• Funderpants @lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Yes but now he can be even more explicit about it, put it right in official communications.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      And wasn’t it basically already legal? I don’t think there’s a lot of regulation around it (at least as codified in law, I know in the last few decades presidents deferred to a vetting process through DOJ, but none of that is mandatory).

      • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        The president’s power to pardon federal crimes is not really limited in the constitution except to exclude cases of impeachment. That is generally accepted to mean that the power of the pardon is otherwise nearly unlimited except perhaps that one cannot pardon oneself. There is no specific rule or law against giving a pardon in exchange for payment, though it is clearly considered by most as unethical.

        • Zak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          There is no specific rule or law against giving a pardon in exchange for payment

          Yes there is: 18 USC § 201 (b) (2).

          Granting the pardon isn’t the part that’s illegal; soliciting or receiving the payment in exchange is. The ruling doesn’t change that, but could make the prosecution of that act more difficult in certain edge cases.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Price: your help in overthrowing the American government for me.

    Line forms on the right.

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      4 months ago

      He has stated that he wants to pardon everyone for Jan 6th, and will likely pardon anyone willing to be his militia against the Left/immigrants. The Supreme Court has thrown gas on how fast they are going to be able to go through the whole Project 2025 playbook.

      • neatchee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        4 months ago

        And all the people saying “but the lower courts get to decide if it’s an official act” are ignoring the fact that the courts are so slow it won’t even matter, all the damage will be long done

        • constantokra@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          If it makes you feel any better, with the age of these two candidates and the speed of the courts it’s likely that it didn’t actually matter before the ruling. They’re not exactly consequences if they happen after you’ve died peacefully of old age.

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            4 months ago

            Trump dying before everything hits the fan and resolves would be an unmitigated catastrophe.

            One of the major saving graces about this quite credible attempt by fascistic forces to take over the US is that Trump is at the helm, and he is literally one of the planet’s most incompetent and unlikable humans.

            If the whole machinery gets set up as well as it is right now, and then someone who’s capable of doing more than being the world’s biggest asshole and thief gets in charge of it, then God help us, for real.

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          And they’re also ignoring that every single one of the courts to which the Supreme Court are referring are subordinate to the Supreme Court and may be overruled by the Supreme Court at any point after a case enters the federal court system.

          I’m baffled at how people can completely miss such an obvious progression.

    • kamenLady.@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 months ago

      And Mr. Kiriakou was separately told that Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani could help him secure a pardon for $2 million. Mr. Kiriakou rejected the offer, but an associate, fearing that Mr. Giuliani was illegally selling pardons, alerted the F.B.I. Mr. Giuliani challenged this characterization.

      2021

  • Zak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    A cursory reading of the decision (PDF), and most reporting on it do suggest that it allows the president to sell pardons. Clarity that it does not can be found in a footnote, which reads in part:

    JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” … But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act… What the prosecutor may not do,however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself.

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        This is presumably in reference to a past president, who would not have those powers. The legal issues surrounding prosecuting a sitting president have not been explored, and this ruling does not address them directly as they were not relevant to the case.

        • meleethecat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          But Trump won’t be a past president because he won’t leave office until he’s dead. He’ll never be prosecuted, and he knows it.

          • Zak@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            The risk of something like that happening is not closely connected to anything in the ruling we’re discussing here. If a president manages to hold on to power after losing an election or reaching a term limit, the situation has devolved far beyond ordinary criminal prosecution; the constitution is no longer being enforced at that point.

    • Eyeuhnluuung@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I have a different take and I think the Chief Justice is being intentionally vague here. He references a bribery prosecution but never specifically mentions in the footnote whether he is referring to the issuance of a pardon, which is a core function, and thus entitled to absolute immunity based on the rest of the opinion. It’s also not clear whether he is referring to a prosecution of the briber or the person being bribed.

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Reading Justice Barrett’s partial concurrence, which is what the footnote responds to and also included in the linked ruling addresses your concern. Justice Barrett is unambiguously talking about prosecuting the president for accepting a bribe.

        The federal bribery statute forbids any public official to seek or accept a thing of value “for or because of any official act.” 18 U. S. C. §201©. The Constitution, of course, does not authorize a President to seek or accept bribes, so the Government may prosecute him if he does so.

        • Eyeuhnluuung@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Except a pardon is a core function within the president’s constitutional authority, not just an official act, thus based on the opinion entitled to absolute immunity. The footnote exchange is only referencing official acts (which are entitled to presumptive immunity) not core constitutional functions (like a pardon).

          • Zak@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Accepting a bribe is, however not an official act. It’s the acceptance of the bribe that’s illegal, not the official act itself.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yes please and I bought a really nice house but the neighbors giant sequoia tree keeps dumping debris on my roof tiles. Can we legally cut it or burn it down?