Social Question

JLeslie's avatar

Do you care if Trump never gets punished?

Asked by JLeslie (60125points) 1 month ago

A lot of people are speculating about Trump pardoning himself. Let’s say he can do it, and let’s say the states can’t convict him on anything, Let’s also assume you are in the camp that Trump has done some illegal maneuvers, will it bother you that he is never punished?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

100 Answers

jca2's avatar

I would like to see him punished if it’s proven that he committed a crime or crimes.

However, if he’s not punished, I think his losing the election and the resulting humiliation is punishment for him, too.

Darth_Algar's avatar

I find it remarkable that Trump is talking about pardoning himself when he has yet to even be charged with any crime. A surer statement of “I’m guilty” I’ve never seen. Once again the orange imbecile betrays himself by his compulsion of letting his mouth spew without thinking first.

stanleybmanly's avatar

His problem is that he cannot pardon himself NOW from the rain of shit to fall on him the moment he leaves office. He knows what’s coming, and despite his notorious failures of perception, even he sees the angry clouds looming and appreciates the implications of his being compelled to face them naked and unshielded. He has insulted, persecuted and savaged so many so frequently that the upcoming retribution is terrifying to contemplate. I don’t envy him.

cookieman's avatar

I’m a simple cookieman. I just want him to go away and disappear from my news feed forever.

Punished, not punished. Convicted, not convicted. I’ll let the universe sort that one out.

Hamb's avatar

For what?

chyna's avatar

If I never have to see his face or hear his name or voice again, and that of his kids, then it would be fine with me if he never faced punishment.
@Hamb trump is the one wanting to pardon himself. Who knows what crimes he has committed to warrant a pardon?

LostInParadise's avatar

It is not so much wanting to see him punished as wanting to see him convicted of any crimes he may have committed. That way, when he talks about criminals, he can be answered with, oh you mean people like yourself. Does getting a pardon mean that you can’t be tried, or just that you can’t be punished?

jca2's avatar

@LostInParadise: I think the pardon would come after the trial and therefore, after the conviction.

JLeslie's avatar

@jca2 I don’t know. People seem to be saying pardons can happen before a conviction, which is odd to me, but that’s what I’m reading.

elbanditoroso's avatar

I would like him to be, but it really doesn’t matter.

History books will record him as a failure, a buffoon, and one of the worst leaders ever in the US. That’s good enough for me.

jca2's avatar

@JLeslie: I don’t understand, and I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t understand how he could pardon himself without a charge to pardon.

JLeslie's avatar

@jca2 I don’t either. Maybe they mean he can pardon himself before the conviction but not before charges are brought?

Smashley's avatar

I think it’s justice that Trumps grave will have to be behind unscalable steel fences or literally in space, or it will become the pissing pilgrimage of the people for centuries. Even in space, actually, someone would find a way.

ragingloli's avatar

With half the country still yearning for the reemergence of the south, fantasising about confederate glory and wallowing in their fantasy about the “war of northern aggression”, being in denial about slavery and racism being at the very core of the secession, because you never had the equivalent of the nuremberg trials and subsequent denazification, and placing emphasis in history education that the south was criminal and evil, you know that drumpf and his minions have to not only be punished, but that the public must be forcefully educated on the fact that he and his accomplices were criminals that brought the country to the verge of autocratic tyranny. That of course includes his massive lie that the election was rigged, and that Biden only won through massive fraud.
Otherwise he and those that follow and succeed him will only feel emboldened to continue this death spiral into the abyss.

ragingloli's avatar

To quote the DS9 Episode “Duet”:

MARRITZA: No, don’t you see? I have to be punished. We all have to be punished. Major, you have to go out and tell them I’m Gul Darhe’el. It’s the only way.
KIRA: Why are you doing this?
MARRITZA: For Cardassia. Cardassia will only survive if it stands in front of Bajor and admits the truth. My trial will force Cardassia to acknowledge its guilt. And we’re guilty, all of us. My death is necessary.

zenvelo's avatar

I want to see him punished two ways:

1. Have his property seized for all his financial crimes, including accepting bribes for pardons and violations of the emoluments clause.

2. Mandated public shunning, if convicted of a felony have his first amendment rights taken away, no access to any social media, no mention on TV, radio, internet, or in the papers.

jca2's avatar

@JLeslie: Yeah, so if he’s not charged prior to leaving office, he couldn’t pardon himself.

Smashley's avatar

@jca2 – Nixon was pardoned preemptively, Trump could be too.

gondwanalon's avatar

Yes Trump should be locked up for beating Clinton in 2016.

jca2's avatar

@Smashley: My attitude toward this is that at this point, I’m not into stressing over things Trump does, especially if it’s hypothetical. I feel like he’s held on to many people’s attention for far too long. Good riddance to him.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Not more than anyone else. Most of the elite politicians get away with anything and always have. Money can buy you freedom regardless of the ethics involved, as we’ve seen innumerable times.

kritiper's avatar

Just being Trump should be punishment enough. History will judge him!

kritiper's avatar

@Smashley Posthumously, possibly.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@Smashley…Nixon was not pardoned preemptively. He was charged with his crimes, impeached and then he resigned. After Ford was installed as president, HE pardoned Nixon.
Nothing preemptive about that.

jca2's avatar

@Smashley: Here’s the wiki link about the Ford pardon of Nixon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

The greatest punishment for Trump will be irrelevance.

elbanditoroso's avatar

And the court case the Ford quoted is interesting too:
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that:

- A pardoned person must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court.

- To do this, the pardoned person must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject
.
The implication above is that Trump has to have been in court, in a proceeding, to be pardoned.

*Worse yet from Trump:*The Supreme Court ruled that, as a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance carries a confession,

And finally – after President Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, intimates said that the President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision which stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt.

So by pardoning himself or others. Trump is admitting his guilt. How about them apples!

SQUEEKY2's avatar

It would be nice, but wealthy people seldom get punished for their crimes,if he gets out of politics for the rest of his life I would be ok with that.

Dutchess_III's avatar

He needs to be held responsible as an example to others who may think they can get away with the same shit.

Hamb's avatar

What are we talking about exactly?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

There was an Obstruction charge from the mueller report he could face.
There is a few tax evasion laws he could face.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I would care. And not as a matter of vindication or punishment. It is simply that it is a bad idea to allow so glaring an invalidation of the precept that “crime doesn’t pay” to be flaunted in the face of those with similar ambitions.

Dutchess_III's avatar

^^^^YA! What he so eloquently said.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Not to mention numerous sex abuse cases to be heard.

seawulf575's avatar

Punished for what? Kinda hard to answer without details here.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Read seawulf575. Read. Research.

Smashley's avatar

@Dutchess_III – wrong, wrong, wrong, again! Nixon was not impeached, nor was he charged with any crimes. Read something at least, before you come at me like that. Whether a President can pardon themselves is untested, but that is different that the untruth you wrote.

jca2's avatar

Impeachment began against Nixon but it became moot when he resigned.

JLeslie's avatar

@jca2 Thanks for the link about Nixon. So, Trump, if he can pardon himself, or if he pardons his children, can he just say any crime while he was president? Can he say any crime at all up until that point when he leaves office? Covering them all through anything they have done in their life up until January 20th?

jca2's avatar

On the news, they were talking about it and it’s called “preemptive pardon.”

JLeslie's avatar

@jca2 I meant does he need to specify the type of crime, or can he just do a blanket pardon; all crimes.

jca2's avatar

According to the news, it doesn’t have to be specified, because of course he doesn’t know what he will be charged with.

JLeslie's avatar

He should do it. Why wouldn’t he? It would be crazy not to protect oneself and his children if he has the opportunity. He’s right that some people are on a witch hunt. I think it’s also right that it will mean he gets away with having done illegal things. He still has NYS to deal with and it won’t protect him going forward right? If he evades federal taxes in 2021 he can’t protect himself from that can he?

chyna's avatar

I disagree. He should NOT be able to blanket pardon himself and his family for unknown crimes. What if he has committed treason? Hell even murder!

JLeslie's avatar

@chyna I don’t think he should be able to, I’m saying if he can why wouldn’t he?

If he can maybe we need to change that for the future.

I do think it’s treasonous how he has encouraged QAnon and other alt-right groups. They are anarchists in my opinion.

Dutchess_III's avatar

The House Judiciary Committee then approved articles of impeachment against Nixon for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. With his complicity in the cover-up made public and his political support completely eroded, Nixon resigned from office on August 9, 1974.”

Pandora's avatar

Honestly, I care because absolutely no President should be above the law and should ever act as judge and jury for himself. Pardon powers were to undo wrong “convictions”. Meaning the person was already found guilty. Which to me means that our forefathers were not thinking that the President of the United States gets to suddenly act as if he is a Judge and pardon people for stuff they haven’t even been found guilty of. The Pardon powers are for when the system fails to do the correct thing or is overly harsh. Meaning the person already had their trial. It’s not suppose to replace our judicial system. And also, it is supposed to go through a whole lot of other people first who are at least lawyers who can see why or why not a person needs to be pardon. It isn’t meant to be a family and friends and myself get out of trouble card. Plus I thought you have to at least mention in the pardon what the person did that was illegal. You can’t give a broad pardon without a reason for the pardon. Like please forgive Mr or mrs x for any and all crimes committed from year 2000 to 2020.
So maybe it will be worth not getting him if it give us no future Trumps.

Dutchess_III's avatar

This one reaches all the way back to his 2017 inauguration!
We’ve only just begun….

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III Read…READ! What you are all blathering on about is that people are using innuendo for a thousand things. Even your last link shows nothing but a witch hunt in search of a crime. Here’s a thought for you…There is no proof. Take the answer you lefties give when someone talks about voter fraud…There is no proof of that!!!! Now apply that answer to every single “investigation” into Trump. Even the DA of SDNY is on a hunt. He wants to see if he can find something. He doesn’t actually have a crime he is investigating, he is searching for something. The same thing with your last link. Think about it. If Trump misused inauguration funds, there will be a paper trail. It is impossible to misuse funds without a trail.
The PROOF would be that paper trail. But they are “deposing” people to see if they can find anything to use. BTW, when they are “deposing” people…that’s the same as someone giving an affidavit…like the dozens on voter fraud in this last election. The ones you all seem to want to discount as not being proof.

Dutchess_III's avatar

SMH. You cultists will be screaming “Witch hunt!” even after he’s found guilty and jailed!

seawulf575's avatar

So….you have no proof. Just innuendo and people digging for dirt. Where is the proof? That’s why my answer was a question of being punished for what? There are a lot of people “claiming” all sorts of things, but most, if not all, of those are nothing but TDS gone crazy.

Nomore_lockout's avatar

Oh absolutely! Not like the rock solid evidence you guys had on Obama being born in Kenya, Hillary being involved in child sex trafficking, and a dozen other right wing whack job theories.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Proof of what? Sexual assault? Like he isn’t on record bragging that he just grabs women by the pussy and kisses them without asking. Wake up. That is sexual assault.
Oh. You forgot about that, huh.

Nomore_lockout's avatar

They have a tendency to do that, Dutchy.

Smashley's avatar

@Dutchess_III – exactly, he was not impeached, which would have required a vote of the full House, because his resignation made it moot. Then he was pardoned before he could be charged with any crimes after he left office. That is a preemptive pardon.

Dutchess_III's avatar

He was charged with “1) obstruction of justice in attempting to impede the investigation of the Watergate break-in, protect those responsible, and conceal the existence of other illegal activities; 2) abuse of power by using the office of the presidency on multiple occasions, dating back to the first year of his administration (1969), to unlawfully use federal agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as establishing a covert White House special investigative unit, to violate the constitutional rights of citizens and interfere with lawful investigations; and 3) contempt of Congress by refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas.[2]

Smashley's avatar

@Dutchess_III

Those are articles of impeachment, not “charges”. They were not voted on by the house, so impeachment did not happen. Subsequent criminal charges for his actions were preempted by Fords pardon.

jca2's avatar

@Dutchess_III @Smashley: If you guys read the Wiki link I provided above, it explains everything clearly.

Smashley's avatar

@jca2 – I think we’re on the same page, you and me. I definitely did reread the wiki, because it had been a while, thanks. Care to take a side because clearly English is not being interpreted the same way by all parties?

I say Nixon was not impeached and that he got a preemptive pardon from Ford before any criminal charges could be filed.

She says he was impeached, and charged with crimes, and Fords pardon got him out, and was not preemptive.

I don’t think we’re going to get an admission of error, but y’never know!

jca2's avatar

In July 1974, articles of impeachment against Nixon for his role in the Watergate scandal were approved by the House Judiciary Committee, but the president would resign before the House could actually vote to impeach him. – source: Mentalfloss.com

@Smashley: Yes, you and I agree! Charges were brought, but he was not impeached because he resigned before he could be impeached.

Dutchess_III's avatar

but charges, specific charges, were brought.
I don’t know of any charges actually pending against trump.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III tacky talk is not a crime. That is innuendo on your part. See where the difference is? Or is actual evidence of a crime a concept beyond your measure?

seawulf575's avatar

@Nomore_lockout that sounds amazingly like a whataboutism. Whatabout you guys?!? Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout. The question isn’t about Obama or Hillary and their sketchy pasts. It is about crimes Trump has committed. Not hinted at committed, not suspected of committed, not committed because MSNBC or CNN say it may have happened….Actually committed. And as far as I know, there are none. At least none with actual evidence. The fact you are trying to change the subject tells me you don’t know of any actual charges with actual evidence that are being tried right now.

Nomore_lockout's avatar

“Obama or Hillary and their sketchy pasts”. Uh, you were saying?

chyna's avatar

Didn’t Hillary run that prostitution ring out of a pizza parlor?

ragingloli's avatar

His “charity” was forced to close after the courts found that it was a fraud.
The Müller Report showed several instances of obstruction of justice, and during the hearing, Müller said that drumpf could be prosecuted after he leaves office.
He extorted Ukraine to get them to interfere in the election.
There was enough evidence for him to be impeached. Even some republicans admitted that his guilt was proven.

zenvelo's avatar

@seawulf575 No charges have been filed nor indictments made because on cannot charge a sitting President. The SCOTUS Affirmed that for state courts back when Arkansas wanted to disbar Clinton while he was in office.

And, the DOJ will not charge a president while he or she is in office. But afternoon on January 20, charges against Trump can be filed. And there is a lot of evidence against him.

Dutchess_III's avatar

No no no. Hillary fed kids pizza then trafficker them.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Republicans are guilty of whataboutism or whataboutery all the time. What about HIllary? What about Obama? I still hear it to this day. Meanwhile Hillary is home on her couch in Chappaqua and Obama is writing best sellers.

seawulf575's avatar

@zenvelo what evidence?

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Take a look. Those articles are about inquiries…not charges pending. The DA of SDNY is fishing. He wants to get all of Trump’s tax returns so he can see if there is anything there. That is FAR different than actual proof. That is how the left has started doing things in the legal system, though. Make an accusation and treat it like fact and then use it to search for anything they can use as a crime. Take a look at the Russia Collusion or the impeachment. Both were based on complete lies and were used to try finding anything that could be used against Trump.

LostInParadise's avatar

The impeachment was not based on a lie. The evidence was quite clear. Why won’ Trump release his tax returns like other presidents? Looking at tax returns is no witch hunt.

Dutchess_III's avatar

BECAUSE THEY CAN’T CHARGE A SITTING PRESIDENT!!

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise The impeachment was based on a lie. The “inquiry” started with a whistleblower complaint that was 3rd hand information and was not accurate in any way, shape or form. If President Trump had done what the whistleblower said he had done, that might have been impeachable. It would have been sleazy at the very least. But the transcript of the phone call showed the entire complaint was a lie. And even after it was shown to be a lie, Schiff continued to try making it the official narrative for the inquiry. Funny thing though…he was all hot to trot to bring out the whistleblower to testify until the transcript was released. Then he suddenly wanted the whistleblower to be kept completely anonymous. Another shady dealing. So yes, the impeachment was based on a lie. There was no quid pro quo. There was no coercion. There was nothing at all. Even the evidence was all hearsay and opinion. They brought in former ambassador Yovanovich to testify and she had absolutely no information at all. She never met President Trump, was not part of the phone call, had no knowledge at all of anything. Her testimony has no legal value at all. Picture a murder trial. Someone is killed in their house. And the prosecutor brings in a former owner of the house to testify on the events of the murder. Think that would be valuable testimony? Well to the Dems, it would be apparently. The charges were, in fact, not crimes at all. You cannot find a single statute anywhere that tells you that Contempt of Congress or Abuse of Power are crimes. And for a sitting president to be charged with “Contempt of Congress” is an extremely sketchy thing. If that was an actual crime, then vetoing a bill could be seen as contempt of congress since you didn’t do what they wanted you to do.
As for his tax returns, I will ask you again…what crime is being committed by not releasing them? He is under no obligation to release them. There is no rule saying he has to release them. There is nothing. He can choose to release them or not. What other presidents have done is insignificant. And to look at them might have some prosecutorial benefit if you are looking for a specific piece of evidence. In the case of SDNY, they want to find if President Trump claimed a payment to Stormy Daniels on his taxes. But the odd part is that they know from her testimony when that payment was made. Yet they are trying to get something like 10 years worth of tax returns to look for this payment. Why? It IS a witch hunt at that point. You can’t say you need those tax returns for anything to do with the Stormy Daniels. But the SDNY DA is claiming that is what it is for.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III No, you impeach a sitting president. And if there is a crime, you should have an easy time with it. When the Dems in the House impeached President Trump, did they do it for sexual assault? No. Did they do it for Tax Evasion? No. Did they do it for really any crime? No. They created things that are not crimes at all and impeached him on those, using “evidence” that would have been thrown out of any normal trial in the country. It was “evidence” that you might expect to find in a kangaroo court in some banana republic, third world nation. So if there is no evidence to actually charge him with a crime for impeachment, why do you really believe there is evidence to charge him when he is out of office?

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Regarding NY, they are making inquiries, yes. It’s called investigating and building a case. When there’s a murder investigation, do they just do charges? No, they bring people in and talk to them, and gather evidence, then they charge someone with a crime. They investigate some more in anticipation of the court case, and then there’s the court case (unless the person pleads guilty first). So that’s what is happening in NY. They’re investigating. I never said there were charges yet.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@jca2 There is no debating with Wulfie he is always right, and anything democrat is always wrong we just have to accept that, and remember he is just defending his poor little orange haired god, who was there for good of everyone(especially the super rich).

Darth_Algar's avatar

It’s not just NY ether. Scotland may soon be looking into Trump’s financial dealings as well.

Dutchess_III's avatar

He should have never run for president.

Nomore_lockout's avatar

He should have been run out of town on a rail.

Nomore_lockout's avatar

After being tarred and feathered.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I mean he really f’d up his life running for president. If he’d just sat in his penthouse with his hooker wife and kept running his scams and affairs, protected by attorneys, he wouldn’t be in the hot water he’s in.

Nomore_lockout's avatar

True that Dutchy. He had all the money he could possibly need in 100 lifetimes. So why dabble in politics? He could probably buy and sell any politician in the country. And probably has.

stanleybmanly's avatar

He’s been successfully run out of New York. My guess is that he is going to be doing some “extensive” traveling to keep ahead of the lawsuits and subpoenas. I hope those he has wronged manage to pick him clean.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Thank you…they are doing inquiries and trying to build a case. Take your murder case as a perfect example. Do they arrest someone just because someone else says they don’t like them and they probably did it? No. Is that evidence? No. Is it proof? No. And if, while they are doing their investigation, they come up with no real evidence, then there are no charges. Let’s say a woman is murdered and the cops think the husband did it. So they focus on it and focus on it but finally have to admit that his alibi of being at the bar with friends is pretty air tight and he couldn’t have been at his house killing his wife. There is no proof…no evidence. Just because there was an inquiry doesn’t mean the husband did the crime. There is no evidence of it. This is pretty much where SDNY is with the Trump dealings. So with no charges, how can Trump be punished? The original question of this thread is idiotic at its core.
Face it…all you on the left have is irrational hatred of Trump. You have lots of hopes for his demise, you have lots of allegations and hinted crimes that have no basis in facts, and there are no crimes at this point for him to be punished for. The original question involved him pardoning himself…another leftist sky-is-falling worry. Pardoning himself for what? There needs to be a crime and there are none.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Just as with your prediction of covid news vanishing after November 4, well wishes regarding Trump’s future are about as viable as the chances of the courts concurring with his take on the election. And speaking of the courts: following Biden’s inauguration, the fool won’t make it across the White House lawn to Marine 1 without being showered with indictments and subpoenas. The avalanche of legal difficulties awaiting our soon to be naked dumbbell is beyond frightening. Here’s hoping the yokels who believe in him will finance the obnoxious dummy’s upcoming monstrous legal expenses.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575 As I said to you on another thread, only time will tell.

They’re investigating. Only time will tell what they come up with.

I saw today on the news that friends of Trump say he will likely leave the country after January 20th. That means he thinks he’s guilty and if he’s in another country, he’s harder to get.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Poor Baron.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I wonder if the marriage will end.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Dutchess_III

I would not doubt for a moment that Melanoma already has the divorce papers drawn up and is just waiting for the opportune moment to have her lawyer file them.

jca2's avatar

Trump will be in exile like Roman Polansky was.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

How is he going to be in exile while making a bid for 2024?

jca2's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 He’ll set up a news network like Breitbart or Bloomberg News where he can put out his lies and keep his Trumpers happy with all Trump, all the time.

Nomore_lockout's avatar

But it will be “Fair and Balanced”, just like Fox.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Yes, they are investigating. They are fishing. They are trying to create something. Just like they did with Russian Collusion. And just like that, they are basically doomed to failure…for the exact same reason.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Let’s see. Only time will tell.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther