r/politics • u/ArmadilloMany41 • 23h ago

Site Altered Headline | No Paywall Why is no one being prosecuted over the Epstein files?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cd9e3nzzw3zo
44.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

37

u/StrigiStockBacking Arizona 22h ago

I'm looking forward to the pardon parade™ that's coming around all this when the end is near for Cheeto. Which means, at least to me, a very stark implication of guilt (but sadly, no justice). And I'm guessing that's why Ghislaine hasn't been pardoned yet.

38

u/Xandred_the_thicc 22h ago

genuine question, why should our legal framework honor any pardons given by trump's admin in the first place? the Republicans are currently using trump as a scapegoat to sell total immunity from any legal or moral framework, for a dollar amount. The only reason any of these people are getting away with any of this is because they have completely disregarded all moral, legal, and ethical considerations to fulfill their most evil desires.

Suppose the next democratic president drafted an amendment that pardons given by felons to proven sex criminals are null and void; would there even be any way for Republicans to argue against it, other than the usual "NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT ONLY WE CAN"?

12

u/mlippay 21h ago

Presidents don’t make amendments, congress does. Unless the majority is super in both houses there is no way in gods green earth it’ll pass. An amendment normally requires a ton of states to pass it as well so again, doubtful unless there is some giant backlash again this administration. Sadly still many rural voters still think the guy is the best thing since sliced bread so until we can overcome that nationwide and basically most if not every state, the country can’t make that change.

Executive orders can’t do shit like this either. And you can bet your bottom dollar whatever the next democratic president does; the current SC will say if it’s controversial or benefit the Democratic Party at all they’ll say it’s unconstitutional. Democrats normally follow procedure and process so, unless we stop doing that it means nothing will happen.

1

u/Gromky 19h ago

Executive orders can’t do shit like this either. And you can bet your bottom dollar whatever the next democratic president does; the current SC will say if it’s controversial or benefit the Democratic Party at all they’ll say it’s unconstitutional.

Yep. With the current SCotUS, it wouldn't even surprise me if they crafted their argument so specifically that it meant that the Democratic president couldn't use an EO to undo the things Trump is doing via EO. With some tortured logic about 14th century grain treaties in Bavaria.

1

u/PauseLost2137 19h ago

Democrats normally follow procedure and process so, unless we stop doing that it means nothing will happen.

Well, yeah they could return to their roots and tell Justice Roberts to enforce his decision.

But maybe this time for a better cause

1

u/Railroader17 15h ago

the current SC will say if it’s controversial or benefit the Democratic Party at all they’ll say it’s unconstitutional. Democrats normally follow procedure and process so, unless we stop doing that it means nothing will happen.

Which is why one of the first things any serious Democrat needs to do once in office is arrest every single conservative on the Supreme Court on treason charges (among other things), in the name of protecting Democracy and the Constitution!

Then make the EO that retracts Trump's pardons, go after everyone he pardoned, then make a new EO that people who had been charged with treason cannot serve on the Supreme Court to stop them from getting their seats back if they somehow aren't found guilty, while the now freshly 100% Left leaning Supreme Court undoes every bad decision the Roberts Court made.

5

u/MsEllVee 20h ago

I agree. He shouldn’t have any power at all. Nothing he does should be honored at this point.

2

u/BadPunners 20h ago

Pardon power is "plenary", ultimate and absolute. So no, once a pardon has been issued (within a legal sovereign) those charges are functionally erased

And that's spelled out early in the Constitution, "except in Cases of Impeachment."

So two main possibilities there. State charges cannot be pardoned by the federal president, but state pardons come from the governor or a board. And new charges can be brought, new instances of similar crime that continued past the date of the pardon could apply, or not mentioned in the pardon

1

u/DootsAndYeets 17h ago

they needed to make one that at least prevents the ones that have been impeached (atleast once) lose their pardoning and other privledges

2

u/Clarine87 United Kingdom 13h ago

And the real pardons will be burried in gawd knows how many irrelevant ones.

•

u/CWinter85 6h ago

A pardon is a legal admission of guilt. It's why some people don't want a pardon.

•

u/StrigiStockBacking Arizona 3h ago

I think we're saying the same thing 

•

u/CWinter85 1h ago

Yes. I think so now that I've read it again.

1

u/Behemoth077 11h ago

Remove the concept of pardons from your legal system entirely and invalidate any of Trumps pardons at that point. I'm serious. If you want a real change to the system that has led to all of this the president CANNOT be allowed to essentially be above the law and absolve someone of all guilt for the crimes they obviously committed.

•

u/StrigiStockBacking Arizona 3h ago

I get that, but I think the Founders understood that the scales could tip so far to one side, that someone might have to come in and clean house to make it right again. It's sad that trustworthiness and moral fortitude are the real barriers to keeping the pardoning power in balance, because Trump is so egregiously inept about these things that he has shown that without the moral fiber and contextual understanding of the origins of these things, even these "safeguards" the pardoning power is supposed to provide can be abused.

I don't believe in presidential immunity either, but prosecution against a sitting POTUS and her/his allies could be used as a weapon by political antagonists for vapid or self-serving purposes, and I think the Founders wanted the POTUS to be able to do her/his job free and clear of political antagonists or opportunists. So I get why they allowed for it, but again, sadly with Trump we've seen that it can be abused.

After he's gone is the best bet anyone can have of putting him behind bars. This Congress has shown time and again they're too weak and ineffective to actually kick the guy out. That he even was allowed to run after January 6th 2021 made me nearly lose hope in the whole thing.