I think Nancy Pelosi is holding back the impeachment to stop

[Baltimike]

Pig Dick Donald from pardoning the seditionists and treason weasels.

He can't pardon any of them now because he is implicated in the FELONIES they committed.

She's going to wait so he can't pardon them

[Thekaspervote]

1. Agree! Nothing slips past madam speaker

[soldierant]

42. sure it also didn't get past Madam Speaker that

the Georgia elections won't be certified until Tuesday at the earliest.

After that, Ossoff and Warnock can be sworn in.

After that, Mitch McConnell is no longer an obstruction to a fair trial. (Not that there' aren't other obstructions, but that's a big one, as we all know.

[essaynnc]

2. Need Clarification on this.....

I've heard and read both ways on here, that impeachment stops him from making any more pardons, and that it DOESN'T stop him from making any more pardons. Now the post says he can't pardon because he is implicated in their crimes?????

SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE A DEFINITIVE ANSWER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[StarfishSaver]

5. Impeachment has no effect at all on his pardon power

He can pardon anyone he wants for any reason he wants, regardless whether he's been impeached, as long as he's still in office.

The only connection between pardon and impeachment is that he cannot use the impeachment power to pardon someone out of being impeached.

[Turin_C3PO]

13. That's what I always thought

but CNN had some law guy on the other day saying otherwise and it confused me. Glad you’ve cleared it up.

[Celerity]

52. CNN also had some lawyer on who claimed a simple video made by Trump and broadcast

saying 'I, Donald John Trump, as POTUS, hereby pardon ALL the people at the Capitol protest on January 6th, 2021 for EVERY possible crime committed that day and/or any and all crimes related to it and leading up to it.' is enough to actually pardon them all, a complete blanket pardon for all the crimes, even murder, AND that Trump did not even need to write anything out, nor sign anything, ever.

That sounded like bullshit to me, so not surprised to see other POSSIBLY dodgy shit pumped out on CNN.

[PTWB]

57. It doesn't sound like that to me.

The constitution puts essentially zero limitations on the pardon power and there are no instructions or clarification on how a pardon may be “granted.” About the only real restriction is that someone who has been impeached may not be pardoned for the offenses for which they were impeached.

[StarfishSaver]

62. That's not exactly right

A person can be pardoned for any federal crime, including crimes for which they were impeached. They just cannot be pardoned from being impeached.

[Celerity]

72. So he literally could scream it out from the rooftop of the White House and it's valid

to the same degree as a lawyer written, meticulously drafted specific pardon doc that is then signed by Trump?

That sounds like (literally) god-like powers, as many, if not most, religions have their 'god' speaking the universe into reality.

That is mental AF! (not you! lolol)

[Buckeye_Democrat]

78. Yeah, it's f**ked up!

This country has been pretty fortunate over the years to have mostly decent people as President. Far more decent than a mobster-type like Trump, anyway.

[StarfishSaver]

61. I agree that that is bullshit

I doubt any court - even a Trump court - would uphold such a broad and vague pardon.

[Celerity]

74. +1000

[paleotn]

31. One thing among many that needs to be fixed....

Unlimited pardon power invested in any president. A heavy lift since it will require a constitutional amendment, but it needs to be done.

[mdbl]

56. +1

We don't need criminals just committing crimes because they can get away with it through the pardon process. This has been severely abused, and to the detriment of our democracy and has to be stopped.

[StarfishSaver]

63. Actually, the pardon power is a good one

Trump has abused it in a way that has benefitted a handful if criminals. But the pardon has almost always been used for good purposes, providing justice and mercy to thousands and thousands of deserving people.

We can't let Trump's abuses force us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[mdbl]

69. I guess I missed out on all the good it has done

[StarfishSaver]

71. I guess you did.

Because, like most people, you probably never paid attention to the pardons presidents have granted over the years and only notice the controversial ones.

[mdbl]

75. and I don't remember saying we should abolish it

but I do think the abuse issue should be addressed.

[Solomon]

90. The abuse issue is addressed by electing

responsible people to office.

[mdbl]

91. like that always happens?

[StarfishSaver]

93. No, it doesn't always happen. But the system is set up to require us to be responsible

rather than to create an authoritarian structure that takes away all of our discretion and choices.

There is no way to "fix" the system to make it impervious to human frailty and evil - unless we turn it into into a completely different system than we have with absolutely no room for human choices. We have always depended upon people electing responsible leaders. And, for the most part, until 2016, we have done pretty well.

And in 2018 and 2020, we stepped in and began to correct it, taking power away from Trump and giving it to someone who can be trusted with it.

That's how our republic works.

[mdbl]

94. Well it's not going to change based on what I say but,

we dodged a cannon ball this time. I have been watching this build up for almost 40 years and it's not getting better. It wouldn't be bad to place a few limitations on the president, such as the president can't pardon those involved in crimes where the president is involved. I don't see how that is going to cause a problem in the future.

[StarfishSaver]

96. How do you determine a pardoned person was involved in a crime with the president unless and until

the president is charged with the crime?

Certainty and finality are paramount in our justice system. Once a person is pardoned, the pardon is effective and it is final. If a president who has not been charged with or convicted of a crime pardons a person for a crime that the president is suspected of participating in, there's no way to invalidate the pardon.

While this is enormously frustrating, it is also extremely rare in the scheme of things. Trump has pardoned a handful of people who have likely committed crimes with him. But in the larger context, thousands and thousands of deserving people have been pardoned over the years, thanks to the president's virtually unlimited pardon power. Trump's wrongdoing shouldn't be an excuse for upending entire systems that have worked very well prior to his presidency.

The more logical and important thing is for us to take elections much more seriously than we have, and stop treating them like they're popularity contests or opportunities just to make a point.

[mdbl]

99. good luck convincing 74,000,000 of that

I'm done.

[StarfishSaver]

101. Why do you think i have any desire or obligation to convince those people of anything?

And what does their opinion have to do with what the Constitution says about a president's pardon power?

[StarfishSaver]

92. Thank you

[Solomon]

103. Thank you!

[paleotn]

76. Granted, but like any unilateral power, it can easily be used for great wrong.

I just don't think a president, a governor or any individual, no matter how well intentioned, should have that kind of power. So modify it with some sort of vetting and / or veto process. Absolute power of any kind is inherently dangerous.

[StarfishSaver]

79. As we've seen, any power, regardless how broad or limited can be abused

But good luck getting that constitutional amendment ratified.

However, if we're going to be expending energy on constitutional amendments, There are quite a few that would have a higher priority for me then limiting a president pardon power.

[BobTheSubgenius]

32. That is how I heard it explained by a legal scholar.

I see no reason for someone to make that up, so I take it as true.

[soldierant]

37. Conviction would by God remove the pardon power,

but not for past pardons, only for future ones.

[Captain Zero]

55. Maybe there needs to be a new amendment to the constitution regarding

pardon powers and impeachment.
This guy, if nothing else, has pointed out unexpected flaws in it when dealing with a maniac.
We need to clear up some vagaries.

[wnylib]

46. So now that he has been impeached,

he can't pardon himself? (Which was questionable anyway)

Last night I viewed an old Rachel Maddow program about presidential pardons for people who were involved in crimes where the president's involvement was suspect and being investigated. She used Nixon and Haldeman as an example.

Rachel played a tape that Haldeman made of Nixon suggesting and then outright saying that a pardon could come from him for Haldeman as long as Haldeman did not testify against Nixon. According to Rachel, it was generally accepted then that such a pardon was invalid because it was conditional and illegally offered to cover Nixon's a$$.

Wouldn't the same hold true for Trump and the insurrectionists especially now that Trump has been formally charged with inciting the insurrection and is being investigated for it?

[whopis01]

83. Impeachment has no impact on his ability to pardon anyone including himself. n/t

[lame54]

86. But those pardons can be...

Used against him in his impeachment trial

[StarfishSaver]

87. Yes. Definitely

[MoonRiver]

11. If he pardons them, he will be implicated in their crimes,

as in why did he pardon people who tried to overthrow the United States government. His trial in Schumer's Senate would be a disaster (for Idiot).

[PJMcK]

16. Trump was already impeached

Then he issued some pardons that were legally recognized. Doesn't that speak clearly?

The thing is that Trump wasn't convicted in the Senate "trial." If he had, he would have lost the presidency and its powers, including the pardon authority.

In the current circumstance, Trump's Senate trial probably won't begin until he's no longer president. The impeachment, or indictment, had to happen while he was still president but the trial can take place after he's out of office. If he's convicted-- as I hope!-- he will lose the perks of a post-presidency but his actions as president, including any pardons, would stand as legal and legitimate.

I'm not a lawyer but that's my best understanding as I've read about this. If anyone who reads this has better information, I welcome the correction.

[soldierant]

41. Your information appears sound

as does your logic. UANAL, and IANAL, but just as an uninformed opinion, if I were wanting a Presidential pardon from an impeached President, I would not want it to have been issued between the time the House passed the Article(s) and the time of acquittal. I doubt there's any precedent on that.

[IsItJustMe]

48. Your thinking is sound. If t**** gives out pardons after this impeachment and then is

found guilty of this charge in the Senate, the pardon could be in question. Sounds like something the USSC would have
to rule on one way or the other.

So many firsts and I pray for so many lasts.

[soldierant]

50. Amen!

[StarfishSaver]

64. The pardon would not be in question.

Pardons have no effect on impeachment and impeachment have no effect on pardons.

They are completely unrelated.

[IsItJustMe]

80. Perhaps you are right. But, I understand the reasoning of the poster.

An impeached and convicted President can't pardon. What happens to the pardons that are made between the impeachment and conviction. You say it does not matter. Others would disagree. I have no clue.

[StarfishSaver]

82. Others may disagree, but they would be wrong

Once granted by a president, a pardon is permanent and can't be revoked. The fact that after the pardon was granted, the president somehow stopped being president through expiration of his term, resignation, death or removal by the Senate, is irrelevant.

[cstanleytech]

49. Its complicated. While he does have extensive pardon powers it could be argued that the powers are

limited in that he cannot pardon himself for things he has been impeached for nor can he pardon those involved in what he was impeached for either or atleast not until after the trial occurs in the Senate.
After all it would fly completely in the face of justice if a President had the ability to engage in a criminal conspiracy and then pardon his co-conspirators as well as himself.
Of course that depends on what SCOTUS rules and if they are in favor of supporting such a conspiracy.

[kst]

58. The impeachment limit doesn't apply to crimes

The President "shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment".

That doesn't mean he can't grant a pardon for a crime for which someone has been impeached. It only means that a pardon cannot reverse an impeachment. (Some smart people have argued otherwise. I think they're wrong.)

Suppose Judge Smith is caught accepting bribes. The House votes to impeach him, and the Senate votes to convict. He's removed from office. Separately, he's prosecuted for the crime of bribery. A Presidential pardon can reverse the effect of the criminal prosecution, but it cannot reverse the effect of the impeachment. He's still removed from office (and optionally disqualified from any future office), but won't go to prison.

As for pardoning co-conspirators, that's tricky. The Constitution doesn't limit the pardon power based on the motive for the pardon. If the President pardons someone in return for a bribe, that's an impeachable offense and a crime on the part of the President, but it's not clear that it invalidates the pardon. The authors of the Constitution don't appear to have considered that possibility, and there's no precedent.

Common law and common sense imply that a President cannot pardon himself, but that has never been tested. Even Nixon didn't try it.

[StarfishSaver]

66. Everything you write is absolutely correct

[backscatter712]

95. If Trump's implicated in the crime he's dishing out pardons for, those pardons can be overturned.

Essentially, Trump's committing the crime of conspiracy by issuing those pardons, thus a judge can strike them.

Also, the Constitution states that the POTUS's pardon power can't be used in cases of impeachment.

[Blue Owl]

3. Yes!

Tiddly-Wink Donny is no match for Pelosi's chessboard

[liberalla]

4. Good. The pardons would be meaningless... I wonder if he knows that.

[StarfishSaver]

9. Impeachment doesn't affect pardons at all.

[liberalla]

15. So that's not the reason Pelosi is waiting? She must have other reasons for stalling...

Hmmm, unfortunately she hasn't discussed these details with me!
Do you have any theories?

[StarfishSaver]

19. I think she's waiting until Democrats control of the Senate

McConnell has already said he's not going to even take up the article until after noon on Wednesday, so there's no way a trial can be conducted and Trump removed before his term ends. And if she sends this over to McConnell while he's still in control, I don't trust him not to allow a motion to dismiss the impeachment to be made and passed, thereby getting rid of it before the Dems take over.

[liberalla]

23. Thank you for your reply!

I trust Nancy to do what she thinks is best.

[Crash2Parties]

30. McConnell would have nothing to lose by repeating his last impeachment performance

[PJMcK]

21. Here are two guesses

One, Speaker Pelosi might want to wait 100 days into Mr. Biden's presidency allowing him to get his officials confirmed by the Senate and enact the important legislation that we need to start fixing the fuckups of Trump.

Two, she might want to wait until Senator Schumer is the Majority Leader of the Senate because he will set the terms of the impeachment trial.

There might be others but I found those two thoughts using Google in about 0.015 seconds!

[liberalla]

24. Thank you for adding your ideas here!

[Phoenix61]

6. Being impeached obviously doesn't stop his pardon

power as he was already an impeached president and issued pardons after that. Being convicted by the Senate would change that as he would no longer be president.

[magicarpet]

7. That would be an atrocity if trDump were able to pardon the mob of domestic terrorists,...

... who stormed the Capitol.

[Cha]

8. I didn't know that..

He can't pardon any of them now because he is implicated in the FELONIES they committed.

Great NEWS! TY!

[StarfishSaver]

10. That's not true.

Sorry

[Cha]

14. Darn! It sounded so FAIR!

[StarfishSaver]

12. If you mean, he knows pardoning them would be a bad strategic move because

the Senate can infer from the pardons that he, too, is guilty of being complicit in their crimes, and she's waiting until he's out of office and, thus, no longer has the power to pardon anyone, you are correct.

But he still has full power to pardon people for felonies, even if he's been impeached.

And, fyi, Pelosi hasn't held back the impeachment. The House has already impeached him. She just hasn't sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. But that doesn't change or eliminate is power to grant pardons.

[Cha]

18. At least there is that.. TY. These

"pardons" drive me crazy as they would anyone who doesn't want criminals roaming around bc.. trump.

[Ligyron]

35. So he can pardon anyone for any and all crimes up until the date of said pardon?

Or does it have to be more specific as to exactly what crimes the pardon applies to?

It can't extend into the future can it?

BTW, thanks for setting us straight on a lot of these legal issues.

[Cheezoholic]

53. There's also the interpretation of the last part of Article II Sec 2 Clause 1

"except in Cases of impeachment" I believe that definition has, technically, ever been tested. If as some scholars believe that part of the clause was meant to prevent the executive from pardoning someone who may have been involved in the offense he/she was impeached for. Basically prevent a president from covering his tracks. Just throwing it out there, I'm no lawyer and maybe reading into it wrong, but there was, and still is, a lot of discussion out there specifically pointing to the interpretation. A lot of folks wanted at least the impeachment to go through quickly to prevent Trump from giving his kids a blanket pardon.

I agree with it would be a really bad idea on his part to pardon thereby implicating himself. Perhaps that's kind of the interpretation above? Makes me dizzy lol.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/13/no-trump-cant-pardon-himself-impeachment-would-strip-him-that-power/

[StarfishSaver]

60. I think you'll find that most of the discussion accepting that interpretation

is taking place primarily among non-lawyers who don't understand constitutional law and construction. While surely there may be some lawyers who might argue that position, you'd be hard-pressed to find many Constitutional experts who would agree with you. The language of the Constitution is very clear and unambiguous in this regard.

And considering that Trump has already been impeached and continued to grant pardons, it doesn't make much sense to claim that this second impeachment somehow affects his pardon powers when the first one didn't.

[BrightKnight]

17. It's not really in his interest to do it if he could.

It would increase the pressure to convict him in the Senate and there would be blowback in his other cases. He might face the OJ effect. Prosecutors, public, media the Jury pool will not like it. I am guessing that it might be Obstruction. The arrests are popular with a very broad range of people.

[katmondoo]

20. If he is no longer President he can't pardon anyone

[Baltimike]

26. exactly. nt

[Baltimike]

22. No man is above the law. The president cannot self pardon

and no, idc what the conservative press is trying to normalize.

[bunny planet]

25. I'm not sure

But I think he cannot pardon those implicated in a conspiracy that he himself is a part of.... that would be pardoning in furtherance of a conspiracy. https://www.justsecurity.org/62174/pardon-furthers-conspiracy-limits-pardon-power/

[PoliticAverse]

38. Actually this specific question came up when the constitution was being written...

And the answer was not to limit the president's pardon power but to impeach the president in that case.

George Mason suggested that the President

ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection? The case of treason ought, at least, to be excepted. This is a weighty objection with me.

His argument was countered by James Madison who argued that the remedy for abuse of the pardon power was impeachment:

There is one security in this case to which gentlemen may not have adverted: if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.

See: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/07/25/the-pardon-power-and-original-intent/

[StarfishSaver]

68. He can pardon whomever he wants, even people involved in crimes he's committed

The pardon power is virtually unlimited and has only two restrictions: 1) they can only be granted for federal crimes: and 2) the pardon cannot be used to prevent or absolve an impeachment.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

27. Constitutional scholars have differing opinions on pardons

His own participation, leading up to and by instigating the actual attacks on our Congress and Vice President ought to be the most capital offense imagined:

"Capital offense is an offense that is punishable by the death penalty. It is not necessary that the punishment imposed was the death penalty, but if the permissible punishment prescribed by the legislature for the offense is the death penalty, then the offense is considered a capital offense."

[SleeplessinSoCal]

28. How ironic for the POTUS who loves the death penalty die by it.

Karma. Justice. Irony. Payback. Name it. He has earned it.

[Evolve Dammit]

29. I truly hope that, or similar, is the rationale behind waiting. What a f'in gross attack on our dem.

[Traildogbob]

36. I like the waiting

Everyday more comes to light. More arrested, more digital evidence, more exposures to inside help. Maybe some will talk for leniency. Put him on trial with so much, the GOP has no choice but to convict or forever be known as supporting treason and its leader. During that trial expose all the “collusion” ( there’s that word again) from inside.
AND, as witnesses, have every single one under arrest that has the defense of they were following the presidents orders. Further proving Trumps lead role of insurrection. Convict and jail, no Pension, no Secret Service protection ever again, no office again, no health care on our dime.

[Evolve Dammit]

65. Oh were that to come true.. Be still my little heart! Just the facts, m'am. we need Joe Friday. nt

[Sogo]

33. She might want to hold it until the two new Dem Senators are sworn in

so that the numbers are more in the favor of conviction to begin with. Also, knowing McConnell, if he is in charge of it and takes it up before they are sworn in, he might be able to pull some kind of maneuver that would shut things down with just a majority vote, which the Rs will have before Warnock and Ossoff arrive....

[SheltieLover]

39. Ty, Nancy!

[yellowcanine]

40. Trump knows if he pardons the rebels he is more likely to be convicted in the Senate.

And he is right about that.

[BumRushDaShow]

43. If the Senate can get the Resolution when Democrats are in control

and Schumer is controlling the floor, then WE can set the Rules of engagement, including splitting the time with confirmations as Biden has requested. That's because if we send it now, Turtle would probably try to do like he did the last time - poison-pill the trial rules, run something like 12 hour days, 6 days a week, to get it out of the way, AND do it with NO witness testimony permitted.

If we make the rules, then witness testimony can actually occur so the American people can hear the full depth and breadth of the depravity of what happened.

From some trial balloons I heard floated, there was actually an expectation that a trial might only need to last a couple days, but we will see which way they go.

[IsItJustMe]

54. Show every despicable detail of this insurrection. Days and days of it until it is

ingrained in everyone's mind how detestable this actually was. Make them Republican Senators
squirm in their seats trying to defend this sh!t. We will see.

[rainy]

44. Are you guys sure? The question is can he pardon people that committed crimes that he is impeached

for inciting. It's not about any old pardon but ones connected to the president's, impeached for, crime.

[DENVERPOPS]

59. Did anyone see the "Pardon" expert on Lawrences? show last night????

She said that a presidential pardon doesn't need a formal document to grant a pardon, he can write it on napkin, OR he can just Pardon a person/group by "saying" they are pardoned in a room with witnesses.........AND, worse of all, it doesn't have to be revealed formally to anyone at the time of the pardon, Only until the person/group pardoned wants to release it......

If she was correct, I wonder what secrets and screwed up things await us.........

She was a major player in the Nixon and other presidential pardons, so she seemed to have legal knowledge of pardons....

[StarfishSaver]

70. He can pardon anyone for any reason, even people involved in crimes he was impeached for

[CaptainTruth]

45. "Holding back" impeachment doesn't affect Trump's pardon power. There is, however, a good reason...

I don't believe GOP Senate members would ever vote to convict/remove while Trump is still in office. They would incur too much political wrath from Trumpers. That would mean the Senate would also not get to vote on barring Trump from future office, & he could run again in 2024.

If the Senate trial takes place once Trump is out of office it should be easier to get votes to convict/remove, because he's already been removed (his term has expired). Then the Senate can vote to bar him from future office. I think that's what McConnell (& other GOP members) want, they don't want him to be able to run again, so they want the Senate to get to that second vote.

[Enoki33]

47. Crazy idea here. Mcconnell has already

Implied he prefers doing what makes it easier to purge tRump from the Republican Party. By delaying the trial he is giving Schumer two additional votes, while minimizing the personal political blowback from a conviction. Schumer will be in charge. Suspect Nancy is fully aware of this

[Chainfire]

73. Valid reasoning!

[Thunderbeast]

51. I fear a boatload of "in your face" pardons are coming Wednesday morning

His only interest is to burn it down in the name of the deplorables.

He plans on milking them for more Millions while tempers are hot.

[live love laugh]

67. If he's stupid enough to pardon them I say he should go for it.

His already ruined legacy will be demolished.

[rainy]

81. Keith O says Trump can't pardon insurrectionists...

Link to tweet

?s=21

[whopis01]

84. Keith O is wrong. n/t

[StarfishSaver]

88. Yes, he's dead wrong

A court is not going to get into an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution if the language is plain an unambiguous and, therefore, needs no interpretation.

I don't expect a non-lawyer to understand this, but that's why non-lawyers like Olbermann shouldn't be on television trying to do Constitutional analysis.

[whopis01]

98. I am not a lawyer and don't find it hard to understand.

As you said, the language is plain and unambiguous as it relates to this instance.

[StarfishSaver]

100. Exactly

If the language is plain, the court won't go back and try to guess what the founders meant. They assume they meant exactly what they said. And they assume that if the founders intended to limit the power, they would have said so.

The only time the courts step outside of the document to look at other evidence of the founders' intent is when the language isn't clear.

But, as you said, this language is clear. If they didn't intend for a president's power to be virtually unlimited, they would have said so. And they certainly wouldn't have put two limits on it while not mentioning anything else if they meant for there to be other restrictions on it. And they left it open for future generations to put limits on that power if we want to, through the ratification process. But absent that, they pretty much told us "We said what we meant and we meant what we said."

[scipan]

85. Lawrence Tribe:

Mr Trump’s grants of clemency to close advisers Paul Manafort and Roger Stone belong to a distinct and far more dangerous category. These pardons appear to be the latest steps taken which may in effect have hindered inquiries into crimes that Mr Trump’s close associates have been convicted of committing. Put plainly, these pardons could potentially amount to criminal obstruction of justice or bribery.

https://www.ft.com/content/e73fdd69-1fee-4886-b299-959ce9647151

[StarfishSaver]

89. Granting these pardons could be criminal. But the pardons are still valid.

He can, however, be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, bribery, abuse of office, etc.?

[LAS14]

97. Surely you have to know people's names to pardon them? And...

.. I don't understand this idea that you can pardon people for unnamed offenses, even if you do know their names. Surely that takes the pardon powers too far? Is anyone arguing this?

tia
las

[StarfishSaver]

102. I've heard some people argue that, but I don't believe it's valid

Some have suggested that Trump could issue a blanket pardon to everyone who was at the Capitol that day for any crime they committed. But I don't believe any court would uphold such a pardon.

First, I think you have to be able to clearly identify who the people are and/or the crime they committed.

For example, I think it's permissible to pardon a large group of unnamed, but identifiable people for committing a very specific crime (e.g., pardoning all Vietnam draft evaders for violating a specific law requiring registration for the draft - all of those people could be readily and independently identified) and also possible to pardon one or a very few identified persons for any crime they may have committed during a specific period of time (e.g., pardoning Richard Nixon for any crimes he may have committed as president).

But I don't think it is constitutional to pardon an unknown number of unidentified people for any and all unnamed crimes they may have committed on a specific day. That goes beyond "granting" of a pardon and goes far beyond any purpose the Founding Fathers intended to achieve.