very clear cases for offenses outside of trespass, or criminal damage; those are the ones they've charged them with.

So we know they could have charged these scumbags with murder, or GBH, or espionage charges, or any number of serious offenses; but instead they've been content to charge them with holding charges; enough to get them extradited; & keep them detained; but nothing more; why ?

I think it's a two track tactic; they deny them the full scope of the linked charges; & they deny them the specific charges against each individual.

So will the FBI charge a certain newly elected GOP Congress woman with conspiracy to kidnap ? If that theoretical Congress woman were to accept that pardon; she would be run out of town on a rail; & the GOP would have one hell of a fight to keep the seat.

What would happen if there was a blanket pardon given to all those so far charged; how would the base; & the broader GOP react; if the murderers of the DC Police Officer were pardoned ?; or a woman who intended to sell Pelosi's laptop to Russia ? If nothing else; the LEO loyalty to the GOP would be destroyed for a decade; & they know all the secrets !

The only asset that diaper donny has, is his base; & if he lets all those scumbags go to jail; or chooses the scumbags over LEO's; then that base gets smaller.

He won't do a damn thing for them; after lying to them, & then winding them up, & pointing them at Capitol Hill.

[Rinkals]

On the pardon stuff for the scumbags who tried murdering a bunch of elected officials...

I think the FBI, & DoJ are staging a bit of a fightback against the orange turd.

They've seen his willingness to pardon scum; & they know that he'd be perfectly happy to continue this; in the name of helping, "good people"; so even though, they have some very clear cases for offenses outside of trespass, or criminal damage; those are the ones they've charged them with.

So we know they could have charged these scumbags with murder, or GBH, or espionage charges, or any number of serious offenses; but instead they've been content to charge them with holding charges; enough to get them extradited; & keep them detained; but nothing more; why ?

I think it's a two track tactic; they deny them the full scope of the linked charges; & they deny them the specific charges against each individual.

So will the FBI charge a certain newly elected GOP Congress woman with conspiracy to kidnap ? If that theoretical Congress woman were to accept that pardon; she would be run out of town on a rail; & the GOP would have one hell of a fight to keep the seat.

What would happen if there was a blanket pardon given to all those so far charged; how would the base; & the broader GOP react; if the murderers of the DC Police Officer were pardoned ?; or a woman who intended to sell Pelosi's laptop to Russia ? If nothing else; the LEO loyalty to the GOP would be destroyed for a decade; & they know all the secrets !

The only asset that diaper donny has, is his base; & if he lets all those scumbags go to jail; or chooses the scumbags over LEO's; then that base gets smaller.

He won't do a damn thing for them; after lying to them, & then winding them up, & pointing them at Capitol Hill.

For someone with a track record of throwing his enablers under a bus once they cease to be useful to him, I really can't see a pardon being granted to them, especially as they failed in their objectives and granting such would probably imply that he instigated the raid.

What I'd like to see is an FBI sting whereby Trump is caught on tape discussing the insurrection and his disappointment thereof. Actually, it really wouldn't surprise me to learn that such a tape exists already.

[Kiwias]

I heard a rumour that he has indeed pardoned Bannon but can't find confirmation.

[Sinkers]

I heard a rumour that he has indeed pardoned Bannon but can't find confirmation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55729221

[Kiwias]

I heard a rumour that he has indeed pardoned Bannon but can't find confirmation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55729221

If he has done nothing wrong as he claims, why did he beg Trump for a pardon?

[stemoc]

bannon is very aware of what Russia dd during 2016 elections.. pardon will keep trump out of jail

[Biffer]

bannon is very aware of what Russia dd during 2016 elections.. pardon will keep trump out of jail

A pardon means you accept your guilt and removes your right to silence. If Bannon is pardoned hell have to help with any inquiry related to his pardon. I don't think Trump understands that.

[Sinkers]

I know this is a rabbit hole - but if he hasn’t been convicted yet, what has he been pardoned for doing exactly? Is it specified anywhere in the process?

If it’s the wall campaign fraud thingy, admitting guilt could open him up for state level charges (state where the fund registered for example) or civil charges from those who’s cash was embezzled?

[Biffer]

I know this is a rabbit hole - but if he hasn’t been convicted yet, what has he been pardoned for doing exactly? Is it specified anywhere in the process?

If it’s the wall campaign fraud thingy, admitting guilt could open him up for state level charges (state where the fund registered for example) or civil charges from those who’s cash was embezzled?

Yeah, I've seen a few statements that Bannon is still in trouble regardless.

[fishfoodie]

I know this is a rabbit hole - but if he hasn’t been convicted yet, what has he been pardoned for doing exactly? Is it specified anywhere in the process?

If it’s the wall campaign fraud thingy, admitting guilt could open him up for state level charges (state where the fund registered for example) or civil charges from those who’s cash was embezzled?

Yeah, I've seen a few statements that Bannon is still in trouble regardless.

I'd say so.

The fact he's pardoned Bannon, & done nothing for the three others, shows what a naked political act the pardon is.

The others will now put all the blame on Bannon, & hope they can appear like victims themseleves.

[Slick]

Different conversation, but it breaks my heart that these fuckers are getting pardoned and let out of jails when you have tens of thousands of people doing life sentences in the US for minor offences. Just a fucked place

[JM2K6]

You only need to have charged (ie accused) of a crime I believe. You don't need to have been convicted. But yes, the general theory is that accepting it is admission of guilt, and state-level charges are likely for the fat facist.

I must apologise to Rhubarb & Custard though, I was led astray by some lawyers on the whole "secret pardons" thing. It turns out that it may not matter that the DoJ isn't informed.

This article is largely in line with my thinking:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-can ... ns-1562790

but this one completely disagrees:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/23/opin ... index.html

both include opposing views from major legal types. What a mess. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Trump is able to backdate pardons - that doesn't appear to be legal - but there's certainly a chance that any pardons done on the final day don't need to be made public (and therefore don't need to be publicly accepted).

[Rinkals]

Ah.

Is this another "I'm not a Trump supporter, but Biden is worse or just as bad"?

I don't think Biden is the absolute best option, but, of the twenty-odd who put their hat in the ring, I'd say he was the most electable. Which, in retrospect and bearing in mind that Trump got over 74 million votes, was more important than fielding the perfect candidate, even if it was Bernie.

Frankly, Spongebob Squarepants would have made a better President than Trump, so it's less about perfection and more about who can get the vote.

Yeah, but it’s essential they do enough for another democratic victory next time up. Otherwise we might end up with someone as lunatic as Trump but with some competence, like Hawley.

Just as well Trump is as thick as two short planks: anyone with the smallest amount of intelligence and nefarious intentions could have done enormous damage. Putin must be cursing his dumb luck in managing to install a pliant stooge, only to find out he's a halfwit.

What is quite clear is that the so-called checks and balances are non-existent with a biddable Senate or Congress.

[Hal Jordan]

Jimmy Kimmel:

"Trump has the lowest approval rating of any President in the modern era.

The only President to leave the Oval Office with a lower approval rating than that was Kevin Spacey."

[Raggs]

You only need to have charged (ie accused) of a crime I believe. You don't need to have been convicted. But yes, the general theory is that accepting it is admission of guilt, and state-level charges are likely for the fat facist.

I must apologise to Rhubarb & Custard though, I was led astray by some lawyers on the whole "secret pardons" thing. It turns out that it may not matter that the DoJ isn't informed.

This article is largely in line with my thinking:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-can ... ns-1562790

but this one completely disagrees:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/23/opin ... index.html

both include opposing views from major legal types. What a mess. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Trump is able to backdate pardons - that doesn't appear to be legal - but there's certainly a chance that any pardons done on the final day don't need to be made public (and therefore don't need to be publicly accepted).

It does look like the only issue is proving that they were signed before he was kicked out. I have to say I suspect that video, postage stamps (post them on the day, they'll have the date on them then, leave it unopened etc), affidavits etc could all be used to help prove when they were written. And let's be honest, it's against honest men that these ideas are in place for, someone like Trump isn't going to let minor things like that get in the way if he doesn't have to. I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers etc out there happy to vouch that they witnessed him sign them beforehand etc, and then you've got to prove that everyone who says that is a liar etc.

[Kiwias]

Different conversation, but it breaks my heart that these fuckers are getting pardoned and let out of jails when you have tens of thousands of people doing life sentences in the US for minor offences. Just a fucked place

There are several of the pardonees who were just that -- life sentences for minor non-violent marijuana offences. Good to see them out of jail but sad that they had to spend 20~30 years inside.

[Woddy]

Is Trump issuing more pardons than is normal for an out-going President? Genuine question.

[Saint]

You only need to have charged (ie accused) of a crime I believe. You don't need to have been convicted. But yes, the general theory is that accepting it is admission of guilt, and state-level charges are likely for the fat facist.

I must apologise to Rhubarb & Custard though, I was led astray by some lawyers on the whole "secret pardons" thing. It turns out that it may not matter that the DoJ isn't informed.

This article is largely in line with my thinking:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-can ... ns-1562790

but this one completely disagrees:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/23/opin ... index.html

both include opposing views from major legal types. What a mess. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Trump is able to backdate pardons - that doesn't appear to be legal - but there's certainly a chance that any pardons done on the final day don't need to be made public (and therefore don't need to be publicly accepted).

Which seems to be more or less the points we were discussing

Re the whole admission of guilt thing, it has been tested in SCOTUS back it 1917 or 18 I think. It's the reason why a recipient can choose not to accept pardon, as SCOTUS ruled that as a pardon is in place, their 5th amendment rights against self incrimination become null and void. Implicit in that is the presumption of guilt, otherwise the 5th amendment wouldn;t apply anyway

[Kiwias]

Obama issued a massive 1,340 or so, apparently that is more than the past 13 presidents combined.

Full statistics are here.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-statistics