this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2025
208 points (99.1% liked)

News

36292 readers
2909 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/31454550

The president’s stated intention to pardon Tina Peters, jailed for tampering with election machines in 2020, has set off a legal fight over the extent of Mr. Trump’s pardon powers.

...

Mr. Ticktin argued that Mr. Trump has the power to free Ms. Peters under an untested legal theory that the Constitution’s language allowing the president to pardon people for offenses “against the United States” applied not just to federal crimes but also to state-level charges.

“The President of the United States has the power to grant a pardon in any of the states of the United States,” Mr. Ticktin wrote in a letter to Mr. Trump last week that portrayed Ms. Peters as a political prisoner who could be a witness to investigations into the false claims that the election was stolen from Mr. Trump.

Legal scholars and Colorado officials were incredulous. They said the notion that the president could intervene in state courts clashed with the plain language of the Constitution, as well as its fundamental principles of federalism and states’ rights.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 43 points 2 months ago (2 children)

So it will go to the Supreme Court and they will say everything is fine, don't worry (my prediction).

We shouldn't be giving the President more power. So this is another reveal as to true intentions if I am right. Was this always the goal of the leadership, or a more recent post 2000 development through coup or corruption?

Not Trump, but those who are making Trump filthy rich. Did they pull the old switcheroo?

[–] errer@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Trump being able to pardon state crimes has huge implications for himself and his cronies. He can rig any election he wants at any level and no one can stop him. It would be a wild expansion of power.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

All this stuff is so crazy short-sighted.

At what point does the president have so much power and that someone in the line of succession can assassinate everyone up the line and then just pardon themselves since they are not president.

If the Supreme Court signals they does like that anymore, do some more assassinating before they can change it back.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

They are not concerned with the "line of succession", as party leadership dictate the line of succession. Also, they have a long history of assassinating when they deem it necessary, they are pro assassination.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

There's no need to rig elections, friend. It's been done and pay-for-play for decades.

(in our political system whoever spends the most money wins over 90% of elections; the outliers are handicapped or pressured into compliance in a myriad of ways)

Why cheat when you write the law? That's silly, only rubes even bother to try; small town mayors and the like.

Also, recall our Supreme Court is for sale.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So it will go to the Supreme Court and they will say everything is fine

What is not clear to me is how it will get there...normally there is a case that is raised from state to federal court. But afaik a pardon is not a case, it's just...a unilateral executive order of some kind (obviously ianal). If it were a federal conviction, obviously CO wouldn't have any jurisdiction to refuse. But if this was a state matter, and there's no "case" to escalate to SCOTUS, I'm not actually sure what happens next.....maybe he tries sending in the national guard to enforce his order, and the state challenges it, and that goes all the way to SCOTUS?

[–] CentipedeFarrier@piefed.social 4 points 2 months ago

A pardon isn’t a case until CO refuse to recognize it and they sue the state over it. Which they absolutely will do because it costs them literally nothing to drain down the national coffers.

[–] hemmes@lemmy.world 38 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Mr. Ticktin argued that Mr. Trump has the power to free Ms. Peters under an untested legal theory that the Constitution’s language allowing the president to pardon people for offenses “against the United States” applied not just to federal crimes but also to state-level charges.

It’s so simple to see how extremely bad this would be. Bad for democrats and republicans alike, all Americans would be in danger with such a precedent. So this fuck, Mr. Ticktin, is sitting there saying Hey gotta’ win this case cause I’m the man. I’ll fuck with the constitution ‘cause fuck it, gotta win.

If there is a hell, no doubt it’s where he came from.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It’s so simple to see how extremely bad this would be.

You mean even worse than it already is

That SCOTUS ruling about potus' powers should never have happened in the first place.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

That's why I dropped pre-law. I realized I cared more about winning than the law, and didn't want to end up, not where that dude is, but somewhere tangential.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

Trump needs the precedent to pardon himself and his allies from all the state charges coming their way if this ever ends.