Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Trump Promises Mass Pardons to Staff Before Leaving Office [View all]summer_in_TX
(4,187 posts)44. He can do federal pardons but he cannot pardon himself or anyone else for crimes charged in state courts
States need to get busy with investigating crimes committed in their jurisdiction by Trump or any of his administration and proceed to charging the criminals.
Trump v. United States Didn't Make the President Above the Law. Nothing Ever Has. by Christopher Armitage
Most Americans have come to believe that Donald Trump is effectively above the law because he is the sitting president. Not because they want him to be, but because they think the Supreme Court made it that way. They point to Trump v. United States and say the Court gave him immunity; they point to impeachment and the 25th Amendment and say those are the only two remedies. They've concluded, reasonably but inaccurately that until Congress acts with a supermajority, nothing can touch him. They're wrong. And the people who benefit from that confusion have every reason to keep it going.
[snip ]
The dual sovereignty doctrine, which has been the law of this land since the founders wrote it into the architecture of the republic, gives every state independent authority to prosecute crimes committed within their borders; a presidential pardon cannot touch a state conviction. Congress doesn't have to act. No supermajority is required. If the president commits a crime, a prosecutor with jurisdiction can charge him, and that's how it has always worked.
The founders weren't subtle about why they built it this way. They'd watched a king operate above the law, and they designed a system with two parallel sets of courts, two parallel sets of prosecutors, two parallel sets of criminal codes, and two parallel sets of criminal statutes specifically so no single actor could capture the whole machine. The dual sovereignty doctrine wasn't a legal technicality they left lying around; it was the design. States retain independent authority to prosecute crimes committed within their borders because the founders understood that the day would come when the federal government couldn't be trusted to police itself. That day has a name now. It's today.
[snip ]
The dual sovereignty doctrine, which has been the law of this land since the founders wrote it into the architecture of the republic, gives every state independent authority to prosecute crimes committed within their borders; a presidential pardon cannot touch a state conviction. Congress doesn't have to act. No supermajority is required. If the president commits a crime, a prosecutor with jurisdiction can charge him, and that's how it has always worked.
The founders weren't subtle about why they built it this way. They'd watched a king operate above the law, and they designed a system with two parallel sets of courts, two parallel sets of prosecutors, two parallel sets of criminal codes, and two parallel sets of criminal statutes specifically so no single actor could capture the whole machine. The dual sovereignty doctrine wasn't a legal technicality they left lying around; it was the design. States retain independent authority to prosecute crimes committed within their borders because the founders understood that the day would come when the federal government couldn't be trusted to police itself. That day has a name now. It's today.
The Minnesota county attorney for Minneapolis needs to do more than just CONSIDER filing charges for those who murdered Renee Good and Alex Pretti. There's enough evidence in spite of the Trump regime's stonewalling and non-cooperation. As Armitage points out:
Every judge, every attorney general, every sheriff, every prosecutor who declines to investigate or charge documented criminal conduct because the man committing it is currently president has made a choice. They may not have said the words. But their actions have said them plainly: the president is above the law. That's the only conclusion their inaction supports.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
54 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
While I want him impeached for many things, this isn't one of them, as (so far) actions aren't involved
Polybius
Friday
#26
You can impeach someone for anything if you have the votes, it's like voting someone off the island
Blues Heron
Friday
#31
I'd settle for any infraction, like they got Al Capone on tax charges after all the gangland slayings
Blues Heron
Friday
#37
Which is a pretty open acknowledgement that all of them have been breaking the law on a regular basis. nt
eppur_se_muova
Friday
#7
Yes, but he'll spin it as protection against "malicious prosecution by the Democrat party"
Orrex
Friday
#28
President Biden did some preemptive pardoning for people he knew trump would come after
Bayard
Friday
#42
He can do federal pardons but he cannot pardon himself or anyone else for crimes charged in state courts
summer_in_TX
Yesterday
#44
Such pardoned people called as prosecution witnesses might find it more difficult to plead the 5th...
0rganism
Yesterday
#45