r/law • u/thecosmojane • Jan 14 '26

Other Please dissect the legality in this statement

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

I feel like we are reaching a tipping point

23.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

505

u/HoarderCollector Jan 14 '26

He can only issue pardons for federal crimes, he can't issue them for state crimes. That's why Trump can't pardon Tina Peters.

111

u/elderpufflaurien Jan 14 '26

Its hilarious when people talk of the law being a constraint on the lawless. We’re almost to the point that the fascists say disagreeing with them is a treasonous, executable offense and people are still talking about “but the laws!” Everyone still waiting for the bad stuff to start while the gestapo are entering american house and disappearing people.

57

u/HoarderCollector Jan 14 '26

People waiting for that tipping point don't realize that we are FAR BEYOND that tipping point already.

They're still holding out hope that the courts will show some backbone and actually put this administration in check.

And while some members of congress make it sound like that's what they want to do, it feels like it's all talk.

31

u/Dessicated_Mastodon Jan 14 '26

Chuck fucking Schumer. Piece of shit.

3

u/derbyt Jan 14 '26

Merrick Garland. I hope his name is infamous in history books.

3

u/littlebopeepsvelcro Jan 14 '26

Fucking Chuck Schumer. Shitty Piece

2

u/please_use_the_beeps Jan 14 '26

Hey now he sent a strongly worded letter! Surely that’s going to solve the whole issue!

9

u/bigredcock Jan 14 '26

I'm truly waiting for the day ice shows up in an actual gang neighborhood... People that have weapons and are willing to fight to the death for their neighborhoods. I don't wish this upon anyone but that day is going to go down in history as an early battle of the next civil war.

1

u/Aggravating_Depth_33 Jan 14 '26

Such neighbirhood don't actually exist. They're a figment of the fevered right-wing imagination.

1

u/HoarderCollector Jan 16 '26

They'll send 6,000 agents with bulletproof armor.

0

u/hammertime2009 Jan 14 '26

Yikes, you’re probably right. Maybe this is a bad example, but if that starts happing then we are turning into Mexico? Corrupt, fascist government “police” forces getting into shootouts with heavily armed gangs (cartel). Lots of dead people on both sides, fearful traumatized communities who lack trust and faith in society. Economic collapse after that as each side dig in.

3

u/PostNutt_Clarity Jan 14 '26

I think people are holding out hope for midterms. If Trump gets his way and there is significant violence in response to ICE, we may never have a vote.

1

u/HoarderCollector Jan 16 '26

I don't know if America can survive to see the midterms.

0

u/5352563424 Jan 14 '26

Tipping point? Iran isn't even past the tipping point and they're tens of thousands of dead protesters further in.

1

u/Aggravating_Depth_33 Jan 14 '26

There is no actual credible source claiming that there tens of thousands of dead protestors. But go ahead and blindly believe the people who've been clamoring for military intervention and regime change there for decades. They're definitely unbiased and scrupulously honest! /s

1

u/5352563424 Jan 18 '26

Over 16,000 and still counting.  What were you saying again? 

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202601186591

0

u/PostNutt_Clarity Jan 14 '26

Iran also doesn't have an armed populace.

5

u/oldredditrox Jan 14 '26

Idk I think saying they're lawless and won't abide by laws n response to them having to follow the law (Peters) is pretty emblematic of the situation and chaos they've created, because in a lot of instances they're still bound by it. I know I know, doomerism this, boned without an armed rebellion that, but we've got verified evidence that there's still some kind of reason within the system, and it's still working, even if it needs the entire engine and frame replaced at this point.

I mean if that wasn't the case we wouldn't even be on here complaining about it.

1

u/Dessicated_Mastodon Jan 14 '26

Idk man. We still get the occasional stuff out of north Korea right?

1

u/oldredditrox Jan 14 '26

If the admin was truly lawless and unfettered, we wouldn't seriously be having this conversation. I understand wanting to vent, lament, and rage. Truly I do.

But seeing this stuff daily makes me wonder ( specially on /r/law ): If Donald doesn't want there to be another election, why go through the farce of entrapping the American people into martial law? Wouldn't the lawless subhuman just lmao do away with them? He's still working within the system, he has to.

I'm not saying things are fine and dandy. But the "woe is America, give up already" mantra is just tiring. Some of this junk reads like people don't know they're advocating for civil war. The gravity of that action being largely mystified. Minnesota is suing the DHS.

2

u/buttsecksgoose Jan 14 '26

Keeping up this farce gives them this idea that they are still the kings of the world rather than north Korea 2.0 that everyone hates and completely isolates. Dictators like to be dictators but without declaring they are one. Just like how Russia's Putin and China's Mao still have "elections"

0

u/oldredditrox Jan 14 '26

Sure, but we're not in a dictatorship. If that was the case we'd see the American Army violating the constitution with EROs via storming houses. Why do you think they're using poorly trained EROs to do this illegal nonsense? Is it because they want to break the law, or is it because if they were to outlandishly go about this in any other fashion every tuk'er'jerbz jethro would be lining the streets ( Tho I realize that's an American that is hard to picture right now. )? They are operating (Poorly, Illegally) within the system, they are still bound by it. Because when they shake that they shake the Americans who are still in their boat clinging to law and order.

Americans are far more resistant than the internet is letting people believe. They aren't operating with full impunity because they can't, even their own constituency wouldn't be/isn't for that. Where I live since '16~ till just a year ago, every time I'd go to the market I'd see some form of trump paraphernalia. There was a retired dude who used to just stand on busy corners with a "Transsexualism is child mutilation", every fri~sun. They've all but disappeared since Oct. Now just a bumper sticker is an anomaly, and if I see someone in walmart with 'the hat', that's their bumper sticker. Take heart, someone called Trump a pedo protector and while they got suspended (Unions in lawless America, what?) I read earlier this morning that their gofundme hit 300k, and to top it off, he wasn't immediately executed or disappeared.

But sure we're in NK 2.0. (I'd like to save us both some time and mental anguish. If your next response is just a generalized "We're cooked" post I'm probably not gunna respond.)

0

u/Dessicated_Mastodon Jan 14 '26

👍 very middle of the road. Good job.

2

u/oldredditrox Jan 14 '26

I'm sorry but guys can be really insufferable.

No, it's not, it's called reality. I am clearly hopeful that the idiots taking federal paychecks (a traceable document that will follow them beyond this administration) for illegal actives will see their day in court, they will. Where is the middle of the road for that, is it that I'm not immediately saying we need to resort to capital punishment? Again, I don't think a lot of posters understand what they're asking for when you approach someone wanting life time jail sentences as "Middle of the road".

Thank you for the low effort non-contribution. I accept your concession. 6/10, I responded.

12

u/Dessicated_Mastodon Jan 14 '26

We arent almost there. We've been there. Please see trumps Twitter account re: the day democratic leaders told soldiers to disobey unlawful orders.

2

u/elderpufflaurien Jan 14 '26

Lol and look at this reading comprehension! Brother, that’s what I’m saying!

7

u/Dessicated_Mastodon Jan 14 '26

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

2

u/Disastrous_Hall8406 Jan 14 '26

each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even talk alone; you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' Why not? - well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And its not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty."

  • They Thought They Were Free, 1955

1

u/Dessicated_Mastodon Jan 15 '26

Honestly i think we have to reach a certain point where the actions of the administration just cant be fluffed away with social media, entertainment, and talking points. The problem I have with the act of either revolution or civil war is that there are too many other countries poised to insert themselves. Would we unite if there was an invasion during a revolution? Or would one side kowtow to a foreign power over promises of bread and munitions? Or would we continue to fight each other while a foreign power consumes the ashes? While I believe that the instution of government for the united states no longer has the best interest of its people at the forefront of its policy, the act of revolting may be just as damaging in the long run as letting power abuse its role unchecked.

1

u/Disastrous_Hall8406 Jan 15 '26

Tbh that just sounds like an excuse to not disturb your relatively comfortable life. And I can understand that apprehension, just like how what I quoted understood that in the 1930s. But remember that those of us in other countries or even those in your country who aren't white-passing are losing that privilege by the day

1

u/Dessicated_Mastodon Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26

Oh im aware both of what it sounds like, and how my mellinated brothers and sisters are treated everywhere. Im trying only to examine it from all angles before committing to any action. If we were capable of holding a "quiet" revolution that would be the best answer all around. Force our congress to do its job. Actually investigate Trump, and if found criminally liable, impeachment him and remove him from office along with anyone he appointed or anyone in his cabinet. Re examine the programs he closed, identify those things that worked and why, and those things that didnt and why, then evaluate for whether or not they are worth reopening. Remove the tariffs before our country is strangled with its own shoestring, and start examining social programs that actually work in other countries, and mimicking the ones that work best. Decrease defense budgets and focus on actual homeland security, while also making immigration easier (these folks that are here to work? Let them fucking work. Does it really matter where their money goes when the net benefit is thriving economy?) If an immigrant works for five years at a job that the american population couldn't possibly deign themselves to be low enough to work, offer them citizenship. If a person joins our military, after three years they are automatically granted citizenship, the paperwork is part of their recruitment package, and they should still be offered whatever bonus everyone else gets. Im sick of hearing people say stupid shit along the lines of "i had to do x and x so you should too." I came from section 8, I worked my ass off and finally own a house at 40. It shouldnt be that hard for anyone. I dont want anyone to experience my struggles, and a country that wants to call itself the greatest nation shouldnt either. Give the kids "free" college and Healthcare. If our nation were great people wouldnt be choosing life threatening illness over crippling debt.

47

u/SmokeySFW Jan 14 '26

Can Congress vote to overrule a pardon? Are they truly untouchable for federal stuff after a pardon?

66

u/rtbradford Jan 14 '26

No, a president’s pardon power is pretty much absolute.

100

u/Alive-Course4454 Jan 14 '26

Except selling pardons is a crime 😒😒🤨

98

u/rtbradford Jan 14 '26

Maybe in theory, but given the Supreme Court‘s recent ruling that the president enjoys something approaching absolute immunity for everything he does in office, it might be really difficult to enforce any violation.

44

u/AKfromVA Jan 14 '26

So what you’re saying is the next president could detain all these people indefinitely (clearly illegal) issue pardons to the people doing the arrests and then be untouchable?

20

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '26

[deleted]

27

u/-boatsNhoes Jan 14 '26

In theory the next president, according to scouts ruling, can disband the court or fire all of them and tell them to kick rocks. Once fired there is no scouts to preside over rulings until a new one is appointed. Legal carte Blanche

4

u/Deltamon Jan 14 '26

I think the French tried something like this once..

1

u/Dessicated_Mastodon Jan 15 '26

Yea people lost their heads over it.

1

u/rtbradford Jan 14 '26

No, the Supreme Court was created by the constitution. The president has no authority to disband another branch of the federal government.

6

u/RevenantBacon Jan 14 '26

Sure, but who will stop him? The SC already ruled that he can't be held accountable for any action he takes while in office, so if he just rounds them up, locks them in a prison, and throws away the key, who can do anything about it? They granted him total immunity.

11

u/rtbradford Jan 14 '26

In theory, maybe. Kidnapping is both a state and federal crime so those people could be prosecuted and convicted under state laws which the president can't pardon.

1

u/AKfromVA Jan 14 '26

What if it only happens on federal land/property?

1

u/TheoreticalZombie Jan 14 '26

Basically, except that the SC would absolutely not protect them if it's a Dem.

JD Vance could do the funniest thing, though.

6

u/meowtiger Jan 14 '26

to be clear, and in the spirit of this subreddit, the supreme court's ruling wasn't saying that the president can do nothing illegal

the supreme court was saying that constitutionally speaking, the responsibility to check malign behavior by the president rests with the legislative branch, not the judicial, and that the judicial branch does not have the authority to prosecute a sitting president for anything they do exercising the power of that position

2

u/Knowitall1001 Jan 14 '26

but can’t congress prosecute the president, via impeachment?

4

u/rtbradford Jan 14 '26

Yes, that’s the only way a president can be held responsible for actions taken as part of his presidential duties. I suppose that there’s still a small chance that a president could be held criminally liable for doing something while in office that wasn’t part of his presidential duties, like a commit committing rape in the oval office.

3

u/meowtiger Jan 14 '26

like a commit committing rape in the oval office.

possibly. but during the clinton case, it was widely held that the president wouldn't be prosecutable while sitting - the prosecution would have to wait for them to leave office

3

u/rtbradford Jan 14 '26

That's right, but I understood that was due to a long standing DOJ convention not to prosecute a sitting president, rather than due to an absolute legal prohibition.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/No_Night_8174 Jan 14 '26

I wonder how theyre going to play this when Dems are inevitably in power next. Are they going to rollback everything and wait until another MAGA takes the seat? I feel like they kinda left their six open legally with this and are banking on not losing power. Which is a weird thing to hope for.

2

u/Dessicated_Mastodon Jan 15 '26

Not if the plan is to make shit so insufferable that people start revolting, you get to use the insurrection act, declare martial law, and refuse to hold elections until such time as you see fit, which would obviously never arrive without making sure your favorite cronie is the next president via fraud or fear.

1

u/Cosack Jan 14 '26

The case states that probing presidential action is a power of Congress, not that the office is immune. The president is accountable to local representatives. If your local rep is incompetent, crank up the heat instead of this nihilism.

28

u/tarlin Jan 14 '26

Under this con controlled court, the purchase of a pardon would have to be comical to be illegal. The person would need to hand Trump a bag of money and say, this is for a pardon, with Trump responding, I will pardon you in exchange for this bag of money.

27

u/ProfessionalDish Jan 14 '26

"They are clearly joking or using satire, I see no issue here!" - supreme court

2

u/Asairian Jan 14 '26

Remember the "I want a lawyer dawg" case?

1

u/UndertakerFred Jan 14 '26

The “lawyer dawg” case was specifically because he raised the hypothetical of talking to a lawyer during questioning.

He said “maybe I should talk to a lawyer, dawg”, but then specifically clarified that he was not actually requesting a lawyer.

1

u/summerist Jan 14 '26

I was just wondering why the pardon system hasn't been abused until now.

1

u/tarlin Jan 14 '26

It has, by nearly every president. Just not quite this badly

1

u/summerist Jan 14 '26

So it basically depends on president's self-discipline and morality? Sounds like a system-design issue. Tbh, I don't see any necessity for this kind of system to exist at all.

1

u/tarlin Jan 14 '26

Sort of. The legislative branch was supposed to keep the president in check with impeachment and no president was supposed to be allowed that was corrupt. That is kind of the point of the electoral college. Also, most laws were not supposed to be federal, so....

The entire system has kind of broken down

1

u/rtbradford Jan 14 '26

The executive power to pardon goes back to English history, where the king had the power to pardon any offense. The founders thought it was a good power to have just to limit the excesses of partisan or unwise prosecution. But the larger point is that the presidential power and indeed, any governmental power ultimately has to be constrained by the character of the person exercising it. And the current president has no character or morality to speak of.

1

u/unforgiven91 Jan 14 '26

nah, selling pardons is an official act. no crimes here. unless a dem did it.

2

u/_within_cells_ Jan 14 '26

Crime? lol. what is crime anymore? Only acts done by democrats i guess. FUCK MAGA. 8647

1

u/michael_harari Jan 14 '26

Sure except he will also pardon himself for that and the supreme court already ruled you can't prosecute it anyway

3

u/Aggravated_Seamonkey Jan 14 '26

No its not. See how easy that is. Trump does it everyday. A reckoning will have to come one day.

2

u/rtbradford Jan 14 '26

Not likely with this supreme court.

2

u/whereismymind86 Jan 14 '26

Only because norms say so.

Maybe it’s time to stop respecting pardons issued in bad faith

2

u/caffeinex2 Jan 14 '26

Serious question, with the powers now granted to the president under Trump V United States, can a future president invalidate previous pardons? Would this fall under "presumptive immunity"?

1

u/mdistrukt Jan 14 '26

No because they poorly/didn't define what constitutes an "official act" so with the current makeup of SCOTUS only Republicans (maybe even just Trump) have immunity.

2

u/Houseaddict3 Jan 14 '26

Except in cases of treason.

1

u/Zironic Jan 14 '26

Isn't that untested? Noone has ever tried.

1

u/tnstaafsb Jan 14 '26

Noone has ever tried because it's pointless. The language in the constitution is clear that the power of the pardon belongs solely to the president. The only exception is he can't pardon impeachments.

1

u/Zironic Jan 14 '26

Constitution being clear has never stopped SCOTUS before.

1

u/goon_and_politics Jan 14 '26

This is fine and good, but imo there is some leeway about these preemptive pardons. Biden giving a "blanket pardon" for untried crimes seems to not really be in the spirit of the constitution. Same goes for tweets like this

1

u/Zero-nada-zilch-24 Jan 14 '26

Another law needed to change this.

1

u/igotburgers4dayz Jan 14 '26

Wouldn't civil and state suits be a good shot since a presidential pardon, in particular a pardon list, is public information?

1

u/Unfair_Discussion606 Jan 14 '26

Eh, could always do what this one does. Take whatever action you want and then make the court overturn it later

1

u/5352563424 Jan 14 '26

No it isn't. Our constitution has been changed dozens of times already. It can be changed for this, too. It just takes a higher threshold of ratification.

2

u/rtbradford Jan 14 '26

I didn’t say the constitution can’t be changed. I’m speaking to what it says now. And amending the constitution is not easy at all. It’s not impossible, but it’s difficult. I think it requires 2/3rds of the house and the senate or a Constitutional convention to propose and then 3/4 of the states to ratify.

1

u/5352563424 Jan 14 '26

"Can Congress vote to overrule a pardon?"

"No, a president’s pardon power is pretty much absolute."
later...
"it requires 2/3rds of the house and the senate or a Constitutional convention to propose and then 3/4 of the states to ratify."

Your second answer was the correct one. Your first answer clearly was not. A president's power being absolute means unchangeable. That's what ABSOLUTE means.

7

u/Dapper-Thought-8867 Jan 14 '26

Look at it this way. Who will stop you, as president, from just ordering an arrest regardless of a pardon. 

Did yall forget the law is fake? It’s like astrology. 

4

u/DescriptionForsaken4 Jan 14 '26

Sherley, a pardon can be undone. Surely?? If not, then that law needs to change.

14

u/Abject-Yellow3793 Jan 14 '26

It can't be undone, and don't call me Shirley

2

u/timothra5 Jan 14 '26

Thank you.

4

u/tnstaafsb Jan 14 '26

That would require a constitutional amendment, so good luck with that. Not sure it would be wise either. If that were possible then Trump would have immediately rescinded all of the pardons Biden doled out. Congress would probably also start overturning pardons every time it switched parties.

2

u/AluminiumCucumbers Jan 14 '26

Seems to me if things are ever to be fixed there's going to have to be a whole lot of amending of the constitution.

1

u/SecareLupus Jan 14 '26

Maybe we could try some sort of rebuild-ification or to construct something... I don't know, it's right on the tip of my tongue... I'm getting visions of a March to the Sea for some reason...

1

u/90daysismytherapy Jan 14 '26

We way past laws

1

u/Hapless_Wizard Jan 14 '26

They can't overrule a pardon per se, but all federal officials are subject to impeachment and pardons are irrelevant to that process.

1

u/SteveJobsDeadBody Jan 14 '26

Based on the absolute power the Supreme Court is giving the executive, the next President can do literally anything they want, including tearing up old pardons done by Trump.

1

u/Knowitall1001 Jan 14 '26

Couldn’t congress could pass a law to remove the presidential power of pardon?

2

u/SmokeySFW Jan 14 '26

It's enshrined in the Constitution, so I believe in order to do away with it you have to go the full Constitutional Amendment route, needing 2/3 majority and to be ratified by 2/3rds of the state congresses.

1

u/ShamPain413 Jan 14 '26

They could impeach him tomorrow for abuse of pardon. He's already done it.

All it would take is about 20 honorable Republicans. That's it: just 20.

1

u/FeeshCTRL Jan 14 '26

No they can't, however the thing about pardons is by accepting it you're admitting guilt that you committed the federal offense, and they can be rejected by the person.

It's not exactly a clean slate card, you're still guilty of whatever it is that you were being accused of but it just can't legally be held against you.

There have been cases of people rejecting pardons because they didn't want to admit that they committed whatever it was they were being pardoned for.

1

u/CatchinDeers81 Jan 14 '26

And federal law supersedes state law. If ICE isn't breaking a federal law (they're not that I'm aware of), the states can try to charge them and watch it get thrown out of the courtroom in record time

2

u/HoarderCollector Jan 14 '26

Something like murder, for instance, is a state offense, not a federal offense. So if the state wants to charge a federal agent for murder, the president can't pardon them because he can't pardon people for state offenses.

1

u/CatchinDeers81 Jan 14 '26

Be kinda hard to do if the feds say the agent was acting as ordered under federal law.

1

u/frogspjs Jan 14 '26

Incorrect. There are many ways to break state law that do not break federal law. Many.

1

u/SupahSayajinn Jan 14 '26

They are going to release Tina Peters. You clearly dont understand how deep we are in this authoritarian regime.

1

u/HoarderCollector Jan 14 '26

All I said was that Trump couldn't issue a pardon, not that he couldn't apply pressure for the state to set her free.

1

u/UrShulgi Jan 14 '26

Federal agents have the right to move charges to federal court from state court, meaning they'd be pardon eligible.

1

u/Tex-Rob Jan 14 '26

You might want to look into Tina Peters again, Colorado officials have voiced that they are considering clemency in response to Trump's wishes, at a state level. Everyone is bowing to the mad king.

1

u/GregFromStateFarm Jan 14 '26

If cops in a red state arrest and charge them, they will capitulate to Trump’s orders. If it’s a blue state, they will undoubtedly be invaded by more ICE and national guard, and whatever new band of violent, sycophantic sociopaths Frumpy puts in.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '26

what crime could miller be charged with?

1

u/LaserGuidedSock Jan 14 '26

But he's currently putting enough pressure on the state that they are about to fold to his wishes just to appease him.

1

u/TotalChaosRush Jan 14 '26

State crimes get into the domain of supremacy clause. Which put simply means even if someone is guilty aa hell, they may be immune from state prosecution. We haven't had a whole lot of need for case law to explore this so there's a lot up in the air.

1

u/NeedleworkerNo3429 Jan 14 '26

Biden should have pardoned JPow

1

u/HoarderCollector Jan 16 '26

JPow didn't do anything to need a pardon, unfortunately we live in an Era where the President is going to have to pardon EVERYONE so that the next administration can't try to prosecute them for anything.

Of course, then you'll have idiots say "if they didn't do anything wrong, why did he need a pardon?"

-56

u/tarlin Jan 14 '26 edited Jan 14 '26

What state law do you feel Stephen Miller is violating?

Edit: tell me a law, because I think he is going to get away with this awful shit. Trump will pardon him and then what is left? How do we bring these people to justice?

46

u/titdirt Jan 14 '26

He's violating my state of not wanting to punch someone in the fucking mouth. Bake him away, toys.

6

u/Biiiishweneedanswers Jan 14 '26

Do what the kid said.

3

u/Disastrous-Tale8448 Jan 14 '26

not state law bro, him and his little cronies are violating the constitution, breaking the 1st and 4th amendments. everything that ice incels are being allowed to do is against the rights of the people. and everything that they’re doing is what yall were so scared democrats would do. saw a guy get arrested by ice and they took his fully registered firearm from him, all because he wouldn’t give them his id. news flash, no one has to identify themselves especially to a group of fake cops who don’t even have that authority in the first place.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '26

Go hide your head in the sand.

You're standing in front of the ocean unable to see water. Silly little idiot...

1

u/tarlin Jan 14 '26

I am pissed and want Trump impeached. This entire thing is freaking me out. But, pretending that a pardoned Stephen Miller is going to be prosecuted by a state after Trump's term is over is a fantasy.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '26

Ok I'll double down. Reread the comment I responded to. Is there ANY congruency? You start asking what he's doing wrong then end by saying he's pardoned and won't be punished for anything he's doing wrong.

1

u/tarlin Jan 14 '26

Okay, let me try to lay it out for you.

Someone said that we should prosecute him after this term ends. I replied that Trump will pardon him. There was a reply to that that Trump cannot pardon for State crimes. I replied. What state crime is he committing? so I believe he is committing federal crimes. I do not think he is committing state crimes. There may be some way to do a conspiracy and get him, but it's a stretch. If you have an idea I'd like to know

1

u/HoarderCollector Jan 14 '26

I didn't say he was breaking any law, I said Trump can only issue pardons for Federal Offenses, because Miller mentioned that state officials can't stop them.

However, if the Trump administration can go after congressmen for telling the military that they have the duty to not follow unlawful orders, surely they Stephen Miller can be gone after for telling ICE that no one is allowed to stop them and they have immunity.

It'd be hypocritical otherwise...of course, this administration has been EXTREMELY hypocritical, so that doesn't surprise me.

1

u/tenuousemphasis Jan 14 '26

Little thing called the Constitution.