Trump said he would consider pre-emptive pardons to protect Elon Musk and other close aides should Democrats take control of Congress

Donald Trump said he would be willing to protect Elon Musk and his staff if Democrats take control of Congress after the midterm elections this week.

In an interview for the “Pod Force One” podcast published Monday, Trump said he would move to “protect” the billionaire SpaceX and Tesla CEO if Congressional investigators targeted him.

Trump also indicated that he was weighing pre-emptive pardons for his close aides and others around him should the Democrats pursue investigations, according to Axios. It is a notion that the president has floated before to keep his team from facing prosecution for actions during the first two years of his term.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 46 minutes ago

Look at that. The neo-Nazi scumbag is guilty before the prosecution opens a case.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 19 minutes ago

    The states can cut Musk into 50 pieces and imprison each

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 minutes ago

    I just really really want to say pod force one is the dumbest name ever.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 minutes ago

    Laws never apply to the rich. That seems like a great system. Surely, it wont cause overwhelming resentment from law biding citizens and tax payers.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 30 minutes ago (1 child)

    It sounds so very Trump to pardon preemptively, yet if a pardon is given, it'll be fair grounds for the pardoned to speak about their misdeeds without fear of prosecution, thus letting you spill the beans on everyone else. That's likely why pardons aren't given until people are already well beyond in the shitter.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

    oh, I think that even if he premptively pardons the entire gang, Congress should investigate anyway. Just so that the record of what they did is made public and Trump doesn't get to revise the historical record.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

    I think we need an amendment to rescind the pardon. Reduce it to a stay of execution only. Why is it even a thing? Did they really think giving this power to a sitting president would ONLY be used to right injustices? It's a friggin unlimited commit crimes and get out of jail free card.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 59 minutes ago

    Yeah, pardons don't make sense unless you believe that executives can never do wrong.

    Which is a very strange belief to have as people in the process of rebelling against a king because he made decisions they didn't like.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 hours ago

    Pardons from criminal presidents should not be allowed.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 5 hours ago

    Great. Then they can’t plead the fifth when questioned by Congress.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago

    Let the investigations happen and let the facts speak for themselves. Everyone else has to answer for their actions, so why should Musk or Trump's staffers be any different? Wealth, power, and political connections shouldn't shield anyone from accountability. No one is above the law, period.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    A pardon won't keep him from being de-naturalized & deported.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    So he knows Elon and his staffers have committed crimes then. How is this legal??

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 83 points 7 hours ago (10 children)

    Preemptive pardon should not even be a thing.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

    And if it is, the executive should list explicitly what crimes, on what days, against which individuals, cannot be brought to trial.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 4 hours ago* (2 children)

    This is the real crux of the issue. Blanket pardons shouldn’t be a thing. If you want to pardon someone, it should be specific. Which crimes? Where? When? Who was victimized? Who else was involved? What was the outcome of the crime?

    The SCOTUS has already ruled in Burdick v. US that accepting a pardon requires admitting guilt of the crime you’re being pardoned of. The wording of the ruling was that a pardon carries “an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it.” The SCOTUS has consistently held that a pardon does not overturn a guilty conviction. Instead, it removes the punishment for the crime. You’re still unequivocally guilty after a pardon.

    It shouldn’t be some sort of “I pardon you for waves arms in air vaguely” power, because that turns the whole “needing to admit guilt” part into a sly wink wink elbow nudge situation. It puts the person’s crimes in a quantum Schrödinger state. The person accepting a vague pardon is inarguably guilty of something, because they admitted guilt when they accepted the pardon. But the court doesn’t know what they’ve admitted to until a prosecutor tries to indict them, and they go “oh no you can’t prosecute me, I was pardoned.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

    Doesn't accepting a pardon, especially a blanket pardon, also mean that you lose your Fifth Amendment protection to not incriminate yourself? You can not be punished for what you did, that means you have nothing to fear and can be made to confess everything and incriminate accomplices. Wouldn't that be some way to have a go at Trump?

    Effect of a Pardon

    The Fifth Amendment privilege exists to protect the witness from providing self-incriminating testimony so long as, and only so long as, the danger of prosecution persists. As a result, according to at least one Supreme Court case, when a "witness has already received a pardon, he cannot longer set up his [Fifth Amendment] privilege, since he stands, with respect to such offense, as if it had never been committed."

    congress.gov

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 hours ago

    It reminds me a little of popes selling indulgences. "Donate money and/or go on crusade, and I'll absolve you of any sins you've already commited or will commit in the future." That sort of thing eventually resulted in a rather significant schism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

    They aren't a thing. You can only pardon a crime that's already been commited, not for future crimes.

    Also Trump violated his oath of office within 72 hours of this term beginning, so technically none of his pardons mean anything from this term and can just be reversed.

    He wasn't legitimately serving in capacity of the president since he abdicated his office by violating his oath.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 hours ago

    "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    scRotus says anything dipshit does is just part of his doing the job and he can't be prosecuted for it at all.

    'to the best of my ability' is also doing some heavy work here. he has no qualifications for office and he's dumb as bricks. he's doing the 'best' he can, doing the only thing he knows how to: lie, cheat, steal.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 4 hours ago

    Goose: Protect them from what, Donald?

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

    Democrats’ next move: round up the pardoned traitors and execute them. Then pardon the executioner. Problem solved?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 66 points 8 hours ago (5 children)

    Let's just take all of his money instead.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 hours ago

    he's used his money to commit crimes, he'll do it again. the fact he has so fucking much of it is too great a temptation.

    civil forfeiture of all of it should definitely be on-the-table.

    if a redneck sheriff can take a black guy's cash (it might have come from drugs) that he was takin' to pay ma's rent... muskrat's money.. hell, all those fukfaces' money.. should be fair game for the taking.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 33 points 7 hours ago (10 children)

    In the near future American school children will respond to being told about Nixon with "wait, that's it?!"

    Assuming they aren't too busy sheltering in place, of course.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 hours ago*

    Nixon was surpassed by Iran/Contra.

    Ronnie Raygun had the largest number in history (138) for the number of people in an administration that were investigated, indicted or convicted. And the conservatives spent most of the 90s and beyond agitating to have stuff named after him, and to put that asshole on our money and on Mt. Rushmore...

    They would have had the country built shrines to the guy if they had their way. They have zero shame.

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

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 1 point 3 hours ago

    Gonna need them

  • source
  • [–] 37 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (5 children)

    "Trump floats" means nothing. Stop reporting on his idiocy as if it's news. It's been ten years of this doofus, and this is Lemmy, there's nobody here left to convince that he'll do anything but whatever he can, while his word means nothing.

    Report on what he does, not what he says.

    Let me know when he floats face down in the reflecting pool

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 hours ago

    Don't feed the trolls. When you argue with a troll, you are entering a competition to see who has more free time. You will lose, because you have a life and the troll does not. Do not EVER respond to trolls.

    I've been saying this about Trump since 2014. Shame nobody followed that advice up to this point, and likely never will.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›