Oh, how SWEET! Trump just made one foppish, loathsome Republican operative's Christmas brighter.

[Miles Archer]

Trump hints he might pardon ‘good person’ Roger Stone of ‘very unfair’ convictions

[dalton99a]

1. Of course.

[Sanity Claws]

2. I think Trump is trying to test whether he can pardon while he is impeached

Legal scholars are saying that an impeached President cannot pardon. See Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.

[underpants]

4. Interesting hadn't heard that

Just looked it up.

[onenote]

8. You hadn't heard it because it isn't true. There is no such restriction on Trump issuing pardons

to convicted felons.

If you don't believe me, then explain how Bill Clinton pardoned over 30 individuals less than week after the House voted to impeach him in December 1998.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clinton-pardons

[underpants]

14. Okay. Thanks. One that I saw on Facebook...

If there’s no conviction in the Senate it negates the first term so he can run twice more. Complete nonsense but those people will believe anything.

[Cosmocat]

16. Yeah, that is conservative fantasy type bs

Nm

[onenote]

5. I don't know of a single 'legal scholar' who thinks a president cannot issue pardons

if they've been impeached but not yet convicted and removed from office.

I'd like to see a link to anyone claiming that who actually went to law school let alone could be considered a "legal scholar."

Of course he can pardon. The Constitutional provision you cite simply means a president cannot relieve someone from the consequences of impeachment through a pardon.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. That makes no sense, and I'd like to know who those "legal scholars" are,

and which law school they flunked out of. An impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment, not a conviction; the president is still the president and maintains all the powers of the office unless and until he's convicted in the Senate. The cited section of the Constitution says: "The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." What this means is that the president can't undo an impeachment with a pardon, not that an impeached president can't pardon.

[Turbineguy]

3. Perry lame really.

Stone wasn't even a war criminal.

[Nictuku]

7. My understanding of the power of the Pardon is

To accept a pardon is an admission of guilt:

"The Supreme Court stated in Burdick v. United States that a pardon carries an "imputation of guilt," and acceptance of a pardon is a confession to such guilt"

So if Stone admits guilt, doesn't that implicate the President as well?

Also, a Pardon can not be used for corrupt intent:

"In addition, granting a pardon in exchange for a witness’s refusal to cooperate with federal or state prosecutors or with other corrupt intent could constitute federal crimes. President Trump could be prosecuted for those offenses after he leaves office if not sooner. For these reasons, the pardon strategy is also ineffective: it expands rather than reduces the legal and political exposure of the president."

[onenote]

9. Stone accepting a pardon would not implicate Trump

His conviction was crimes that did not directly involve Trump: lying to Congress (5 counts), witness tampering (1 count) and obstruction of justice (1 count).

[Nictuku]

11. What did he lie to congress about?

Wasn't it about his connections to WikiLeaks and the 2016 Russia cyber attack on the US?

[onenote]

12. He lied about his contacts with Wikileaks

But Mueller knew about those when he concluded that there wasn't sufficient evidence to find that the campaign conspired with the Russians. Remember, Mueller focused on "conspiracy," which has a settled legal meaning, not on coordination or collusion, which are not legal terms. From Mueller's post-report statement to Congress:

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities...We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not."

[Nictuku]

15. This is a sticking point for me

Mueller's investigation was blocked (obstruction), thus it did not conclude conspiracy. Would it have been able to conclude conspiracy if not for the obstruction?

Seems like that is the burning question that we do not hear from media much.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Another thing - if someone accepts a pardon they are no longer in legal jeopardy,

at least with respect to the crimes for which they were pardoned, and therefore can no longer invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying about matters related to those crimes. So Roger would have to spill the beans to prosecutors, and if he refused or lied he could wind up back in the pokey again.

[not_the_one]

10. That should really piss off Manafort...

n/t