Everybody thought you could put a fork in it. Then Nixon was pardoned.

So. It aint over till it's over. No matter who wishes what.

https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/li...don/pardon.asp

If the former President is re-elected then all bets are off. I'm not sure if he can pardon himself for a state crime. The SCOTUS seems to be leaning heavily towards supporting the former President. If they decide that the former President has absolute immunity then it's all but over. Can a presidential candidate have absolute immunity before he's the President? Very interesting times ahead.

The POTUS can convict someone convicted of a Federal crime. The POTUS has no authority to grant a pardon for a STATE conviction, only the state governor can do that and not even in all states! A POTUS can recommend or request, but no governor has to listen to the POTUS on this specific subject. IT is a separation of powers and rights issue.

Some states (20) allow a pre-emptive pardon (before conviction).
Some states require a pardon board be involved, the governor cannot act without them.
Many states allow commutation of a sentence after conviction.
Pardons are pretty darn rare in ALL states!
Some states has specific provision under the state constitution or charter, but traditional policy in the state may mean that although a pardon is ALLOWED they are never granted without a board or legislative involvement.
It is complicated. By design.

---------------------------------------
Let us hope that the SCOTUS does not support the bonkers immunity claim. IF they do then the only way to deal with a criminal POTUS will be to shoot them, and I never want to see that again.

Good page to have a look: https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-r...authorities-2/

I really do hope that they won't support it. You're correct. It's completely bonkers to think that the SCOTUS would even take oral arguments on the matter. And they are set to listen to this rubbish. My hope is that they're being passive aggressive and just delaying the matter. The notion that the SCOTUS could grant a President absolute immunity is frightening. There needs to be a mechanism in place to deal with a rogue SCOTUS in my opinion.

The only way to deal with a rogue SCOTUS, or even just a rogue Justice, is impeachment and removal. That would requite a majority of responsible, honest members of the House, and a 69% majority of the Senate. And THAT will require a rather major turnover in Congress that we can hope for, but should not count on.

Interesting. Thanks for the information. Good to know. I suspect that it would have to get really bad before the House calls for the removal of a rogue justice or two. President Biden admonished the SCOTUS in his state of the union address.

I'm starting to think that the only way that rogue people will be held to a form of justice is at the ballot box. If the former President is convicted will he face actual legal jeopardy? Will the voters punish the former President in November?

Talking about shooting a 'rogue' POTUS is a good way to get a visit from the Secret Service that will make a colonoscopy look like a minor inconvenience.

Mentioning the possibility as a thing to avoid might get a "look", but you will never know. It takes mentioning it as a threat, goal, or something one wants to SEE might get you more than a visit!

You boys and girls have fun - I think I'll take my leave of this thread.

Not enough mirth here for you?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-key-takeaways

There is only one objective: Put Donald Trump in prison, absolutely any way you can, so that he cannot become President again. The first Judge to do that wins the prize. But, try to pile so many prison sentences on top of him that his prison cell will be special-built to feature a tomb.

The greater objective, of course, is: Simple Assassination. "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will scatter ... we hope." When this happens and the people rise up, destroy the people. Crush them, until they learn to fear their Government like the people of so many other nations have learned to do. If we can't get the Secret Service to buy into this idea, we will simply remove his Secret Service protection until he is dead and gone. The people who are now saying this are not particularly trying to "mince words" anymore.

You might not like to hear things spoken in this way, but you can certainly rest assured that there are plenty of people – many of them in very high places – who are speaking in precisely that way. They fear this man more than they have feared any other, because they cannot control him and he doesn't need the money.

I’m getting tired of this game we’ve been playing for a decade, which is where we all pretend that Sundialsvcs is not extremely mentally ill.

#1 No: the real objective is to properly punish the crime actually committed and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law. It has nothing to do with any of that other stuff. I doubt if he will ever spend a day in a cell even if found guilty on all counts, because the burden upon security detail would be bonkers. He might get house arrest, but on what terms I would not venture to guess. We will see.

#2 dugan makes a good point. Making these odd and totally irrational claims is not convincing anyone of your sanity.