Absolutely right, Judge Scheindlin. These pardons are legally authorized but constitutionally unpardonable. Their issuance is a “high crime and misdemeanor” within the meaning of the Impeachment Clause because it is a clear abuse of presidential power. https://t.co/FcmkiRkFy2
Not being an expert in the law, I’m not sure I understand the distinction between legally authorized and constitutionally unpardonable. (I do assume he means the ordinary sense of unpardonable as opposed to the legal one.) It’s legal but it ignores/flouts a crucial part of the Constitution?
I am not an expert in law, either, especially not US law. But I can venture a guess.
Legally authorized: The president has the power of pardon, and no one can overrule it. Done is done, and the dangerous insurrectionists go free.
Constitutionally unpardonable: It’s an abuse of presidential power, and not at all what the power of pardons is intended for. And so it’s an impeachable offence, and if the majority of Congress had a spine and some respect for the Consitution, Trump would be out of the White House in (relatively) short order. That’s not happening, of course.
One might argue that the Democrats should try to get him impeached because of this, not because it has any chance of success, but because not doing so makes them complicit.
Looking in from outside, the majority of Americans seem quite invested in the Israeli hostages whilst even when Amnesty was at its best, didn’t concern themselves too much with political prisoners. Thus Trump wants whatever accolades are afforded Israeli hostages to rub off on his own vile, disgusting, and cretinous “heroes”.
BKiSA, RDB may be right. I wondered if it all comes back to Trump. They’re his possessions that are being kept from him and used to (in Trump’s mind) attack him. Therefore hostages. Calling them political prisoners gives them some agency and independence that is nothing to do with him. RDB is probably right, but…
Oh, sweet juicy Jesus slathered in sauce. Let’s not start down this road again.
Which one?
I am not an expert in law, either, especially not US law. But I can venture a guess.
Legally authorized: The president has the power of pardon, and no one can overrule it. Done is done, and the dangerous insurrectionists go free.
Constitutionally unpardonable: It’s an abuse of presidential power, and not at all what the power of pardons is intended for. And so it’s an impeachable offence, and if the majority of Congress had a spine and some respect for the Consitution, Trump would be out of the White House in (relatively) short order. That’s not happening, of course.
One might argue that the Democrats should try to get him impeached because of this, not because it has any chance of success, but because not doing so makes them complicit.
Anyone ever asked why he uses the word “hostages”? Wouldn’t “political prisoner” be just as disingenuous but, y’know, make sense?
Like, why were they being held hostage? Why no attempt at hostage negotiations?
A minor thing in the scheme of things but the word “hostage” has implications that shouldn’t be salient even in Trump world.
Trump doesn’t word very good.
Looking in from outside, the majority of Americans seem quite invested in the Israeli hostages whilst even when Amnesty was at its best, didn’t concern themselves too much with political prisoners. Thus Trump wants whatever accolades are afforded Israeli hostages to rub off on his own vile, disgusting, and cretinous “heroes”.
Hostage is more emotive?
Or maybe it’s just more familiar to Trump.
I needn’t have bothered, RDB was saying much the same thing and got there first.
BKiSA, RDB may be right. I wondered if it all comes back to Trump. They’re his possessions that are being kept from him and used to (in Trump’s mind) attack him. Therefore hostages. Calling them political prisoners gives them some agency and independence that is nothing to do with him. RDB is probably right, but…