New York seeks authority to prosecute despite presidential pardons

[Visbek]

A democratic president pardons a man for a federal crime of drug smuggling....

Texas decides they don’t like that rule, and want to punish him....

So they bring separate charges for the same charges since he was arrested iwhile passing through Texas

Be careful what you wish for.....

*shrug*

1) The alleged crime would actually have to take place in Texas, meaning the opportunities for abuse rather than legitimate use are small.

2) Texas does not appear have the same types of laws as NY State -- meaning someone already can be charged for the same crime separately in state and federal courts. (I believe this happened to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who was zinged for fraud by both Texas and the SEC for the same actions.)

3) There are no other checks on the pardon powers of the President.

4) I don't care who issues a pardon. There is no Democratic Pixie Dust which makes their pardons extra-special.

 

[Visbek]

This does away with the possibility of a president engaging in (i.e.) racketeering and then pardoning his accomplices ... thus protecting a continuing criminal enterprise.

This is a proactive move on the part of the NY AG probably due to Trumps predilection for bending/abusing presidential powers.

Yep.

With any other president, the democratic norms are enough to prevent most of the worst abuses of the pardon power. E.g. Bush 43 could have pardoned Scooter Libby, but to his credit, he let the courts decide.

Trump clearly violates those norms to his own advantage on a regular basis. As a result, he has torched the idea that he should be given any benefit of the doubt, and checks on his and his associates' actions are unquestionably needed.

So to me, the only real question is whether or not it is Constitutional, and the answer appears to be "yes."

 

[apdst]

*shrug*

1) The alleged crime would actually have to take place in Texas, meaning the opportunities for abuse rather than legitimate use are small.

2) Texas does not appear have the same types of laws as NY State -- meaning someone already can be charged for the same crime separately in state and federal courts. (I believe this happened to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who was zinged for fraud by both Texas and the SEC for the same actions.)

3) There are no other checks on the pardon powers of the President.

4) I don't care who issues a pardon. There is no Democratic Pixie Dust which makes their pardons extra-special.

Change The Constitution. That's your only option.

 

[Removable Mind]

Not that I know of.
From an earlier post
https://legaldictionary.net/double-jeopardy/




SCOTUS Link
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2018/01/16/17-646_gamble_opp.pdf
Case in point
Both State and Federal charges.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/us/dylann-roof-guilty-plea-state-trial/index.html

In reading further, Roof was convicted for murder of the people in the Church by the State. The Feds convicted Roof for committing a “hate crime” that held the death penalty. Technically that’s two different crimes that occurred at the same crime scene. Or acts committed by one against another were subject to two different elements of the crime.

So????? The Dual Sovereign Doctrine example of Rodney King was that the State tried the officer for assault and the federal government tried them for violating King’s civil rights. Those are two different offenses that occurred simultaneously.

So I’m still not sure what NY’s argument is.

 

[Fearandloathing]

If SCOTUS made clear that presidents cannot pardon for state crimes, I thought that the SCOTUS ruling superceded all others, SCOTUS being the highest court in the country.

Often SCOTUS rulings are specific to a certain law. Change the law, change the outcome

 

[Fearandloathing]

Democrats are excusing throwing away the rules of our nation for any attempt to damage Trump and take him down, even if it turns out nothing illegal happened. They are completely losing their minds.

HOw is this about Trump?


For ONCE we have a thread that is serious, debatable, interesting and FREE of Trump poison and you have to pop off about him. MY God, can we have ONE DISCUSSION that isn't designed to forward the meme of 'poor, poor mr Trump, they won't let him do his job."

Next he'll be a theme in scoreboards too "The fans must really hate the bombers, mel, they're treating them like Trump"

 

[apdst]

HOw is this about Trump?


For ONCE we have a thread that is serious, debatable, interesting and FREE of Trump poison and you have to pop off about him. MY God, can we have ONE DISCUSSION that isn't designed to forward the meme of 'poor, poor mr Trump, they won't let him do his job."

Next he'll be a theme in scoreboards too "The fans must really hate the bombers, mel, they're treating them like Trump"

The only reason they want to change the law is to undermine President Trump. Why do you think they want to change it NOW?

 

[JANFU]

In reading further, Roof was convicted for murder of the people in the Church by the State. The Feds convicted Roof for committing a “hate crime” that held the death penalty. Technically that’s two different crimes that occurred at the same crime scene. Or acts committed by one against another were subject to two different elements of the crime.

So????? The Dual Sovereign Doctrine example of Rodney King was that the State tried the officer for assault and the federal government tried them for violating King’s civil rights. Those are two different offenses that occurred simultaneously.

So I’m still not sure what NY’s argument is.

From what I gather they, ones who wrote the original bill considered same/similar charges as double jeopardy.

 

[yankintx]

Democrats are excusing throwing away the rules of our nation for any attempt to damage Trump and take him down, even if it turns out nothing illegal happened. They are completely losing their minds.

How many indictments we up to now? Not everything is about the POS Pres, some of us prefer our elections were not compromised. We know, that fact means very little to your kind. Trumps persecution complex is contagious in cyber space.

 

[Removable Mind]

From what I gather they, ones who wrote the original bill considered same/similar charges as double jeopardy.

It’s not in the King and Roof cases - if you read the charges by the state and the feds. The same defendant can commit a crime that has two separate elements of chargeable crimes involved. One element of a crime is a state violation and the another element is a federal crime.

For example: Say you steal a car in your hometown. That’s a state crime. Then you drive the car across the state line. That’s interstate transfer of stolen goods. That’s a federal crime. Same crime has more than one prosecutable element to the initial crime.

 

[JANFU]

It’s not in the King and Roof cases - if you read the charges by the state and the feds. The same defendant can commit a crime that has two separate elements of chargeable crimes involved. One element of a crime is a state violation and the another element is a federal crime.

For example: Say you steal a car in your hometown. That’s a state crime. Then you drive the car across the state line. That’s interstate transfer of stolen goods. That’s a federal crime. Same crime has more than one prosecutable element to the initial crime.

I realized the difference in the Roof case after posting it.
But the legal links posted lay out the reasoning.
Myself I was surprised as many here, including myself, knew that Pres Pardons were not valid for State charges except as we found out in NY State.

We have had many discussions on Pres Pardons and no one mentioned, except in NY State. I wonder if other States have same/similar laws??

 

[gdgyva]

*shrug*

1) The alleged crime would actually have to take place in Texas, meaning the opportunities for abuse rather than legitimate use are small.

2) Texas does not appear have the same types of laws as NY State -- meaning someone already can be charged for the same crime separately in state and federal courts. (I believe this happened to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who was zinged for fraud by both Texas and the SEC for the same actions.)

3) There are no other checks on the pardon powers of the President.

4) I don't care who issues a pardon. There is no Democratic Pixie Dust which makes their pardons extra-special.

i was using Texas and drugs as both examples

could be any place USA in middle america

pardons have universally meant that the person was free from prosecution/jail for a particular crime

i am okay with changing that....but i dont want to hear any bitching when it is your guys/gals on the receiving end of a sentence handed down by a court and there isnt a damn thing your democratic president can do about it

fair enough?

 

[Visbek]

i was using Texas and drugs as both examples

could be any place USA in middle america

No, it couldn't.

In order for someone to be charged with a crime by a state, it has to take place in that state. If President Corey Booker pardons someone who committed fraud in New Jersey, then the Louisiana AG can't do jack about it.

pardons have universally meant that the person was free from prosecution/jail for a particular crime

Pardons have also been limited by jurisdiction. The POTUS can only pardon federal crimes; a governor can only pardon state crimes. It is not absolution from the Pope.

i am okay with changing that....but i dont want to hear any bitching when it is your guys/gals on the receiving end of a sentence handed down by a court and there isnt a damn thing your democratic president can do about it

Since it can already be done, and since I have yet to see any example of Republicans passing on a chance to play Constitutional Hardball, that is not any sort of threat.

 

[gdgyva]

No, it couldn't.

In order for someone to be charged with a crime by a state, it has to take place in that state. If President Corey Booker pardons someone who committed fraud in New Jersey, then the Louisiana AG can't do jack about it.



Pardons have also been limited by jurisdiction. The POTUS can only pardon federal crimes; a governor can only pardon state crimes. It is not absolution from the Pope.



Since it can already be done, and since I have yet to see any example of Republicans passing on a chance to play Constitutional Hardball, that is not any sort of threat.

In order for someone to be charged with a crime by a state, it has to take place in that state. If President Corey Booker pardons someone who committed fraud in New Jersey, then the Louisiana AG can't do jack about it. well no **** sherlock...hence my use of the WORD example

maybe this way it will get through...a few years from now, we have a democratic president....one of the superstars of Hollywood after passing through Colorado, get stopped in Missouri with a cache of drugs. The president can pardon their interstate drug crimes, but as you so eloquently pointed out, the Missouri governor can lock them up for 25 years....and the presidential pardon, well maybe he can use it as toilet paper while inside

If you think just one state will have the ability you are out of your mind....anything New York can do, Texas and others can do just as well. And they have much harsher penalties for a lot of crimes

That was my point...my only point...take it, leave it...and yeah the partisan hardball seems to be the way of the world now....

this site, and these threads show that to be true

 

[trouble13]

Not sure this will fly.

But I do wonder how far the presidential pardon can be allowed to go, before we have to change the law to restrict it further.

After a bit of search, I think it MIGHT be possible for a state to prosecute someone for a federal crime they were pardoned for, if said crime also falls under state laws.
But I'm unsure how the legal system would deal with that.

Edit: And now, having actually gone and read the article, I realize that the AG in question already thought of that, and is requesting New York remove double-jeopardy protections for those who received a presidential pardon.

Imo there is already a remedy in place, it's called impeachment. They can't stop a president from issuing a pardon but they can stop him from being the president if they feel he has abused his authority.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

There's no way that's constitutional. The 5th Amendment says "same offense" not "same statute".

It will go up to the scotus if attempted

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

There is more and more of that....which erodes trust in government but everyone is in such a hurry to get what they want today, screw the long term consequences.

This is no different that how corporate America decided to only care about the next 5 quarters except in one case it is done for money and in the other for power.

One day people are gonna figure out that they are asking for something they don't actually want. I hope they don't wake up before it's too late.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Visbek]

well no **** sherlock...hence my use of the WORD example

Then I'm not really sure why you said it "could be any place USA in middle america."

maybe this way it will get through...a few years from now, we have a democratic president....one of the superstars of Hollywood after passing through Colorado, get stopped in Missouri with a cache of drugs. The president can pardon their interstate drug crimes, but as you so eloquently pointed out, the Missouri governor can lock them up for 25 years...

So what?

1) That can already happen in many states.

2) I already told you that I don't care who issues the pardon. If Tom Cruise gets busted in Missouri with 20 pounds of coke, and that rubs the MO AG the wrong way? Not my problem. Not everyone on this site is such a rabid partisan that they cheer everything ever done by someone on "their side."

 

[trouble13]

Nixon was pardoned before he was convicted, I think?

And yes, that's one of my concerns with the pardon system - it works if the person or group doing the pardon selection is trying for justice, but I think it could be abused in the right circumstance.


Actually, that reminds me of a somewhat off-the-wall near-future sci-fi/action book I read years ago.

The backstory was something like:
A authoritarian populist gets elected, has much support, gets lucky and can appoint multiple SCOTUS judges.
At some point shortly afterwards he combines pardon power with (implied) assassins, eliminating his political opponents and then pardoning the killers (judges uphold).
At some point after that he nukes a large part of the ME, and things spiral out of control a bit.

Book starts during the wars against a Radical Islamic Caliphate of some sort which controls large areas of the world, including most of Europe, inspired/vitalized by the formative event of their homelands being nuked.

Why do I remember this so well...if only I could remember more important things as easily.

Your describing fdr. He stacked judges to get judicial approval from the courts. This is a shell game version of it

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Visbek]

It will go up to the scotus if attempted

Sorry, but that is generally incorrect.

Dual sovereignty was established decades ago -- Bartkus v.llinois, and Abbate v. United States. Yep, states can charge someone for the same crime as the feds, without violating the 5th Amendment.

New York State at some point put in a law to prevent those types of trials. Some states (like Pennsylvania) do not have those laws. It isn't the Constitution which blocks the double charging, it's state laws.

Yes, it's counter-intuitive, but that's the law sometimes.

 

[gdgyva]

Then I'm not really sure why you said it "could be any place USA in middle america."



So what?

1) That can already happen in many states.

2) I already told you that I don't care who issues the pardon. If Tom Cruise gets busted in Missouri with 20 pounds of coke, and that rubs the MO AG the wrong way? Not my problem. Not everyone on this site is such a rabid partisan that they cheer everything ever done by someone on "their side."

can you name me the cases where a person with a federal pardon has been tried in a state case?

just because you "can" do something doesnt mean you should

i wouldnt have categorized myself as a rabid partisan....but i do care about precedents....

and this one would be a bad one....

 

[itsforthekids]

Of course they do.

 

[upsideguy]

Yes, it's called "double jeopardy". It's in The Constitution where it says a person can't be tried for the same crime twice.

But you can be charged for state crimes that are different that federal crimes without tripping double jeopardy.

Mueller has shared information with Eric Schneidermann. You can rest assured they have built cases around violations of New York State law, just in case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d6cb929742fc
New York's AG just filed his 100th lawsuit aimed at the Trump administration - Business Insider
https://www.boston.com/news/politic...al-penalties-against-paul-manafort-rick-gates


Yes, it happens all the time. In fact, Paul Manafort is currently facing federal charges as well as charges in the State of Virginia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...47dd2df3829_story.html?utm_term=.abfdd60d22b0

can you name me the cases where a person with a federal pardon has been tried in a state case?

just because you "can" do something doesnt mean you should

i wouldnt have categorized myself as a rabid partisan....but i do care about precedents....

and this one would be a bad one....

Not certain where the pardon has been used to obstruct justice. It seems to allow that to happen is even a worse precedent. What is at stake here is the question as to whether the President is above the law. Many of us thought this was resolved in 1974. Once again, this question is in front of us. It is surprising the number of people that seem to believe he is.

Moreover, you would be suggesting the rights of the federal government trump those of the state. Federal laws are prosecuted by the DoJ, violations of state laws, according to the 10th amendment, remain a right of the individual states to pursue as they see fit.

 

[apdst]

But you can be charged for state crimes that are different that federal crimes without tripping double jeopardy.

Mueller has shared information with Eric Schneidermann. You can rest assured they have built cases around violations of New York State law, just in case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d6cb929742fc

That's exactly what I've been saying throughout the thread.

 

[Moot]

There's no way that's constitutional. The 5th Amendment says "same offense" not "same statute".

OJ Simpson was tried in the State court and won...but lost in the civil court...for the same offense.