The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Time to Impeach Yet?
On pardoning the January 6 rioters.
Reading The Debates in the Several State Conventions (as one does), I see the following:
Mr. GEORGE MASON: . . . You will please, says he, to recollect that removal from office, and future disqualification to hold any office, are the only consequences of conviction on impeachment. Now, I conceive that the President ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection? The case of treason ought, at least, to be excepted. This is a weighty objection with me.
. . .
Mr. MADISON, adverting to Mr. Mason's objection to the President's power of pardoning, said . . . [t]here is one security in this case to which gentlemen may not have adverted: if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty; they can suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the Vice-President. Should he be suspected, also, he may likewise be suspended till he be impeached and removed, and the legislature may make a temporary appointment. This is a great security.
Since "a grave national injustice . . . has been perpetrated upon the American people," is anyone already keeping a list of impeachment-worthy offenses?
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"[T]hey can suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the Vice-President. Should he be suspected, also, he may likewise be suspended till he be impeached and removed, and the legislature may make a temporary appointment."
Where was Madison getting the power to suspend the president from? Was that considered concomitant with the impeachment power? A valid exercise of the Necessary & Proper Clause? I've seriously never heard of this as an option before, but I'm loath to second guess the Father of the Constitution.
I'm also interested in that part.
Me too!
Google paid $195 a hour on the internet..my close relative has been without labor for nine months and the earlier month her compensation check was $23660 by working at home for 10 hours a day..
Here→→ https://da.gd/income666
The implications of that are pretty wild. Since they can do that while investigating before impeachment it would seem that the Senate would have no role in being able to stop it. And investigation doesn't really require much if anything in the way of supporting evidence to be allowed in Congress. That would seem to make it that the House can basically choose the President among officers in the line of succcession simply by saying some ahead is suspected of wrong doing to suspended while investigation is undertaken.
That just doesn't seem like it can possibly be a correct reading. Even if it would take a majority of the House to do it that doesn't seem like enough for the founders to have thought it stuctually hard enough to do to allow that.
I'd need some clear language - that is, clear language in the Constitution, not a speech from even the most distinguished person - to persuade me that the House can suspend the President merely for investigative purposes.
The Constitution seems to have only two methods for involuntarily removing the President from power, even temporarily - impeachment followed by conviction, or declaration of inability under the 25th Amendment. And the 25th Amendment was adopted after Madison's speech, thus I would say clarifying the matter more than Madison's speech could.
Assuming all of what the FFs were saying, fast forwarding it to today so it can be facetiously abused against a political opponent is disgusting.
Suspected of a crime, arguendo, "Oh boy! We can gin up hot air and remove a guy we hate!"
Weasels gonna wease.
"But he really...!"
Liar. You don't care about that. You want to get a political opponent. That wasn't what the FFs were pondering, was it?
Liars gonna lie.
Weasels gonna wease.
The person you're quoting is a voice in your head. You appear to be actually angry at a hallucinated comment. Please talk to a doctor.
Maybe that was related to other discussions of allowing suspensions, or previous drafts. Maybe some states did allow it, or other countries.
I suspect you are correct. In many states, when an officer is impeached, he is automatically suspended, and whoever is next in the line of succession serves as acting officer. Of course, if he's acquitted, he returns to his duties. This happened just recently in the impeachment of Texas AG Ken. Paxton was ultimately acquitted by the state senate, but was suspended from performing any of his official duties between his impeachment and acquittal.
There are a handful of other states with similar procedures, with, for example some applying the suspension to all officers, while others only to judicial officers.
Thanks. I was just guessing.
Wikipedia says
but has no mention of suspension. Impeachment may have been too new to be refined with suspension.
A separate article says the Louisiana governor was suspended in 1872 but not impeached, does mention Texas AG Paxton's suspension, and says nothing else about suspension. The first state impeachment (of a judge) was in 1780, and the next in 1790. There were 101 total state impeachments, half judges, and suspension seems a lot more reasonable for judges, but no mention of it.
Any idea when suspension was added to state constitutions?
If I’m reading the original post correctly, this came from the Virginia ratifying convention. So they would have been debating whether to ratify the final version, not a draft. But, I could be reading that wrong.
It's always annoyed me that the convention was so secretive and the debates were not recorded.
This is your objection from today's pardons? Those related to ordinary citizens who have (mostly) already been investigated, charged, tried, convicted, sentenced, incarcerated, and released? Not the preemptive blanket pardons the outgoing president issued to his family?
Seriously?
Preemptive pardons due to credible threats of made up investigations vs pardoning people convicted of seditious conspiracy?? This is the line in the sand for you?
I hope you lose your life savings to a trump scamcoin crypto. It's the MAGA way.
Say hi to ICE for me tomorrow!
Speaking of that -- https://www.wcax.com/2025/01/20/authorities-investigating-fatal-shooting-border-patrol-agent-i-91/
I think this more than someone who overstayed his visa.
The persecutions could only be credible if there were crimes to be found.
Furthermore, no one thought such lawfare was at all credible four years ago. Something happened in the last four years to make such lawfare seem credible.
And why the j6 committee members, who couldn't be charged with crimes committed in the course of their work anyway?
Furthermore, no one thought such lawfare was at all credible four years ago. Something happened in the last four years to make such lawfare seem credible.
Yes, two things. First, Republicans did exactly this to Hunter Biden. They investigated relentlessly until they found some crimes to charge.
Second, Trump promised more of the same against his (very long) list of political enemies.
Fishing expeditions are often fruitful given the long list of broad federal crimes. It's not too hard to find something to charge someone with, if you're determined to look. That includes the j6 members. You really think Trump will only look for crimes "committed in the course of their work?" Of course not. Just look at Hunter.
"Republicans did exactly this to Hunter Biden. They investigated relentlessly until they found some crimes to charge."
That was Biden's DOJ, actually, not "Republicans." Also, they were real, actual crimes that he committed and was prosecuted for: tax evasion, lying on firearms applications, etc.
That was Biden's DOJ, actually, not "Republicans."
Your 'tard is showing. They're still investigating him!
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/01/09/congress/jordan-hunter-biden-impeachment-00197387
Also, they were real, actual crimes that he committed and was prosecuted for...
Where did I say otherwise? The point isn't that the crimes aren't real, it's that they aren't typically charged.
Personally I have no sympathy for Hunter and I think all these pardons are a bad idea. But they are reacting to a credible threat of politically motivated fishing expeditions. I'd rather see the threat of fishing expeditions mitigated in other ways, like a vast overhaul and simplification of federal criminal law. But instead here we are.
Not typically charged. Investigate until they find something. Fishing expeditions.
You sound like me the past 8 years.
Things like the 4th aren't there because the king might filch through your papers and house, planting stuff. It's because the king knows he can find real stuff, almost a certainty for anyone with real wealth.
Oddly, I don't see self-reflection as the sides begin flip flopping.
Scientists use mirrors to test animals' self-awareness. They put a red dot on them then put in a mirror. If they look at themself in the mirror, see the dot, and immediately clean it off, that's a good sign. Most animals are just stupid and never realize that's themselves.
Here, certain Democrats were self-covered with many measels, measels of siccing prosecution on a political opponent. They see themselves in the mirror, covered with these dots. But, like the dumber animals, never realize that's themselves in the mirror.
"How dare Trump do this to us!"
Your behavior was predicted. And not just by me, but my yourselves with "what if he does to us what we've been doing to him?"
You continue to pull the equating the nonequal in order to keep your above it all bothsidsing going.
You are, if anything, more biased than the usual partisan.
Your behavior was predicted
I hope you're not this insufferable in real life.
They are unequal only in the fact what the Democrats were pursuing against Trump and his orbit were "novel legal theories" never before seen in our history with criminal and civil judgements that were patently absurd.
While the prosecutions, that God willing, are forthcoming are based upon crimes that have been known as crimes for generations.
Why aren't you at the office?
My behavior? I denounced Biden's pardons including Hunter's!
How about your behavior? You denounced the political fishing expedition against Trump, but now that he's the fisherman it's fine? You failed your own mirror test.
Oh My Gosh! They're still investigating him, and it hasn't even been a full day yet! That Trump guy sure is lazy.
due to credible threats of made up investigations
Thanks for that entirely unlawyerly nonsense. Please never leave Shitcago.
"Preemptive pardons due to credible threats of made up investigations..."
The claim that there were "Threats of made up investigations," to the extent that the term implies anything other than investigating potential criminal activity and prosecuting any actual crimes that were uncovered, is a lie.
Investigations with no factual predicate are abuse of process.
The AG exercising supervisory authority over the DoJ is abuse of process? That's a new one.
Neither what we're talking about nor what I said in the comment you're replying to.
Presumably "made up investigations" was referring to Pam Bondi saying Prosecutors will be prosecuted, investigators will be investigated.
"credible threats of made up investigations" seems in it's text a wider arena than Pam Bondi.
Ok, I’ll bite. WHO threatened to conduct made up investigations without a factual basis?
Trump.
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1-5134924/trump-election-2024-kamala-harris-elizabeth-cheney-threat-civil-liberties
No factual predicate according to you.
Sasha loves his Soviet show trials to enforce his totalitarian ideals, can't let anything happen to disrupt the object lessons.
Sasha loves his Soviet
Pretty sure he doesn't.
Aren’t you forgetting the President controls Congress?
The real problems will come if he offers to do things like pardon people who assassinate Supreme Court justices who don’t vote his way. Is this Congress sufficiently in his pocket that it won’t impeach or convict him even if he does that? Roaming around 5th Avenue shooting people with impunity may be the least of our problems.
Our constitution is considerably more watertight than the Weimar Consitution was. But it is not completely watertight. It can be cracked by someone sufficiently determined and ruthless.
Presumably that would only work if the assassination happened within Washington DC?
Justices who won't kowtow to Trump not appearing at the Supreme Court in Washington DC because they fear assassination would achieve the same goal without committing murder.
The real problems will come if he offers to do things like pardon people who assassinate Supreme Court justices who don’t vote his way.
This is what's known as "disasterbation".
It would seem Trump’s first term proved Mr. Mason correct and Madison wrong. As long as GOPS hold 1/3 of the Senate, conviction for impeachment is off the table. No matter what the crime. Another reminder that the Founders failed to anticipate parties, although they suffered little delay in forming them.
Unlike HW Bush, and now Trump, Biden hasn’t pardoned any accomplices. Yes, I’m expecting to be subjected to tiresome fantasies about the Biden crime family in reply.
What about relatives and allies?
What about relatives and allies?
See Impeachment of Sameul Chase...
As long as GOPS hold 1/3 of the Senate, conviction for impeachment is off the table. No matter what the crime
False. And insidious.
To impeach, you have to convince the country he's so bad, even his supporters think he needs to go. This is a deliberately high, supermajority bar, so normal politics can't toss a president one side dislikes.
Both of your hyperbolic attempts, including somber marches in front of cameras with articles of impeachment didn't convince anybody of this level. "Look how somberly they are marching, though!" What child-minds fell for that?
And 25 years ago, Clinton's transgression, also the result of unending fishing expeditions, likewise did not rise to it.
Nixon's did, as the senators told him he didn't have the votes, so he resigned.
That's one thing that struck me with Clinton's impeachment. Andrew Johnson's was purely political, albeit over the real political disagreement of how to treat the rebel states. Nixon's was a serious impeachment over serious criminal issues. Clinton's was petty and stupid, making it look as partisan and petty as it was. Trump's first one was all the proof I needed that the Bidens were corrupt: Joe had used military aid as a bribe to stop Ukraine's corruption investigation which would have unmasked Joe's and Hunter's sweetheart deal, Trump made the same threat to restore the corruption investigation, and that was too blatant an impeachment to be anything but corrupt. The second one was too rushed to be anything useful, and then they extended it with the partisan j6 committee, whose only purpose was to punish Trump supporters and draw attention away from all the Democratic BLM and Antifa riots which were far worse..
Nixon's was the only impeachment that the Founders would have approved of, seems to me, although there were other Presidents I think they might have wanted impeachment for, such as Andrew Jackson ignoring the Supreme Court and several after the Civil War for corruption.
“Joe had used military aid as a bribe to stop Ukraine's corruption investigation which would have unmasked Joe's and Hunter's sweetheart deal.”
The opposite of what happened.
So much for muting promises. I'll treat your other comments as just as valid then, shall I?
Your assertion is at odds with history.
No, you're wrong/lying in many aspects. First, the issue wasn't "military aid." Second, Joe was vice president, and as such couldn't have so much as ordered lunch on his own accord. Third, it was because Ukraine wasn't investigating, not to stop an investigation. Fourth, Joe had no "sweetheart deal," or any deal.
Well, stay deluded if it helps you through the next four years. No skin off my back.
I think the thing you have to remember about the Clinton impeachment is that the obstruction of justice he was impeached over wasn't an isolated instance. He'd had one scandal after where the investigations had just petered out in a miasma of missing evidence and uncooperative witnesses. Web Hubble preferring to go to prison, and conveniently die in solitary, rather than testify, for instance.
And then along comes this one case, and it's proven that he has the White House staff collecting and destroying evidence, and suborning perjury on the part of witnesses! Said staff didn't object to doing this, they just sprang into operation like a well oiled machine.
So the assumption is that he'd been doing it all along, and this was just the one case where his obstruction of justice machine had missfired. He was one dry cleaning away from making it work that time, too, remember.
There were actually a lot of potential charges against Clinton, and the Republicans had won a rather climatic vote to conduct a thorough investigation into all of them, and then bring an impeachment on all charges that proved feasible.
And then Livingston gets taken out by having his infidelity exposed, (Remember filegate here...) and replaced with Dennis Hastert, a pedophile who was paying hush money. And the House leaders abruptly decide to throw out almost all the potential charges, and go with an abbreviated prosecution, and the Senate decides not to even permit the evidence to be publicly gone over; It was kept in a room Senators could visit if they felt like it, none of the Democrats bothered.
So it all fell apart, as a result of Clinton having extensive blackmail files, and the Republican leadership being too dirty to risk their release. But the charges brought were only the tip of the iceberg, Clinton was guilty of a hell of a lot more.
Webster Hubbell — sometimes called "Webb," but never "Web," and never called "Hubble" since he wasn't named after a telescope — did not die in solitary, or in prison at all. Or anywhere else; he's still alive. WTF are you talking about?
And that was the least crazy of your batshit wacko conspiracy theory about blackmail.
The one thing I never forgave Hillary for was sticking up for her rapist husband to the point of calling his victims liars.
But the actual impeachment was stupid. It was much worse than nailing Al Capone on tax charges.
Ironically, had Clinton resigned, then Gore would have been a lock for reelection. Instead, Clinton's "Well, we'll just have to win" strategy cost Gore the White House.
"the Founders failed to anticipate parties"
I'd suggest reading George Washington's farewell address, which should definitively end that notion.
"Founders" means of the Constitution in 1787.
Obviously, Washington knew of parties by 1796, when there were two of them competing for power.
I don't think the Founders were not aware of parties though they might not have expected the type of organized national parties that would soon develop. Many feared them as dangerous "factions."
I should have mentioned above that another critical distinction between Trump's and Biden's pardons today is that the former made his a campaign promise (and was subsequently elected) while the latter expressly promised not to pardon his family, but then did so anyway.
Now tell me what Trump did spend a lot of time during his campaign promising...
These are legitimate concerns, but I think it’s too late to impeach and convict Biden.
As for Trump, I don’t think there was any doubt on election day that he intended to pardon the J6ers, the voters not only endorsed that intention, they gave him majorities in the House and Senate to sustain it.
His election was not a mandate to pardon the J6ers, especially the violent offenders. He was elected in spite of that promise, not because of it.
This is an act that will live in infamy.
1. Aren't you the "JFC, you can't just look at ONE POLL" guy?
2. Setting aside 1, what in the world could this particular poll accurately say about the opinions of people who actually voted to put Trump in office when the poll wasn't limited to voters (or, from what I can see, even voting-age people!), and only bucketed participants as R, D, or I?
It's more than one poll and the margins are quite clear you probably don't need more than one.
Maybe you can point it out if I overlooked it, but I don't see how your second link fixes the systemic problem I flagged in point 2 above. What margins of what polled group are "quite clear" to the point where you can impute it to a 50ish% range of actual Trump voters, as your original post did?
My post didn't claim it was 50-50 among Trump voters.
Your post just said "no mandate," so based on recent history I would have to imagine you'd need somewhere close to 50% opposed to make that stick. What rough percentage are you saying is required for a "mandate" for this particular topic?
Well over 50% are opposed. It does not matter how that breaks down among Trump and Harris voters.
Hold up: you're saying that to have a "mandate" to do something, it has to be supported by a majority of people who DIDN'T vote for you? Do you happen to have a source for that interpretation?
A mandate to do something requires well over 50% of the total voters to support you. We've got 60%-70% of the people opposing the J6 pardons. Not only is it not a mandate for the pardons, it's a mandate against them.
Excuse me. POTUS (heh) Trump ran on that campaign promise, to pardon the J6 rioters. He has delivered on that campaign promise. I don't see any more infamy here than when Washington pardoned the Whiskey Rebellion participants.
One caveat: I don't believe in releasing anyone with blood on their hands, or property damage at this stage. Needs review, and video.
The blood on their hands horse has left the barn,
And saying the voters wanted something doesn’t make it true.
Sarcastr0, we have POTUS Trump, not Harris. The people did speak.
I do want to see if there are any people with blood on their hands, or property destruction. I do not think anyone with blood on their hands or property destruction should be pardoned on day 1. It can wait a month while their case is reviewed and dealt with.
I'd like the actual list of names of people, and their crimes of violence (documented on video), before saying the horse left the barn. Name them.
I do want to see if there are any people with blood on their hands, or property destruction
At this point, it's clear you don't. Willful blindness is about what everyone expected from you.
Because I know you will do no research:
-Julian Khater (pepper spraying Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick in the face. Sicknick died the following day due to two strokes)
-Devlyn Thompson, (hit a police officer with a metal baton)
-Robert Palmer, (attacked police with a fire extinguisher, a wooden plank, and a pole)
-Dominic Pezzola: (A Proud Boys member caught on video smashing a Capitol window with a riot shield)
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Sicknick died of natural causes according to the coroner. The Capitol police force decided to treat it as due to being attacked anyway, so that his family would get a "died in the line of duty" award.
Not to minimize Khater's assault, just to correct the deliberate impression that it was murder. Thomson and Palmer were also guilty of assault. Pezzola was just guilty of vandalism, not sure why you threw him in with the others.
So, these guys got their sentences commuted, not a pardon. I'd be a lot more impressed with your complaint if you weren't so casual about the slaps on the wrist left-wing rioters usually get.
I didn't mean to imply but-for causality; pepper spray does not cause strokes.
I added Pezzola because Commenter said: " I do not think anyone with blood on their hands or property destruction..."
I'm not sure why anyone should care about commutation versus pardon.
the slaps on the wrist left-wing rioters usually get.
This is bullshit. You've been told it's bullshit many times.
There were indiscriminate sweeps that picked up a lot of people who had later to be let go. That doesn't mean there were not prosecutions.
Records rebut claims of unequal treatment of Jan. 6 rioters
In this case, both are corrupt, but the two are very different; a commutation says, "Yeah, he's still guilty but he's been punished enough," while a pardon wipes away the conviction entirely.
I understand how they are different in principle, but as applied here I see little difference in the upshot.
I guess commutees can't get guns in some places, and can't vote in a few others.
Too bad your masterly thoughts on what voters want never extended to what Biden did, or any politician ever. Water is wet kind of brilliance.
Did I ever argue 'well what Biden did has to be cool and good because he was elected?'
Did you ever answer any question, let alone with facts and without insults?
You said: "Too bad your masterly thoughts on what voters want never extended to what Biden did, or any politician ever."
What did you mean by that?
I meant what it says, and it was also to get you riled up, since that's all you seem to want to do. The one question you did answer today surprised the heck out of me, and I responded as nicely as you're ever going to get. Respond like a loon, get responses you deserve.
Trump just did that. He pardoned everyone except a handful who were convicted of seditious conspiracy (e.g., the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers heads).
Citation for Trump promising to pardon all the J6ers?
Doesn't really matter. Joe wasn't elected back in 2020 to pardon all his relatives, either. At least half of what he's been doing the last 4 years was crap he swore he had no intention of doing, like banning gas appliances.
Trump is President, he gets to exercise the powers of the office. At least he's doing this up front, rather than in the last half hour before Vance takes office.
Well I look forwards to never hearing from yiu about Biden’s pardons then,
Nothing comparable to what Biden did, yet, if you ask me. Let's see if Trump give anybody in his family a ten year get out of jail card for all possible federal crimes whatsoever, like Hunter got.
Biden was President, he gets to exercise the powers of the office.
You never can resist taking Brett's troll bait.
Brett is many things, but he is not a troll.
I think it would be more beneficial if they amended the Constitution to limit pardon power, like:
Look into British common law and powers of the King...
The president isn't a king. Or British.
Congress can make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Clearly that includes the pardon power. Presumably, given their outrage yesterday, no Trumpist would oppose legislation along the lines you propose.
Nope. As an inherent power of the office, the legislature has no more say over pardons than the President has over how Congress votes. You want to change the pardon power?
Amend the Constitution.
Biden's pardons, especially that last minute pardon of his family, have enough of a stink about them that it might be politically possible to peel loose enough Democratic votes to get it done, for a narrowly crafted amendment.
Congress can't abolish the pardon power, but I'm not sure what your authority would be for the proposition that Congress can't regulate it. That's simply never been attempted, so it would be a question of first impression.
Congress can no more regularte a pardon than the veto.
Why wouldn't Congress be able to regulate the veto? It just can't write anything in the law that goes contrary to what the Constitution says, like requiring the President to sign or veto a bill within a week. But, say, a law that explains what does and doesn't count as "signing" seems perfectly valid.
Lots of obviously unconstitutional crap would be a question of first impression if somebody had the gall to try it anyway.
Yes, that's basically the motto of the Supreme Court under (and after) Trump.
The concept I had in mind is "The President can't pardon a co-conspirator or somebody carrying out his orders." In American law a pardon functions as an affirmative defense. Whether a defendant was conspiring with the President would become a question of fact for the jury.
What if they are innocent?
AJS, the pardon power is absolute, with good reason. It must not be changed. We cannot strait-jacket future POTUS' and remove a tool of their office.
A timely pardon can prevent a war (domestic, foreign). European (and American) history is replete with examples of leaders issuing timely pardons to defuse a crisis.
To a great extent, you are relying on the integrity of the leader, and their considered judgment.
The Innocence Project provides good reasons of why the pardon power should have no limitations on it.
I don't find it logical to ban pardons of family members and so forth. What should be done is to have a mechanism to guard against one person having the degree of unilateral power now present. This conflicts with the checks and balances of the document generally as well as the practice in many states.
An explicit ban on self-pardons would be helpful akin to the explicit listing of other allegedly obvious things like those found in the First Amendment.
A more orderly pardon process, including an orderly process that would take time, could guard against certain abuses that can arise when someone pardons at the last minute.
OTOH, I'm not too concerned on the level of an amendment about "lame duck" pardons.
I would appreciate a formal system to process pardons with the president having the ability to work around it in special cases with perhaps Congress or another body having the ability to override them with a supermajority vote.
In Korea the impeachment resolution suspended the President. He has not been convicted or acquitted yet.
Attempted impeachment of Trump would be time-wasting theatrics at this time. Wait until he gets caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
Is the honeymoon over?
At 12:19 PM on January 20, 2017, the Washington Post posted on its website an article entitled "The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun", at which point Trump had been President of the United States for nineteen minutes.
So, by waiting more than 12 hours into Trump's second term, Prof. Volokh has, comparatively, displayed patient restraint.
Enormous restraint, actually, since the campaign to impeach Trump the first time began before he had even secured the nomination.
It is not a surprise at all, Brett.
Heads are reeling at the exec orders yesterday. 😉
More MAGA-mesis, too; DOD.
Did I say I was surprised? I've said before, he's their Great Orange Whale, they can't NOT go after him, no matter how much harm it causes them.
I have not as yet had time to read his EOs, but a lot of what I've heard so far sounds good. If he wasn't making heads reel, he wouldn't be coming in hot enough, he's only got 2-4 years to get things done.
The day 2 agenda should be interesting; what will POTUS Trump do as an encore to day 1. Looking forward to the extended caterwauling. I think people forgot what having an engaged and energetic POTUS is like. 😉
Maybe he will launch another shitcoin in Barron's name and self enrich himself at the expense of the general public even more?? Is that conduct that a President should be engaging in?? Selling the bibles, NFT's, etc...wasn't quite blatant enough? A memecoin named $Trump in which Trump entities control 80% of all outstanding coins? Lots of people already lost a lot of money when they launched $Melania two days later...so where is the money going? What insiders made tens of millions of dollars off what appears to be a pure fraud??
Trump will say its official conduct just like he tried to do with paying off Stormy Daniels. But nobody really believes there is any official presidential conduct involved in fleecing your supporters with literal shitcoins. Well maybe some MAGA cultists here do. Its highly unethical behavior; opens him up to potential bribery and other shenanigans and is totally ridiculous. Are you willing to give Trump a pass for this?
Remember, the Bidens are the grifters, not Trump.
Oh hey here comes your paranoia again.
You are why there are clickbait articles like this.
Still lying about this, huh? The campaign to impeach Trump the first time began after his "perfect" illegal extortion attempt of Ukraine. There was no campaign before that.
I'm reminded of the proverbial definition of insanity here: "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
Are Democrats supposed to give up on trying to save the Republic?
Since their means of "saving" it is to destroy it first, then yes, they should give up.
The pardon for most of these people is right and just, and a good application of the pardon process.
Most of those involved in the protest were non-violent. Some were escorted into the Capitol itself by police. They were unaware they were committing a crime. While ignorance of the law doesn't excuse breaking it, it can be considered a factor in the pardon process.
In response, the FBI used a vast amount of resources dedicated to finding each and every person who attended the protest, prosecuting every one who entered the Capitol. This was a political decision. The FBI does not do this with normal protests or riots, spend months to years of effort to track down non-violent offenders. Even with violent protests, where the offenders are arrested at the site. many of the offenders are let off without prosecution.
To go to this depth for non-violent offenders, most of whom were unaware they were breaking the law, months afterwards, smacks of political reasoning. The pardon, in such a situation, is justified in my opinion.
What are the actual names of these violent people and what crime of violence and/or property destruction were they convicted for? I am reading there were violent offenders who were pardoned, but no names. Who are they, what did they actually do?
Violent offenders with blood on their hands can wait, IMO.
The violence in many cases could be considered modest. Throwing a bottle at a police officer, for example, was considered "assault with a dangerous weapon"
Many to most of the cases were like Anna Morgan-Lloyd,
(Full list of sentences here, I'm just using the first case as an example)
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/media/1331746/dl?inline
Notably, in her statement of facts, the following comment is made.
"BISSEY writes “I can tell you even though windows and doors were busted, the Police stood with arms crossed. No force. Some
even opened doors and fences. Seen it with my own eyes.” "
A lot of people blame the FBI, but the problem goes far beyond them.
It was the DOJ that tried to apply novel applications of federal laws in order to get felony convictions, and they insisted on massive sentences for the defendants.
It was also the DOJ that insisted on trying these cases in the DC District Courts instead of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which is where the cases for Democratic protestors and anti-Trump rioters typically ended up, and its where they received their slaps on the wrist (if they got slapped at all).
"While ignorance of the law doesn't excuse breaking it,"
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a slogan adopted on the assumption that most laws prohibited 'malum in se' offenses, offenses anybody with a functioning conscience would know that they shouldn't be doing regardless of the law. So that if you happened to not know there was a law against pushing somebody into the path of an oncoming train, say, that didn't matter. You were presumed to know you weren't supposed to do it without knowing about the law.
It's a slogan entirely unsuited to a legal system where most offenses are 'malum prohibitum', "illegal only because prohibited"
None of them were unaware they were committing a crime. I think anyone who supports Trump is retarded, but not that retarded.
That is correct. Only with coup attempts.
People who attempt coups use guns, not flagpoles and bear spray.
Liz Cheney, is that you?
David is mentally challenged.
He said he'd do it.
He did it.
Next!
Reason finally mentions the J6ers, with the implication that pardoning them is impeachable. An alleged libertarian publication.
You're ridiculous.
Libertarians are not violent anarchists or something.
WTF are you talking about? Are the anarchists in the room with you now?
1) You still are too dumb to know the difference between the Volokh Conspiracy and Reason.
2) Why would libertarians support insurrections?
The insurrection in which no one was charged with insurrection?
FOAD retard
Trump has already been impeached for Joe Biden's extortion of the Ukraine and for Kamala Harris's incitement of rioters. I figure he's due to be impeached for Nancy Pelosi's insider trading next.
Look, it's nonsense like this that is how Trump got reelected. There's a non-stop hysterical screeching of "GET HIM!!!" that people are sick to death of. Is he squeaky clean? Definitely not. Is he a person I'd like as a friend? Nope. Is he the coming of the Antichrist and every action he takes is a sign of the apolcaypse? Give me a break. You're already back to the exact same chorus as before, let's impeach him at any cost, let's prosecute him at any cost, everything he does is illegal and immoral and the worst thing that has ever happened in history. Tone down the rhetoric, stop screaming impeachment and conviction over every thing the man does, and maybe you'll get people to listen to specific issues you bring up. Right now it's all white noise that no one is listening to except the people who already agree with you.
Weird that they waited years to impeach him, until he had done an impeachable thing, then.
how Trump got reelected
I should start counting how many reasons are the reason Trump got reelected.
Joe and Kamala sucked. Maybe start there.
Trump did multiple things yesterday, including a patently unconstitutional birthright citizenship executive order, that can be put on the "impeachment worthy" list.
The "this is unhinged!" talk is how we got here. Constitutional norms are too woke.
Once again, a another clear example of Mason over Madison. The anti-Federalists always had the better arguments. They just lost the political and propaganda war.
Is it too late to indict Biden for treason?
For not assassinating Trump like he should've the moment SCOTUS invented Presidential immunity?
Curious that the most important sentence in that excerpt is ignored:
"If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?"
And who just issued a multitude of pardons to people who had not been indicted or convicted? Why, now ex-President Biden. And the explicit goal of those pardons was to stop inquiry and prevent detection.