The fact that such an announcement came from Barr makes it particularly difficult for Trump. In the nearly two years he has been in office, Barr has distorted the truth in favor of Trump, and he has used the Justice Department to selectively intervene in politically motivated cases for the benefit of Trump’s political allies.
But part of the beauty of the Department of Justice is that in the end, it follows facts, not natural conspiracy theories. And although Barr changed the rules and ordered prosecutors specifically to investigate possible cases of voter fraud (and possibly publicly announce those findings) immediately after the election, they seemed nothing.
Let’s break that down. In the corner, we have Giuliani and the rest of Trump’s press team, who have continued to take their case out of court due to lack of complete evidence. A federal judge appointed by Trump last week strongly condemned the campaign’s efforts to overturn the Pennsylvania vote count confirmation. On the other hand, we have Barr and the Justice Department all looking for fraud and found nothing. Take yours.
Throughout his tenure, Barr has been able to, and has distorted and undermined the Department of Justice, using it for transparent political purposes. But the facts are the facts. It is one thing that distorts them; It’s another thing to invent them where they don’t have to. If Barr and the Justice Department could not refine Trump conspiracy theories, then no one could.
Now, your question:
Bonnie (Connecticut): I think the Constitution states that the President has the power to forgive except in the case of allegations. Shouldn’t President Trump lose the power to forgive?
No, but the complexity here is understandable. Article II
The Constitution gives the president “the power to condemn and pardon crimes against the United States, except in the case of indictment.” At this point, the constitution – a document that’s believe it is – is uncertain. Read one way, it can appear that after the president was accused by parliament, he lost the power to issue an amnesty. But on the other hand, it says the president can issue an amnesty for a criminal offense, but not an indictment.
Th Final reading
Is correct. There are no provisions in the Constitution, decrees, or laws that put any presidential candidate into a parliamentary impeachment (although, of course, if convicted in the Senate, the president has all jurisdiction and authority). It would be disappointing for the president to lose power alone – the power to forgive – as alleged alone, and no serious legal authority has argued for this interpretation. Indeed, former President Bill Clinton Issue a lot of forgiveness
After he was indicted in 1998.
Conversely, the sentence in Article II states that while the president can pardon a plaintiff (or any individual) for a crime, he cannot pardon the plaintiff who left the charge. In other words, the president has no power to oppose. For example, if a federal judge gives a bribe, the president can excuse the judge from the bribery allegations, but the president cannot save the judge from the accusation. Indeed, no president has ever forgiven or even attempted to forgive an accuser.
Greg (Colorado): Because the Constitution gives the President the privilege of forgiving federal crimes, can the President reject the amnesty issued by the President before this?
Probably not. Th The amnesty power of the Constitution
Extraordinary: The president “will have the power to prosecute and pardon crimes against the United States, except in the case of indictment.”
Nothing court or parliament overrides the presidential pardon. In the end, the president may, in a narrow situation, be able to refuse to forgive himself before it is formalized. In 2008, President George W. Bush Forgiveness
Imprisoned Isaac Toussie, but later, when he learned that Toussie’s father had donated large sums of money to a Republican political group, canceled his pardon the next day. The administrator Quote
The pardon has not yet been completed because Toussie has not yet been notified of the pardon.
There is a limit and a remote for the president to cancel the previous presidential pardon. Former President Ulysses S. Grant Withdraw
In some cases (like Bush) claiming that forgiveness is not final because there is no official notification to the recipient. In the 140 plus years since Grant, no president has even tried to abolish the pre-emptive presidential pardon.
Paul (California): When Senator Kamala Harris becomes Vice President, how will her lower house seats fill, and what will happen temporarily if her absence overwhelms the Republican Party?
Under California law
, The governor has the power to elect a vacant seat in the Senate. California is among Most of the state
– 37, to be precise – to be vacant immediately by gubernatorial appointment. In the other 13 states, seats remain vacant until the state can hold a special election to fill that vacancy.
The current governor, Gavin Newsom, is a Democrat, and is certain to nominate other Democrats to fill Harris’ seat. Given the narrow margin in the Senate (currently 50-488, which has been approved by the Republicans, by a two-point majority in Georgia), Newsom may be ready to make his appointment immediately after the resignation of Harris’s senator to run for office.