[ajross]

I don't buy it. A president that will literally direct his AG in public to prosecute his political enemies is simply not bound by norms, period. To pretend that he'd never have pardoned Zhao but for Obama's "increased number of pardons" is, to be blunt, ridiculous on its face.

And in context, you're doing exactly what I mocked above, tut tutting about civil behavior and norms and The Discourse while the system burns down around you.

But don't worry! You can always take solace in the fact that it was Really Barack Hussein Obama's Fault.

[aaronbrethorst]

Obama did once wear a tan suit, and on another occasion put his feet up on the Resolute Desk.

[Karrot_Kream]

> And in context, you're doing exactly what I mocked above, tut tutting about civil behavior and norms and The Discourse while the system burns down around you.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do then. I agree Trump is bad. Am I supposed to just say that 3 times and click my heels and then he'll go away?

These are observations designed around trying to make sure, once Trump is gone, that we don't get another Trump. I can't change the current President and this constant purity testing about hating Trump changes nothing.

The reason Trump will have to blatantly violate the Constitution if he tries to run again is because the country was so spooked after FDR's third term that it limited Presidential terms. One could have made the same argument then, the only reason FDR ran a 3rd term is because he's FDR and a different person wouldn't do that. But that amendment is why there's a bright line around a 3rd term now.

[ajross]

> I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do then.

Not equivocate.

[Karrot_Kream]

Why are you reading equivocation there? You're being way too defensive. Just because Trump is the worst doesn't mean other things aren't also bad, just less bad. Are you implying that I'm not supposed to talk about anything other than how Trump is bad? Again what's the point of this purity testing?

If I caveat my statements a million ways to convince you that I'm not equivocating then will Trump stop being President?

[ajross]

You're pretending that Trump's pardon is not a singular act but the result of some kind of imagined erosion of norms for which you blamed Obama specifically. That's textbook equivocation. A vote for Romney wouldn't have fixed this.

You're also simply incorrect, which is why I'm spending the bytes to try to correct you.

[ModernMech]

> I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do then.

Refocus you're attention. The problem is not with the pardon power. You said:

> That bad actor is Trump. But the warnings from abusing these limitations

But that's the thing, the pardon power is not supposed to be limited. How would you limit it? Who would actually tell the President "No" and on what authority? The obvious choices are Congress and the Courts but they already checks to balance the the President. That's why they can't check it -- the pardon power is the President's check on them (along with the veto power).

Hamilton said:

    "Without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel."

That's what it's for. After all the process, if justice is not done, and there's no way to undo it, then justice will not survive and there will be no confidence in the system. But with great power comes great responsibility, so you need someone very responsible in that position or else it doesn't work.

So then how do we fix it if not by adding laws and rules? We don't elect people like Trump, who think they are above the law. That's it. I know it seems kind of glib but it's not a high bar to just avoid malignant narcissists.

The reason Trump is abusing the pardon power is because he does not consider what he's doing an abuse. He sees that he has the "right" to do it under the Constitution, and to him, anything he has the right to do, he can do. And you know what, despite him being abusive he does have the right. But that's the thing, we gave him that right, and we can take it away and give it to someone else who won't abuse it.

That is the actual check on the pardon power, but that's on us. It's on us because Trump abused the pardon power in his first term by dangling pardons in front of Paul Manafort when he was being investigated by the DOJ, so none of this should be a surprise to anyone. Obama's "abuses" and Bidens "abuses" are on everyone's lips here, but not a single word for Trump's 1st term abuses (mine is the first mention of the Manafort pardon in over 1000 comments). So if you really want the root cause of his power abuse beyond his psychopathology, it's that -- because not only did we not care he did that, we actually reelected him as he promised to abuse his power during the campaign, so why wouldn't he actually do it?

[Karrot_Kream]

> So then how do we fix it if not by adding laws and rules? We don't elect people like Trump, who think they are above the law. That's it. I know it seems kind of glib but it's not a high bar to just avoid malignant narcissists.

Right but he is the President. I didn't vote for him. I donated and canvassed for the Harris campaign. But Trump won. So what are we getting by making 1000 internet comments of which 800 are about how bad Trump is?

This whole exchange reminded me why I don't participate in politics on HN. It's all just venting. I'll stick to doing things like canvasing and not reading the anxieties of HN commenters.

[ModernMech]

> Right but he is the President.

Yeah, and that he specifically is President should tell you something -- maybe the fight isn't at the pardon power.

> So what are we getting by making 1000 internet comments of which 800 are about how bad Trump is?

We might come to understand the root of the problem is the psychology of a specific individual and the cult that surrounds him, rather than what Obama did a decade ago. It's not that Obama's use of the pardon power caused a slippery slope of executive overreach that has resulted in today's corrupt pardons. We are not dealing with "overreach" here, what's happening today is categorically different.

> This whole exchange reminded me why I don't participate in politics on HN. It's all just venting.

I dunno, hopefully in this exchange you've learned that the pardon power is not supposed to be limited under the Constitution and why, so now you can stop making arguments that we should limit the pardon power. When you take that off the table, viable solutions become easier to spot. Limiting the pardon power is not viable because there is no Constitutional mechanism to do so. Under the Constitution, any limits put in place can just be ignored by the next POTUS who decides he wants to ignore them.

[Karrot_Kream]

I never said we should limit the pardon power. I just said Obama increased the number of pardons and contemporary commenters criticized that, fearing a regression of norms.

I made no policy prescriptions whatsoever.

> When you take that off the table, viable solutions become easier to spot.

So do you have a viable solution here?

[ModernMech]

You had said:

> When Obama really increased the number of pardons, a lot of contemporary opinion writers said stuff along the lines of "this is a dangerous precedent and we're lucky that the pardons are fairly popular and sane." ... the warnings from abusing these limitations from previous administrations was exactly for this moment. Nobody is saying Trump isn't the bad one, he is. But the conditions were laid for him.

I take this to mean that Obama had abused his power past his authority, and you used the word "limitations" here to mean that there are some sort of institutional or structural limits which he was exceeding, thus paving the way for the current abuses.

The implication is that if Obama had stayed within the bounds (which bounds?) then the condition would not have been laid for Trump to do what he's doing.

My point is the conditions were there whether or not Obama did what he did, because the power never had limits, never was intended to have limits, because the limiting factor was not electing a bad guy. If any conditions were laid, they were by the Founders in how they structured the Constitution and the pardon power. They just didn't think that with elections, the electoral college, impeachment, and the insurrection clause we would be dumb enough to actually elect an insurrectionist.

> So do you have a viable solution here?

Nope! I mean, as far as the Trump administration goes they are going to burn themselves out, the only question is how much damage they are going to do on the way down and what the blast radius is. The important question now is what to do with America after that happens and I don't know what that looks like. Maybe balkanization, I dunno depends how bad it gets. If some key Republicans come to their senses this can be solved relatively quickly and painlessly, then we can talk about revising the Constitution. Otherwise who knows.

[mlrtime]

>I don't buy it. A president that will literally direct his AG in public to prosecute his political enemies.

This is what happened to Trump though, the established politicians do not like him and did everything they could to stop him from running.

[ajross]

> the established politicians do not like him and did everything they could to stop him from running

Again, this is a excuse-making whopper. The republican aisle in the senate refused to convict him twice, which would have prevented him from running. I won't argue "do not like him" in the abstract, but in practice established politicians in his party are 100% behind the guy.

[maxerickson]

The federal efforts at prosecution were also hesitant more than "everything".