Skip to main content

mastodon - Link to source
Trump may have inadvertently issued mass pardon for 2020 voter fraud, experts say
theguardian.com/us-news/2025/n…

Trump may have inadvertently issued mass pardon for 2020 voter fraud, experts say

Pardons of Giuliani and others who participated in fake elector scheme were largely symbolic, but still could have a big effect
Sam Levine (The Guardian)
in reply to Jeff Jarvis

StarkRG
mastodon - Link to source
StarkRG
• •
Assuming he gets ousted, all of Trump's pardons need to get nullified. The US is already a pretty lawless society, allowing those pardons to stand would just serve to make that stance official.
in reply to StarkRG

MidgePhoto
mastodon - Link to source
MidgePhoto
• •
@StarkRG
Hmm.
1. Is that legally possible?
2. My impression is that many people involved will have been caught for subsequent crimes or could be pursued for other previous or contemporaneous crimes.
3. The ones who don't commit future crimes are less of a problem. Dissuaded, perhaps.
4. The ones who do are marked, and likely to be caught for those.
5. There's a reciprocal, which should remain discouraged.
@StarkRG
in reply to MidgePhoto

StarkRG
mastodon - Link to source
StarkRG
• •
@Photo55 The constitution is clearly in dire need of an overhaul, so yeah. There's no reason they couldn't just remove the president's capability to issue pardons. And I'm not just talking about *these* specific pardons but *all* of Trump's pardons.
@MidgePhoto
in reply to StarkRG

MidgePhoto
mastodon - Link to source
MidgePhoto
• •
@StarkRG
Put it in the Second Republic, but there are reasons for Royal pardons which have endured for a while.
Perhaps a numeric limit?
@StarkRG
in reply to MidgePhoto

StarkRG
mastodon - Link to source
StarkRG
• •
@Photo55 What are those reasons? If there's a reason to excuse one person's violation of a law, there are both judicial and legislative processes to handle it. I can't think of any reason the executive should have that power.
@MidgePhoto
in reply to StarkRG

MidgePhoto
mastodon - Link to source
MidgePhoto
• •

@StarkRG
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_pr…

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/r…

lawgazette.co.uk/practice-poin…

IANAL, so perhaps it is best to just point you at these.

I remarked we had had it a while, so

jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt…

None of our monarchs seem to have been so thoroughly, scandalously and egregiously unjust as your current Pretender, even the one my ancestors shortened by a head for being obstinate about his right to do anything he wanted, and his lack of competence.

I am not of course an American. Apply.


​The royal prerogative of mercy

In the English tradition, the RPM is one of the historic royal prerogatives reserved to the British monarch, in which she can grant pardons to persons convicted of criminal offences.
Law Gazette
@StarkRG
in reply to MidgePhoto

StarkRG
mastodon - Link to source
StarkRG
• •

@Photo55 Yes, I understand the origin of the presidential pardon, but that 15th century monarchs used it is not a good reason to have it now. I see no reason why the head of state or head of government should have the power to unilaterally circumvent a judicial decision.

While we're on the subject, though, the existence of 15th century monarchs isn't a good reason to have *them* now either.

@MidgePhoto
in reply to StarkRG

MidgePhoto
mastodon - Link to source
MidgePhoto
• •

@StarkRG

Well, we don't have 15th century monarchs now. For reasons additional to the passage of time.
DAG puts it well though when he describes the importance of the Crown (which is not the Monarch, quite) not as the powers it has but that nobody else has those powers.
Complicated, our constitution. And mostly written.

You'll have noted in one of those references that the Crown doesn't do it _unilaterally_ though. Unlike an Absolute Trump.

I forget whose fence it is, but it is important.

@StarkRG
in reply to MidgePhoto

StarkRG
mastodon - Link to source
StarkRG
• •
@Photo55 Well, if there's more of a process to it than the leader decides to do it then it has no relation whatsoever to how presidential pardons work. Not just Trump, but every president. They usually *choose* to do their due diligence to make sure the pardoned person actually deserves it, but as the law is written, they don't have to. If someone deserves a pardon, then the crime they committed probably shouldn't be a crime (legislative) or a judge should grant an appeal (judicial).
@MidgePhoto
in reply to Jeff Jarvis

MidgePhoto
mastodon - Link to source
MidgePhoto
• •

unsurprisingly that is bad.
One effect of #pardons by name (and with sufficient identifying detail) is that a #list of #criminals * is thus published, and the citizens and others can make #future decisions in knowledge of it.

It might not always be bad, but for rare and repeatable offences it seems wise and proportionate.

* Which might include some extras, but a list

#future #criminals #list #pardons
⇧