What Trump's Pardons Tell Us About Him

1. 87

   crankaliciousposted 4 years ago

   First of all, every President pardons people and many have made very questionable decisions with regard to pardons. However, Trump's most recent pardons are pretty interesting and, generally, unnecessary in my view.
   
   We can assume that Trump believes he's righting injustices, so what does he believes are injustices? Clearly, white collar crime is one. He doesn't seem to think that fraud is much of a crime or doesn't deserve much punishment. Here were some of his pardons:
   
   Rod Blagojevich - convicted of trying to sell a Senate seat
   Bernard Kerik - tax fraud
   Michael Milkin - securities violations
   Eddie de Bartolo Jr. - hiding an extortion attempt
   
   What this shows is a disdain for these types of crimes. It also undoes a lot of work by the Justice Department. I think it just generally shows Trump's disdain for the rule of law.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      He sees himself in these people.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I definitely think that is true. He feels he is a victim of this type of aggressive prosecution. The Blagojevich pardon is particularly strange.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Not at all, Crank. We don't know how much Trump was paid to pardon these scoundrels. Another quid pro quo, no doubt!

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds like all of the crimes Trump has got away with. Sympacato, eh?

      replyreport
      1. 87

         crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I don’t think he believes any of them committed a serious crime and they are all victims of excessive sentencing.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Indeed, he is delusional, no doubt! But then, so are his enablers.

            replyreport
   3. 78

      Eastwardposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It seems he's just trying to further push the point that white collar criminals should be above the law.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I think it supports the idea that Trump believe anything goes in business and that if you're smart enough to game the system, it's not a crime.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Eastwardposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I could buy that he believes that. Anything is fair game and whether it's considered a crime or not is irrelevant if you can get away with it (whether it's business or government).

            replyreport
         2. 84

            GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            ". . .  if you're smart enough to game the system, it's not a crime."
            
            Amen.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 87

               crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Curious what you think of those pardons, GA.
               
               The thing is, those were crimes. I don't think Trump believes they should be prosecuted.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I didn't like the Blagojevich commutation, but that is the only one I know anything about. However, I am undecided if 8 years served is a fair penalty or if 14 years is too harsh—relative to historical-comparative sentencing for similar crimes of others. That is too much work for the level of interest I have.
                  
                  To go further would require comparisons to past presidents' actions and the process of deciding what names get presented to a president for consideration.
                  
                  For instance; I doubt Pres. Trump knew anything about the woman who's house was used as a stash house by her boyfriend. So how did she get on the approved list? Some of the others are easier to see as being connected to powerful people and powerful motives, but I still have the question of which ones were presented to him and which ones did he initiate.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     The guy who sold the junk bonds is friends with Jarrod and Ivanka, if that's important to know.

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Yeah, that one would probably fall into the "powerful people and powerful motives" basket.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           I think most of his pardons are for people who either donated money to his campaign or was friends of friends. No surprise to me at all, but definitely unethical.

                           replyreport
   4. 89

      Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Not sure what is in Trump's head in regard to the individual pardons he has made. He could feel he is righting injustices or that they paid their debt to society for a non-violent crime. We can only assume.
      
      It does seem to show the is willing to look the other way when it comes to non-violent crimes.  Just a thought, how would you feel if he was more inclined to release persons that had committed violent criminal or drug-related crimes? You know where I am headed with my inquiry, but let's not go there.  Would you rather he be releasing those that committed violent crimes?
      
      https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog … he-ignored

      replyreport
      1. 87

         crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I have no problem releasing people for non-violent, drug-related crimes if the circumstances warrant it. I do have a problem releasing those imprisoned for violent crime.

         replyreport
      2. 89

         IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Only he did, both (released "persons that had committed violent criminal or drug-related crimes").

         replyreport
         1. 89

            Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I stand corrected he did pardon several 3 Military persons that were charged with murder  2 while serving in Afghanistan, one while serving in Iraq, and it appears he also pardoned a couple persons that were serving time for drug-related crimes that sentences were very steep.
            
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p … nald_Trump
            
            I was actually just making an attempt to point out Trump seems to lean toward releasing persons that committed a white-collar crime.

            replyreport
2. 79

   emgeposted 4 years ago

   The President has certain powers guaranteed by law. He has the right to exercise them. If people start questioning his judgment then the only solution is to take away that power from the President. So? where do we go from here?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see why the POTUS has such powers. Can anyone explain why he should be able to pardon his friends who were righteously convicted? Where do we find such privileges in the Constitution? No one of us common citizens have this power. Why should anyone else? This needs to be addressed.

      replyreport
3. 94

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   Again the hypocrisy, Obama pardoned everyone from terrorists to traitors and NO media coverage.  The media didn't care.  Again, the double standards are so evident. 
   
   Obama Pardoned Terrorists & Traitors, But Orange Man Bad?
   
   "Barack Obama commuted the sentence of Bradley Manning (you may also know him as Chelsea), who leaked hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to WikiLeaks. A traitor in every sense, in 2013 Manning was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison. But, Bradley Manning became a hero of the political left for declaring himself to be transgender, and Obama made his controversial commutation days before leaving office.
   
   Obama also commuted the sentence of convicted terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera. Lopez Rivera was a leader of the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña (FALN), a Puerto Rican terrorist group responsible for 130 attacks in the United States, and at least six deaths. An unrepentant Lopez-Rivera was serving a 70-year sentence when Obama set him free.
   
   Obama also granted clemency to hundreds of drug offenders he claimed were non-violent offenders who deserved a second chance, because of racism or something. It later came out that many of the people he released were actually violent offenders guilty of gun crimes. Obama granted more acts of clemency than any president since Truman, though he saved much of that executive use of power for the latter months and days of his presidency."

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That's really the point. Any presidential pardon is controversial.
      
      Why Trump's seem horrible is evidence of bias on the part of the person complaining.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I agree.  Pardoning traitors and terrorists should speak volumes.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Great. What do Trump’s pardons say about him? Many of Obama’s were unnecessary and wrong too.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I think it says he's pretty much like every other person who has ever held the office of president.  Unfortunately, when he does what other presidents have done without much attention, he is raked over the coals for it.  Again, hypocrisy and double standards.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't remember which other POTUS extorted another ally during a time of war for his own personal use, Mike? Refresh my memory?

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     You don't know any POTUS that did that.  Although you will cry out that your opinions and bias prove the truth of your statement, they and your opinion are both false to fact.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        17 honorable witnesses attested to it. A known habitual liar  said they were all wrong. Do you believe the habitual liar over witnesses who had no reason to lie? Of course you do!

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           No they didn't - that is a flat out lie.  They testified that they assumed, or presumed it.  Listen better and you might learn.  I suspect it won't change your mind, but you might learn something.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              Why did they assume it, Dan? They were only hired for their assumptions and opinions to begin with. So why did they assume or presume it happened?
                              
                              Again, do you believe the habitual liar over  these honorable people? Seriously?

                              replyreport
                              1. 87

                                 crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 When 100 people see or hear something and testify to that fact and 1 person says something else, who do you believe? Generally?

                                 replyreport
                              2. 95

                                 wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 Well, unlike you I cannot read minds, so I will only assume that they did so in order to spread dirt on the President.
                                 
                                 But be that as it may be, your statement was one that used those assumptions as fact.  Which you didn't bother to address, just assuming once more that assumptions equals truth and reality.
                                 
                                 Are you now saying as well that those witnesses were hired to give their opinions on what Trump was thinking?  That wouldn't particularly surprise me, but it is not an assumption that I'm willing to make.  Yet.

                                 replyreport
                  2. 60

                     Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Lol. I love the way those on the left ignore the fact he was found,apparently, not guilty by the Senate. That was his due process.
                     
                     You guys just can't accept a conspiracy theory is just that.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        And you cannot accept the trial in the Senate was a sham. Why do you think Trump got angry when his DNI reported to the House the Russians were already meddling in the 2020 election, LTL? Any spin on this?

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           Of course - anything that does not promote evil by Trump is a sham, isn't it?

                           replyreport
                        2. 60

                           Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           And you refuse to look at all indications that the impeachment in the House was a partisan debacle. Perpetrated by emotional and completely bias behavior by those in charge.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              I see no indications the Impeachment Inquiry was wrong. I would have wanted any POTUS--no matter the party--impeached for what Trump did, and you should have as well.
                              
                              I believe the many honorable witnesses who testified against Trump rather than the words of a habitual liar. The trial in the Senate was a cover-up sham.

                              replyreport
                           2. 0

                              promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              Are the Trump administration officials who testified against him -- on risk of perjury -- also part of that debacle?
                              
                              Did they have emotional and completely biased behavior? If they did, why did Trump hire them?

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 They were described by the most recent Medal of Freedom recipient as, "Never Trumper Democrats." And we all know MOF awardees never lie.
                                 
                                 That award will never be worth a shit again....

                                 replyreport
            2. 60

               Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               We don't know all of the facts as to why any president chooses to pardon. I would have no problem removing that privilege from the office. Sounds too much like kings ignoring laws.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't mind the pardon power, but each President should be accorded a certain number of them.

                  replyreport
         2. 87

            crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Except he didn't pardon them.

            replyreport
   2. 87

      crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Except a commutation is not a pardon.

      replyreport
   3. 89

      Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I was pleased to see you point out Obama's history of granting pardons. Perhaps it will provide be food for thought.  How soon they forget or I should say ignore from the get-go.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         A commutation or pardon is a president overruling a court's decision only because they are able to do such a thing.  It is something ALL presidents have done since there have been presidents. It's just that since President Donald Trump took office, it is now an issue.
         
         Bill Clinton also pardoned terrorists.
         
         "The answer is that the documents remind voters of the stink of Pardon-gate, starting with the pardons of key members of the Puerto Rican terrorist group known as the FALN. Clinton pardoned 16 of them in 1999.
         
         What horrified people then was the suspicion that the FALN pardons were calculated to help Hillary get elected to the Senate, since New York has so many Puerto Rican voters. Congress formally condemned the pardons — almost unanimously (95 to 2 in the Senate and 311 to 41 in the House)."
         
         https://nypost.com/2016/11/02/why-bills … r-hillary/

         replyreport
      2. 87

         crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Except you are confusing pardons and commutations. The former is erasing all evidence of a crime. The second is simply shortening a sentence for one reason or another, but the crime is still on the books.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            It's complicated if you want to get into the semantics of the words.
            
            "While clemency and pardon are not interchangeable, a pardon is a form of clemency. Clemency is a general term for reducing the penalties for a particular crime without actually clearing your criminal record. A clemency can come in the form of a pardon, which is forgiveness of a sentence, a commutation, which is reduction of a sentence, or a reprieve, which is a temporary putting off of punishment while the situation is analyzed further. Therefore a pardon is always clemency, but when someone receives clemency, it does not necessarily mean a pardon."
            
            http://www.clearupmyrecord.com/pardon-vs-celemency.php

            replyreport
            1. 87

               crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I'm definitely interested in the meaning of words. I generally think that's important if we want to understand the truth of a particular issue.

               replyreport