A Biden pardon for Trump??

[nebo113]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/04/07/biden-should-pardon-trump-indictment/11614786002/

I was around when Nixon was pardoned and was furious about it, but came to accept it was necessary.  If Biden does pardon Trump, does Trump have to accept it overtly and does accepting a pardon acknowledge wrongdoing?  Does it have to be offered and accepted to be legal?

If Biden does offer a pardon, I want it to be after ALL current cases and potential against him, including Georgia, Mar a Lago, and 1/6 have either been brought or dropped.

Your thoughts?

[Istiblennius]

One thing my libertarian parent and I agree on. We don't have kings in the US. No one should be above the law.
Georgia and 1/6 at the very least are unpardonable. Democracy matters or it doesn't.

[Parasaurolophus]

My first thought is that the columnist did not make much of a case for pardoning Nixon, let alone Trump, whose crimes far outweigh Nixon's in both number and severity.

This is a bad idea. Undermining the rule of law for a "more perfect union" (which is not even likely to materialize in the first place!) is a bad tradeoff. Presidents cannot be above the law. I understand that they have been, where international law is concerned, but this is US law, FFS.

[clean]

Some of the potential crimes are state crimes.  A presidential pardon (from what I understand) only covers federal crimes. 
So a pardon would be as useless as DeSantis saying he would not extradite Trump.

[mleok]

My first thought is that the columnist did not make much of a case for pardoning Nixon, let alone Trump, whose crimes far outweigh Nixon's in both number and severity.

This is a bad idea. Undermining the rule of law for a "more perfect union" (which is not even likely to materialize in the first place!) is a bad tradeoff. Presidents cannot be above the law. I understand that they have been, where international law is concerned, but this is US law, FFS.

Agreed, the case for pardoning Nixon was weak to begin with, and Trump's crimes far outweigh Nixon's. In my mind, a pardon at the very least requires one to acknowledge guilt and wrongdoing, and to not continue the offending acts, none of which apply to Trump. If anything, he is doubling down on his seditious actions. A pardon for Trump would be a violation of the oath of office to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

[mleok]

From the article, "I am not naive enough to believe that granting a pardon to Trump would – in any way – begin the process of healing or put the tragedy behind us." If it doesn't begin the process of healing, then why do it? I think making Trump answer for his crimes and restoring the rule of law would be the only thing which would being the healing process for me.

[PScientist]

I'm not sure what I think about the current accusations of keeping fraudulent financial records, which are the kind of thing that Trump probably would not have been prosecuted for if he hadn't had the spotlight of the presidency on him.  He was clearly in the habit of getting away with continuous low-level fraud before his political career began.

But I believe that it is vital that he must stand trial for his attempt to subvert American democracy by inciting a riot to prevent electoral votes from being counted.  If Biden pardons him for that, it sends a clear message to the next populist strongman that there is no need to compete in a free and fair election.

[lightning]

The only reason for Biden to pardon Trump is to take away, from a Republican candidate not named Donald Trump, what would be the most effective campaign promise to win in the general election. Because, all a non-Trump Republican candidate has to do to turn out the MAGA vote is to promise "If I'm elected, I will pardon Donald Trump."

[Sun_Worshiper]

I have mixed thoughts about this. Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the election obviously demand consequences. But, at the same time, the writer is right that Trump will probably never serve a day in jail and a pardon might, at some point in the future, be looked back on as a key building block to national political reconciliation. And of course Trump will probably be pardoned anyway by the next Republican president.

My first thought is that the columnist did not make much of a case for pardoning Nixon, let alone Trump, whose crimes far outweigh Nixon's in both number and severity.

This is a bad idea. Undermining the rule of law for a "more perfect union" (which is not even likely to materialize in the first place!) is a bad tradeoff. Presidents cannot be above the law. I understand that they have been, where international law is concerned, but this is US law, FFS.

Agreed, the case for pardoning Nixon was weak to begin with, and Trump's crimes far outweigh Nixon's. In my mind, a pardon at the very least requires one to acknowledge guilt and wrongdoing, and to not continue the offending acts, none of which apply to Trump. If anything, he is doubling down on his seditious actions. A pardon for Trump would be a violation of the oath of office to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

The bolded is probably where I come down on it. If the pardon is accompanied by some kind of ban on participating in electoral politics, admission of wrongdoing, and, in a perfect world, a gag order to spare us from ever having to hear from Trump again, then I'd probably be for it. But without those things it is hard for me to get behind a preemptive pardon at this point.

[dismalist]

There is no reason for Biden to pardon Trump on political grounds.

The only reason Trump might deserve a presidential pardon in this case is that he can't get a fair trial in New York. :-)

[FishProf]

He can't get a pardon in this case.

[dismalist]

He can't get a pardon in this case.

Maybe the governor of New York would pardon him! :-)

[FishProf]

O.K., fine.  He can't get a pardon FROM BIDEN in this case.

Or the Georgia case.

[Wahoo Redux]

From the article, "I am not naive enough to believe that granting a pardon to Trump would – in any way – begin the process of healing or put the tragedy behind us." If it doesn't begin the process of healing, then why do it? I think making Trump answer for his crimes and restoring the rule of law would be the only thing which would being the healing process for me.

Trump is already a martyr to the Trumpees.  To a degree, he always will be.

And I agree that no one should be above the law, but imprisoning Trump, I am afraid, will be dangerously destabilizing as well as incredibly expensive.  I would think / hope that a pardon would defuse things if for no other reason than it would further neuter Trump's bravado.  And yes, it is a double-edged sword because a pardon will allow wingnuts to claim that this whole cluster***k is a product of the "Biden crime family" and a pardon proves it.

[financeguy]

Notice that those who want a conviction only advocate for one on grounds of "to do it or not" while those that oppose a conviction evaluate it as a tradeoff given likely second and third order effects. You don't get to choose to just convict. You can choose to do so WITH a bunch of other consequences but in no world does "and then what" just go away as a concern. Every right leaning DA in the country now is thinking about how they can get as much face time as Bragg by going after a leftist. They will certainly be able to find something, as is always the case with any target.