Conservative groups influential with the Trump administration have pressed for the preemptive acts of clemency.

There’s a world of difference between a pardon issues to prevent malicious prosecution for non-crimew and one issued to people you’ve been instructing to commit crimes

  • Manjushri@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 days ago

    I agree with you but changing the president’s ability to pardon crimes, an absurdly broad power, would require an amendment to the Constitution. I’m afraid that do so is a political impossibility right now. There are frankly too many criminals in office at all levels of government that would do everything they can to impede any such attempt. Trump has already pardoned his followers who betrayed the Constitution and committed treason on Jan-6 and I’ve heard only a peep or two about trying to limit the president’s power of clemency.

    • obvs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      So what you’re saying is that you can’t think of any solution that doesn’t include violence?

      • Manjushri@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        Where did I suggest violence would work? I agreed that I felt the power of the pardon was too broad and said that I don’t see a viable solution. That doesn’t equal burn everything down.

        • obvs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 days ago

          What is the second solution?

          If there is a huge problem that has no solution within the law, that means the problem will not be solved while the law is in place.

          So what is the second solution?

          • Manjushri@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 days ago

            You are putting words in my mouth. I never suggested there was a “second solution” that I was advocating for. I specifically said I agreed with the other poster that the power of the pardon was too broad but the Constitution cannot be changed in the current political climate. How does that equate to me advocating violence?