Pelosi Plans Bill to Limit Pardons in Wake of Stone Commutation

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Bloomberg

(Bloomberg) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that in the wake of President Donald Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone’s criminal sentence, she plans to support a bill limiting the ability of presidents to take such actions.

“President Trump’s decision to commute the sentence of top campaign adviser Roger Stone, who could directly implicate him in criminal misconduct, is an act of staggering corruption,” Pelosi said in a statement on Saturday.

Stone had been sentenced to more than three years in prison for witness tampering and lying to Congress. He’d openly lobbied for a pardon or commutation from Trump by touting that he had refused to cooperate with investigators looking into possible wrongdoing by the president.

“Congress will take action to prevent this type of brazen wrongdoing. Legislation is needed to ensure that no president can pardon or commute the sentence of an individual who is engaged in a cover-up campaign to shield that President from criminal prosecution,” Pelosi said.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pelosi-plans-bill-to-limit-pardons-in-wake-of-stone-commutation/ar-BB16Cke4?li=BBnb7Kz

---

It might take a constitutional amendment however Pelosi should pursue this to show who's on board.

[BumRushDaShow]

1. "It might take a constitutional amendment"

Unfortunately it most certainly will!

[still_one]

6. +++

[customerserviceguy]

7. Yes, this is all for show and nothing else

The Speaker should be concentrating on the shape of the next C-19 economic package.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. Technically

a Constitutional Amendment requires both legislation passed by Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures. So one could say that this could be a first step for getting people to think about considering an Amendment.

However also note that the House already passed another COVID-19 related package in May and Turtle promptly stored it in his underground tunnel with the other 400+ pieces of legislation passed by the House.

[customerserviceguy]

13. And the chances of getting it through the Senate?

Nonexistent. Also, simple majorities in the House and Senate are not enough, supermajorities of 2/3rds are required in both legislative bodies. I strongly doubt that the Speaker could muster that kind of a number even in the House.

Face it, we're far too divided of a country to pass a constitutional amendment ever again. The process called for an intense consensus that we'll never be capable of in the future. Consider the fact that in the last fifty years, only two Amendments have met the test, one was to allow eighteen year-olds to vote at a time when we were drafting males of that age to die for nothing in Vietnam, and the other took over two centuries to be ratified after it went through a much, much smaller Congress.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. I pretty much suggested such

when I pointed out about how the "next round" of COVID-19 relief that WAS "shape(d)" by "The Speaker" and passed the House this past May, yet died in the Senate, when you brought this up -

The Speaker should be concentrating on the shape of the next C-19 economic package.

So regardless of the outcome of an Amendment or a COVID-19 relief package or anything else, it behooves that the House not pick up their ball and go home. They should continue to hold hearings, mark up legislation, vote it out of committee and then out of the House chamber if possible, and it goes to the other legislative chamber for consideration... regardless of what it is.

If anything, that effort forms the outline for future legislation, since this year is the end of a 2-year Congressional session and anything not approved by Congress by the end of the year, becomes moot, and they have to start all over.

[lame54]

29. She can do both and the show that you talking about...

Is actual information to the voters
She may not succeed in passing a law
But she can get the info out

[customerserviceguy]

30. If she wants to just talk to the press about it

I can see your point, even though somebody would have to be completely ignorant to not know that Trump has thwarted justice at essentially every occasion he has. But, if this is going to take up legislative time, then it becomes a distraction from things that can actually get done, and need to be accomplished.

[wnylib]

23. Yes it will since the president's

commutation power is constitutional.

But, even if it didn't take an amendment, a bill like this would never pass in the Senate. And even if it did, it would be vetoed by Trump.

So what is Pelosi trying to accomplish?

[bluevoter4life]

25. President has no role in amending the Constitution

Once passed House and Senate, it does not go to the President.

[link:https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution#:~:text=Since%20the%20President%20does%20not,House%20for%20signature%20or%20approval.&text=The%20Governors%20then%20formally%20submit,on%20what%20Congress%20has%20specified.|

[wnylib]

35. I think you misunderstood my post.

I didn't say or suggest that the president has anything to do with an amendment.

I said that if it was possible to remove his power to commute sentences just by passing a bill through the House and Senate, which would require his signature to become law, the Senate would not pass it anyway. And even if they did pass it, I am sure that Trump would not sign such a bill into law. He would use his veto power on such a bill.

But I do not believe it is possible to remove his power of commuting sentences just by passing a bill through both houses of Congress, as is the normal method of creating laws. Instead, I believe it would be necessary to go through the more complicated process of passing an amendment, which has to be ratified by 2/3 of the states as well as by Congress.

I agree that the president has nothing to do with the amendment proccess, only with signing bills into law. But he can and would give his opinion and support or disapproval of whether the states should ratify an amendment, for whatever persuasive value his opinion would have.

[Mr.Bill]

26. The ability to use it

as a campaign tool against anyone who voted against it.

[wnylib]

36. That might work. I just wonder if it is

worth the effort. But, I trust that Pelosi has good political instincts about strategies.

[former9thward]

43. Really?

Then she would have to explain the Clinton and Obama pardons. I don't think that would work.

[Mr.Bill]

44. I think it's a little different when

you have to pardon people on your staff.

[Igel]

45. That's the state of affairs.

She's signaling.

Not a whole lot more.

To get a bill passed in a divided government requires compromise. It means that not just one side is on board, but enough of each side is on board. Compromise is a mortal, not venal, sin.

Better to signal and not compromise--because maybe that'll help make sure that one party rules.

One party rule with no compromise. It's the holy grail for some.

Many think that power corrupts, but absolute power enlightens.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. I'm not sure that's Constitutionally possible, but at least this will draw attention

to what Trump was up to. They might be able to come up with a bill that doesn't try to prevent a pardon but that places some specific requirements on the pardonee, such as a public confession to the specifics of the crime for which they were pardoned.

[csziggy]

49. I would love to see a specification that a person who has been pardoned

MUST appear if requested by a Congressional inquiry and MUST answer the questions. After all, once they have been pardoned, they are no longer able to incriminate themselves so the Fifth does not apply. Eliminate their protection by executive privilege - the country needs to know if the President was implicated by the crimes of the person they pardoned.

This would not effect the pardon capability in the Constitution but it would do away with rewarding co-conspirators by pardoning them for crimes they committed while helping the President. Think of the people over the last fifty years that have been pardoned for presidential sanctioned crimes - every damn one of them Republican criminals for Republican presidents.

[AnnaLee]

3. A bill isn't going to "trump" the constitution.

[LudwigPastorius]

5. This is a symbolic gesture.

Such a bill would never get past the Senate, or if it did, a Trump veto, or if it did a Supreme Court ruling on its constitutionality.

I get it, though. It's an election year.

[hlthe2b]

8. Exactly... I like the sentiment, but this isn't going to bring the change needed

Now, prosecuting Trump/Barr/Stone for bribery post-Presidency would send a signal and future deterrence. Outside of that, we need a constitutional amendment.

[zipplewrath]

11. I gotta stop drinking

I'm seeing double.

[LudwigPastorius]

19. Double, you say?

Double, you say?

[jalan48]

9. Sounds good.

[mpcamb]

41. Atta way, Nancy!

[katmondoo]

12. Just talking about it brings it to attention of the people.

[jayfish]

15. Or, When It Fails Miserably In The Senate Or

gets a 9-0 decision against it by SCOTUS, Trump can strut around cackling about yet another vindication. This is a bad idea.

[Delmette2.0]

34. And it shows Trumps bias.

45 is just prote ting himself, admitting his own guilt.

[Lock him up.]

17. RICO is the remedy for the criminals in the White House.

It's already available Nancy. All it takes is one Brave Prosecutor with experience in that matter.


MAKE JUSTICE GREAT AGAIN
RICO TRUMPs & ACCOMPLICES
THEN LOCK 'EM ALL UP!*&1%!1!!

[jmowreader]

18. I believe you could get a Constitutional Amendment to limit pardon power through pretty easily

Every president has signed pardons that the other party didn't like. We could sell this to the GOP as a way to prevent "another Marc Rich" from happening.

[cstanleytech]

20. A bill would not work you would need an amendment to the Constitution and considering Trump is

perverting the usage of the pardon power in ways the founders would probably not agree with I think we can get the support to pass such an amendment.

[Dios Mio]

21. Does it matter?

[rickyhall]

22. Limit pardons to presidents who haven't been impeached.

[Captain Zero]

24. Yes this. This is it.

NT

[NYC Liberal]

31. Bad idea because impeachment only takes a majority vote of one chamber.

Every Democratic president would be impeached as a matter of routine if Repugs controlled the House and then they’d lose the pardon power for the rest of their term.

I’d rather have Congress be able to overturn a specific pardon with a 2/3 vote of each house.

[Mr.Bill]

27. I don't want to eliminate the pardon power

because injustice does happen and sometimes needs to be reversed.

I would propose a constitutional amendment that would require that a pardon needs a unanimous vote of the Supreme Court.

[Karadeniz]

28. Could the conditions be legislated? I read that the purpose of the prez pardon was to correct a

Situation adversely affecting the general public. None of Trump's use falls under that. His are all aimed at his political supporters.

[NYC Liberal]

32. No the pardon power is unlimited (except it's only for cases of federal crimes)

Obviously the intent was that it would be used wisely but there’s no actual language in the constitution that limits it.

[JCMach1]

33. how about a broad amendment that eliminates all sorts of corruption and ends Citizens United

[mountain grammy]

37. Doubtful this will happen

but good to call attention to the colossal destruction of the rule of law that's going on here .

[bucolic_frolic]

38. There is a line of thought that Trump has pardoned a co-conspirator

so he has actually pardoned himself. The Constitution does not give the President power to pardon himself. Don't know who could do anything with it, but it's a nasty situation.

[tritsofme]

39. Whether or not a president pardon himself is not a settled matter.

This is a big stretch.

[Calista241]

46. The Constitution says that the President cannot use a pardon to prevent impeachment.

All other uses, including a January pardon of himself and his family, are not prohibited by the Constitution. Since it’s not expressly prohibited, lower courts will probably punt on the subject until the Supreme Court weighs in.

Trump will probably be long dead by the time this issue is resolved.

[bucolic_frolic]

47. Watergate era DOJ memo

says the president cannot pardon himself. But once he resigns his VP now president can pardon him.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/07/25/the-pardon-power-and-original-intent/

Impeachment, in other words, can start, not when the President has been formally charged with a crime; he can be impeached if there are “grounds to believe” that he might “shelter,” that is to say, protect with a pardon, someone with whom he is connected “in any suspicious manner.”

[Calista241]

48. That's an untested DOJ opinion memo, and Trump can revise, follow, or ignore that any time he wants.

[madville]

40. Everyone assumes Democrats will hold power forever after Trump

I remember when Republicans were "done" after the 1992 election. I remember when they were "finished" after the 2006 and 2008 elections. They come back like cockroaches once Democrats achieve power and then turnout on our side plummets.

Removing powers just because your opposition is in wielding them at the moment is a double edged sword as always.

Of course Congress can't limit Presidential pardon power with just legislation regardless so its all just for show.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

42. It'd take an amendment, but many states have analogous rules

Another idea I'd like to see adopted possibly is having the SCOTUS, not the President, appoint the AG.