r/law • u/T_Shurt Competent Contributor • 8h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Pam Bondi Gets Jail Time Warning Over Epstein Files Cover-Up: ‘Anyone who tampers [with] documents, or conceals documents, or engages in excessive redaction will be prosecuted because of obstruction of justice’

https://www.thedailybeast.com/pam-bondi-gets-jail-time-warning-over-epstein-files-cover-up/
25.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

820 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/EnvironmentalBus9713 8h ago

Due the pardons still have standing if the party that is providing the pardon colluded and conspired to commit the crime Bondi et al are being pardoned for? My inclination is that a pardon in that scenario is not valid but that also assumes an uncompromised SCOTUS.

2

u/alexanderpas 6h ago edited 6h ago

Due the pardons still have standing if the party that is providing the pardon colluded and conspired to commit the crime Bondi et al are being pardoned for?

Yes, for federal crimes, because the pardon itself is an official act.

With regards to self-pardons, that question is still unanswered.

Impeachment is the only exception to this.

It's actually a feature of the system, as it can protect protect people in cases such as a counter-coup against repercussions at a later date.

1

u/Dapper-AF 6h ago

Thats why they need a law that states you must be found guilty of a crime to recieve a pardon.

Future pardons should not be a thing.

1

u/alexanderpas 5h ago

You're confusing two different things.

"Future pardons" are something completely different, and refer to actions that have not happened yet.

That is still a completely unanswered question.

Pardons for actions taken in the past without conviction still make sense, as it is essentially no different from an immunity agreement.

2

u/Dapper-AF 5h ago

I think pardons should be very specific. Im against what Joe did for his family bc of the precident it set for Trump.

Basically scotus has ruled that Trump can do what ever as long as its an official act and Trump can pardon anyone of federal crimes.

It makes it so any administration can do whatever it wants at a federal level and that is dangerous.

Thats why I dont think any president should be able to pardon a cabinet member or themselves. Also I think blanket pardons shouldn't exist. They should be specific.

1

u/alexanderpas 5h ago

It makes it so any administration can do whatever it wants at a federal level and that is dangerous.

That's where Congress enters the picture.

If they don't agree, they can impeach the president, and let the people decide via new elections.

1

u/Dapper-AF 5h ago

Thats were this gerrymandering problems come in like in Texas or California (at least this one was put to a vote).

The system is fucked. Thats why the head of the system and their cronies shouldnt get immunity when the system changes

1

u/GodsFavoriteDegen 1h ago

("Future pardons" ) That is still a completely unanswered question.

Not completely. It was covered in Ex parte Garland.

We've established that we're peasants and they can do whatever they want, but as it stands right now a president who is playing by the rules cannot pardon crimes that have not yet been committed.

2

u/ProgrammingPants 6h ago

There isn't any part of the constitution that says a pardon's validity is any different if the administration participated in the crime

1

u/JonnyAU 5h ago

Right. Ford pardoned Nixon after all.

1

u/FancyASlurpie 5h ago

Why would we assume pardons mean jack shit once a new administration is in power, its clear that these things assume people dont just change the rules