Here's what I don't understand;

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

If TFG issued pardons to those who committed crimes at his direction, or on his behalf, how can those pardons be considered valid?

[leftyladyfrommo]

1. That whole thing just stinks to high heaven. nt

[Eyeball_Kid]

2. Great point.

Pardons can't be issued to hide the commission of crimes.

Eventually, the media celebrities will get around to this obvious fact. Perhaps after they read the latest ratings.

[Raven123]

3. Not sure they could, but could one be pardoned for a crime for which they were not convicted ?

I think this a question that arose when Ford pardoned Nixon, but was left unresolved, as the nation moved on. Nixon resigned and faded away. Now we have people who have no respect for the Constitution, other than to abuse it.

[unblock]

4. That one is pretty straightforward

It's a resounding yes and there's not much real debate about it. The founders wanted a check on prosecutorial abuse. That includes not allowing innocent people to be harassed by a series of improper prosecutions.

Carter pardoned all the draft dodgers, virtually all of them in advance of any prosecution. Many had fled to Canada and may never have come back without the pardon. Why expose themselves to prosecution and the risk that a pardon might never come?

Just because a pre-conviction pardon *can* be granted corruptly or unwisely doesn't mean the whole concept is corrupt or bad.

[usonian]

5. I get the feeling that the committee is trying to show

that a person and his lawyers were conspiring to commit a crime, which cancels attorney-client privileges.

IMO, in a practical sense, as in "how can we prevent further damage ", exposing the web is more important than taking down "The Don" in a mob analogy. The mob survived, because it had a succession plan.

Not that taking down the Don is unimportant! Just looking at the bigger picture.

I find all gangster movies relevant to this matter.

Just a feeling.

[onenote]

6. Which specific pardons?

Flynn? Stone? Manafort?

[unblock]

7. That's problematic from a constitutional perspective

It seems obvious that a corruptly granted pardon ought to be invalid, but the constitution doesn't provide fir any such check on abuse of pardon power.

Obviously, a president who abuses any power could be removed through impeachment or voted out of office.

But there's no precedent for a corruptly granted pardon being challenge in court, so who knows how a court would rule on the matter? Quite possibly a court might say it can't be challenged, that would require a constitutional amendment to have some check on pardon abuse.