Donald Trump 'voids' Joe Biden's pardons after former president used autopen signature

[Into the Night]

Whereas this is true, this is a can of worms that the criminal trump does NOT want to open.

Trump has committed no crime. What 'can of worms' are you referring to??????

I'll bet Jack Smith cannot wait to testify.

But trump's dementia makes it impossible for him to think that far in advance.

Trump doesn't have dementia. You are describing Biden.

Illiteracy: Proper nouns are always capitalized.

 

[ZenMode]

So you choose to ignore the law. Gotit.
It's not possible to pardon someone that is not convicted of anything, Void!

It's not my problem that you don't understand English, Void. IT'S YOURS! No law is involved here!

Logic is not an opinion, Void. You just want to ignore it! The English language is not an opinion either. You just don't know English.

You don't know what 'reality', 'moron', or 'trolling' means either, Void.

You already did that.

I knew you couldn't do it.

 

[ZenMode]

What 'pardons'??????

You can't 'pardon' someone that is not convicted of anything!

Explain how something has been done that you claim can't be done.

Nevermind, trollboy. I already have my answer.

 

[Into the Night]

Not sure he has the power to void a pardon. While I do think that preemptive pardons seem pretty sketchy, I think Trump may be overstepping if in fact he is trying to do that.

However, one of the things about these preemptive pardons is that they can be compelled to testify. They can't plead the 5th because they wouldn't be incriminating themselves because they have been granted a broad pardon. So they can be compelled to answer questions if called to testify.

That is what the GOP should be doing. Put all of these fuckers on the stand and make them testify publicly

You cannot compel the accused to witness against himself.

 

[Damocles]

It affects ALL documents so 'signed', Damo.

So? It's not happened until Biden.

That's not what your article stated. Nor does it change what the Supreme Court ruled regarding pardons... I cited two cases in which they informed us that it is the intent that makes the pardon, not the signatures.

 

[Damocles]

You cannot compel the accused to witness against himself.

If they cannot be charged in a crime you can. This is why they grant immunity to compel testimony. A preemptive pardon is essentially immunity.

When a witness is granted immunity (or pardoned for any and all crimes in a timeframe over a decade, for instance), courts rule that the Fifth Amendment privilege no longer applies to the compelled testimony. The reasoning is that the privilege exists to protect against self-incrimination, and immunity removes that danger. As a result, the witness can be legally required to testify, and refusal to do so may lead to penalties like contempt of court.

 

[volsrocks]

Not sure he has the power to void a pardon.

If Biden didn't sign it!

And that looks to be the case

 

[martin]

Trump says Biden’s pardons are now ‘void and vacant’ after autopen controversy

Trump says Biden’s pardons are now ‘void and vacant’ after autopen controversy

President ranted about previous pardons on Truth Social and issued new threat to January 6 investigators

www.independent.co.uk

Trump is lucky if he voids his bladder without making a mess. He can't touch the pardons.

 

[Teflon Don]

Whereas this is true, this is a can of worms that the criminal trump does NOT want to open. I'll bet Jack Smith cannot wait to testify.

But trump's dementia makes it impossible for him to think that far in advance.

I didn't ask you

 

[Teflon Don]

What 'pardons'??????

You can't 'pardon' someone that is not convicted of anything!

I think the whole question of preemptive pardons is up for debate. I was just taking about the notion of reversing a pardon. I don't know who would have the power to do that. Whether it is an autopen or not, we have always operated under the notion that pardons are immutable.

I don't think it is something that Trump can unilaterally do within the powers of the Executive Branch.

What Biden did has never been tested in the courts before. I don't know of anyone who issued a preemptive pardon before.

What is ironic about the whole thing is that way back in 2020 the left said they supported Biden because he was all about protecting the norms, but there was nothing normal about his pardons. But, the left defended it as they always do

 

[archives]

No court has any authority over the Constitution, dude.

“No court has any authority over the Constitution,” what the f*ck are you talking about, “no court has any authority over the Constitution,” classic

 

[FastLane]

I think the whole question of preemptive pardons is up for debate. I was just taking about the notion of reversing a pardon. I don't know who would have the power to do that. Whether it is an autopen or not, we have always operated under the notion that pardons are immutable.

I don't think it is something that Trump can unilaterally do within the powers of the Executive Branch.

What Biden did has never been tested in the courts before. I don't know of anyone who issued a preemptive pardon before.

What is ironic about the whole thing is that way back in 2020 the left said they supported Biden because he was all about protecting the norms, but there was nothing normal about his pardons. But, the left defended it as they always do

Not if Biden did not make the decision to grant the pardon. I think we all know he did not review each case and decide if they were eligible for a pardon.

 

[ZenMode]

What 'pardons'??????

You can't 'pardon' someone that is not convicted of anything!

Explain how something has been done that you claim can't be done.

Nevermind, trollboy. I already have my answer.

Can a President pardon someone before they are indicted, convicted or sentenced for a federal offense against the United States?

It would be unusual, but there have been a few cases where people who had not been charged with a crime were pardoned, including President Gerald Ford's pardon of President Richard Nixon after Watergate, President Jimmy Carter's pardon of Vietnam draft dodgers and President George H.W. Bush's pardon of Caspar Weinberger. President Donald J. Trump pardoned Joseph Arpaio and others after they were charged and convicted, but prior to sentencing.

Frequently Asked Questions

www.justice.gov

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, a president of the United States can issue a valid preemptive pardon,

It is meaningless to 'pardon' someone that is not convicted of anything.

meaning a pardon granted before a formal conviction or even before charges are filed.

It is meaningless.

The U.S. Constitution grants the president broad pardon power under Article II, Section 2, which states the president "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

The Constitution is not involved here. It is meaningless.
In addition, Biden was never President. He was never elected.

This authority is expansive and has been interpreted to include pardons issued at any stage of the legal process, including preemptively.

It is meaningless. There is no 'authority' required here.

Historical precedent supports this.

Just because a meaningless act was done before changes nothing.

The most famous example is President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974 for any crimes Nixon "committed or may have committed" during his presidency, issued before Nixon was charged or convicted.

Pardoning Richard Nixon for what??? It not possible to 'pardon' someone that hasn't been convicted.

The Supreme Court has also weighed in indirectly.

The Supreme Court has been irrational before.

In Ex parte Garland (1866), the Court described the pardon power as "unlimited" except for the impeachment exception, suggesting it can apply to offenses not yet prosecuted. While preemptive pardons remain controversial and rare, they are legally valid under the Constitution’s framework.

It is meaningless. No court can change that. What is the 'pardon' for????

That said, limitations exist: the pardon applies only to federal offenses, not state crimes or civil liabilities, and it doesn’t erase the act itself—just the legal consequences.

Irrelevance fallacy.

Political and public backlash can also constrain their use, as seen with Ford’s decision, which cost him significant support. So, while constitutionally permissible, the practical scope and fallout depend on context.

There is no context.

 

[Diogenes]

@Into the Night denies reality.

 

[Into the Night]

Not if Biden did not make the decision to grant the pardon. I think we all know he did not review each case and decide if they were eligible for a pardon.

Pardoning of what???? How do you 'pardon' someone for something they haven't done??? A pre-emptive 'pardon' is completely meaningless.

 

[Into the Night]

Can a President pardon someone before they are indicted, convicted or sentenced for a federal offense against the United States?

How do you 'pardon' someone for something they haven't done?????

It would be unusual, but there have been a few cases where people who had not been charged with a crime were pardoned, including President Gerald Ford's pardon of President Richard Nixon after Watergate, President Jimmy Carter's pardon of Vietnam draft dodgers and President George H.W. Bush's pardon of Caspar Weinberger. President Donald J. Trump pardoned Joseph Arpaio and others after they were charged and convicted, but prior to sentencing.

Frequently Asked Questions

www.justice.gov

So how do you 'pardon' someone for something they haven't done? Hmmmmmmmm?

 

[Into the Night]

I knew you couldn't do it.

Do what, Void????

 

[Althea]

If they cannot be charged in a crime you can. This is why they grant immunity to compel testimony. A preemptive pardon is essentially immunity.

When a witness is granted immunity (or pardoned for any and all crimes in a timeframe over a decade, for instance), courts rule that the Fifth Amendment privilege no longer applies to the compelled testimony. The reasoning is that the privilege exists to protect against self-incrimination, and immunity removes that danger. As a result, the witness can be legally required to testify, and refusal to do so may lead to penalties like contempt of court.

Or in this case, contempt of Congress. When trump's criminal cabinet members testified, they 'had no recollection' of anything. Which is how this will play out now, unless the person testifying simply wants to air the damning evidence against trump.

 

[Althea]

I think the whole question of preemptive pardons is up for debate. I was just taking about the notion of reversing a pardon. I don't know who would have the power to do that. Whether it is an autopen or not, we have always operated under the notion that pardons are immutable.

I don't think it is something that Trump can unilaterally do within the powers of the Executive Branch.

What Biden did has never been tested in the courts before. I don't know of anyone who issued a preemptive pardon before.

What is ironic about the whole thing is that way back in 2020 the left said they supported Biden because he was all about protecting the norms, but there was nothing normal about his pardons. But, the left defended it as they always do

Even you have to agree that trump ran on a platform of getting revenge against anyone who ever spoke out about him, or investigated him. We have never seen pre-emptive pardons before because we never had a moron like trump breaking every single norm in the book.

In essence, they were never necessary