r/benshapiro • u/wang_li • 26d ago

Blanket pardons? Ben Shapiro Show

Back when they were debating the US Constitution there was debate about whether there should be impeachment or whether the President should be completely untouchable. Anecdotally Ben Franklin mentioned that the traditional way to remove a head of state is assassination. At which point the opposition to impeachment withdrew their objections. One wonders if these people pushing for blanket pardons have considered what options they are leaving to the American people to justly desire the rule of law. State level prosecution?

Honestly, given the general pardon that was given to Hunter Biden, I think another constitutional amendment should be that pardons must be particularized and any pardon of a generalized nature requires that the pardoned individual appears before Congress and details the complete list of crimes that they committed. Anything unmentioned is not covered regardless.

24 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

7

u/KevtheKnife 26d ago

I think an Amendment needs to put a moratorium on the President's ability to pardon for the remainder of their Term after being voted out of office.

7

u/wang_li 26d ago

Good idea, except I'd go even further. No pardons within a month leading up to an election. If they lose, no further pardons.

2

u/derechtelmarotter Facts don’t care about your feelings 26d ago

same goes for supreme justice picks!

2

u/Never_Forget_711 26d ago

Well Lindsay says it’s no picks in an election year, and then we know how that turned out.

3

u/cplusequals 26d ago

You mean McConnell. And it wasn't "no pick in an election year" it was "we're so close to the election don't have to approve your pick we don't like." No idea why you think they wouldn't approve a pick they did like. Garland was a horrible nominee and he's been a horrible AG.

1

u/Never_Forget_711 25d ago

No I mean Lindsay. They didn’t even take a vote on Obama nominee which is their constitutional duty to do so. They said it was about letting the voters choose not that they just didn’t like the nominee. There’s not a nomination that McConnell or Graham would have liked over letting a republican pick one. Then Trump was in the exact same position and like always they dropped to their knees, mouths gaping wide.

3

u/cplusequals 25d ago

That was McConnell. He was senate majority leader. They didn't have the votes to even vote lmao. Looks like they did their constitutional duty and said "nah, pick someone else." Obama could have appointed Gorsuch and they probably would have confirmed him, yeah? Lolol

Then Trump was in the exact same position

No he wasn't. Trump nominated a candidate the senate wanted to approve. That's a big difference. Barrett was a conservative judge nominated to a conservative senate. Garland was a progressive judge nominated to a conservative senate. That's checks and balances. Obama got checked.

2

u/Quang_17 22d ago

I like it when people explain the politics very clearly. Thank you.

0

u/Madinogi 18d ago

there is a big difference.

in 2016 the republicans blocked ALL of obamas nominations not just garland, 9 months out from the election, citing "it is an election year, the american people should decide via the next president"

and then in 2020 in like 2 months from the election they rammed through a supreme court pick because they could get a conservative judge on the bench,
not giving a rats arse about the fact they made themselves clear as day hypocrites,
they 100% did it for power because as always republicans are more corrupt then democrats.

its ok to admit this, its more then ok to admit when youre side of the political isle is acting ina clearly corrupt way, just like i admit bidens pardon of his son is corruption, even tho the constitution says he can do it, i still find it corrupt.

youre defendning the 2 events because it benefits youre political side, regardless of optics or working for americans it s exclusively for gaining more power through corrupt measures. just admit that.

1

u/cplusequals 18d ago

Brother, Garland was the only nominee. My last post is a direct refutation to this reply. Just wanted to point out you made yourself look stupid with that attempt to pivot. Zero shot the senate would have block a Gorsuch nomination. This isn't a moral issue. It's a rules and procedures issue. You lost. I will always savor the salt so by all means keep making the same mistakes and don't learn from them.

0

u/Bo_Jim 25d ago

Jimmy Carter pardoned more than 200K Vietnam era draft dodgers. It would've slowed Washington to a crawl if every one of those had to testify in front of Congress.

I don't think Biden thought this through, or his lawyers didn't give him adequate advice on the subject. I think it was a spur of the moment decision he was persuaded into making over Thanksgiving dinner with his family. He pardoned his son for any federal crimes he might have committed since 2014. This covers the time he was on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, and his travels to China. The evidence available strongly suggests Hunter was peddling influence, and that his father was not only aware of it, but was benefiting from it financially. The pardon means Hunter can't be prosecuted for it. However, it also means he no longer has Fifth Amendment immunity from testifying about it. Not only can he be compelled to testify, he can be prosecuted for perjury if he lies about it.

The thing is that the evidence against Hunter for influence peddling is compelling, but probably doesn't rise to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Had he not been immune to prosecution, and had he been charged, he could have simply remained silent and probably prevailed. However, because he's now immune to prosecution he must testify if called, and if anything he says contradicts the evidence then he can be charged with perjury. If he tells the truth and it implicates his father then his father can be prosecuted for corruption. In protecting his son, Biden may have thrown himself under the bus.

The Constitution imposes no conditions on the President's power to grant reprieves and pardons, and provides only one exception to that power and that is in cases of impeachment. I think the Framers thought this through pretty well. I don't see any reason to change it.

1

u/Quang_17 22d ago

Feels like Biden took a bet thinking he'll get the same treatment as before. He is too senile to justify going after him for the corruption.

0

u/MJD253 26d ago

Were you upset over any of Trump’s pardons?

2

u/realspongeworthy 25d ago

I'm having trouble finding any to be upset about. They served their time.

0

u/wolkenarchitekt 23d ago

Not even Paul Manaford? He was convicted of five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a hidden foreign bank account and two counts of conspiracy.

1

u/realspongeworthy 23d ago

He served 2 years in prison. Two more years than Hunter Biden, who should have been prosecuted for FARA violations, but apparently Democrats can get away with it.

-1

u/MJD253 25d ago

So you get mad when Hunter is an undeclared agent of a foreign government, but don’t care when Paul Manafort does it?

2

u/wang_li 26d ago

I’m not fond of the pardon power in general. But if it must be used it should be used to spare someone who did something unlawful for the good of the country. If Schaffer, Cheney, or Fauci committed crimes they should face the consequences. What would a general pardon be saying? “If they hadn’t angered someone who could order scrutiny of them they would have gotten away with it so they deserve a pardon.” That’s fucked up.