Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

901–910 of 996 posts

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#901

Post by fleshdaddy »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #791
fleshdaddy wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What branch did you serve in? You seem really offended at the notion that some Americans are willing to take freedom and privacy over complete security. It’s hard for you to believe but know that many, many people are willing to make that trade off. People have even died for it.

It's childish to accuse them of being a military shill for posting something you disagree with.

It’s more so the worship of the military that made me assume they’re part of it. Couple that with referring to everyone as the “American public” and the knowledge they imply they have of classified documents that won’t be made public for some time. Doesn’t seem like a stretch.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#902

Post by WalterBright »

cogman10 wrote: post #747
simonh wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to break it to you, but as with many things in the US constitution, the reason the President can pardon people is because it's a modified copy of the British constitutional system of the time. The House is Parliament, the Senate is the House of Lords, and the president can pardon people because King George III could and the office of the presidency is a limited term elected kingship. Executive orders are Royal…

While pardon power originated from British law, the reason we kept it was what the OP referred to (see the federalist papers [1]). When forming the government the founders didn't just blindly copy British government. There was a lot of debate over what to keep and what to omit (For example, we don't have a king. Presidents were seen as servants not as rulers). Pardon power is mostly a direct copy of British pardon po…

> they cannot pardon state crimes

State governors have that power.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#903

Post by adolph »

ganoushoreilly wrote: post #683
mlazos wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN loves Snowden so much it makes no sense to me. He could’ve gone to the Senate/House intelligence committees, and not been in trouble. Worst case nothing would’ve gotten done, but since they were lied to, I don’t think he would’ve been ignored.

They also leave out the fact that he had been reprimanded for his actions numerous times, to include being removed from roles and duties because of his negative actions. The fact that he moved from the CIA back to an NSA supported role without this being disclosed is ridiculous in of itself. Edward had a childish reaction to release documents that had nothing to do with Xkeyscore (of which the media claim as the reas…

Would you say the same of Mark Felt?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Felt

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#904

Post by birdyrooster »

jolmg wrote: post #598
ardy42 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He pardoned a literal spy who was convicted of espionage of state secrets but he did not pardon Assange. Incredible. Assange and Snowden remain unpopular with Senate Republicans, and my understanding is that he was told pardoning them would hurt his chances of avoiding a Senate conviction in his second impeachment. He was also recently steered away from pardoning himself, his family, and some Republicans that may h…

> He was also recently steered away from pardoning himself Is pardoning oneself legally possible? EDIT: Seems possible but never tested. > The Constitution provides little guidance on the issue of a potential presidential selfpardon. Only one sentence is dedicated to pardons: “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” L…

Even if he could, I don't think he would want to. It would mean admitting guilt and opening himself to give testimony on the crimes in prosecuting others as well as emboldening civil lawsuits. Also, since its an ex-President and leader of a political party there is no way to punish him without it being political, which means the next President is likely to pardon him anyways for expediency.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#905

Post by cogman10 »

WalterBright wrote: post #902
cogman10 wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While pardon power originated from British law, the reason we kept it was what the OP referred to (see the federalist papers [1]). When forming the government the founders didn't just blindly copy British government. There was a lot of debate over what to keep and what to omit (For example, we don't have a king. Presidents were seen as servants not as rulers). Pardon power is mostly a direct copy of British pardon po…

> they cannot pardon state crimes State governors have that power.

Correct, but that wasn't given to them by the US constitution. Rather, that power rests with each individual state constitution. Further, depending on the state, it can be anywhere from unlimited to completely bound. [1]

The role of "governor" isn't defined by any federal laws or rules. It's theoretically possible for a state to decide that it doesn't need a governor.

[1] https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/50-s...

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#906

Post by radlad »

simonh wrote: post #891
cogman10 wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While pardon power originated from British law, the reason we kept it was what the OP referred to (see the federalist papers [1]). When forming the government the founders didn't just blindly copy British government. There was a lot of debate over what to keep and what to omit (For example, we don't have a king. Presidents were seen as servants not as rulers). Pardon power is mostly a direct copy of British pardon po…

That's a perfectly reasonable take especially on the federal/state separation which was novel, but is it really not possible there was some back-rationalisation going on? The British system was very familiar, and while it had potential flaws visible to them at the time they were known familiar flaws. I find it doubtful that someone coming up with an entirely novel and unfamiliar system would have got anywhere at all,…

> That's a perfectly reasonable take especially on the federal/state separation which was novel, but is it really not possible there was some back-rationalisation going on?

Isn't this true of your own original post?

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#907

Post by WalterBright »

lazide wrote: post #860
ardy42 wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Checks and balances essentially don't work in the US. The best bit is simply a decent judiciary, but that was mostly copied from the British. And even that is more poorly executed than elsewhere, due to the political nature of judicial appointees, and esp. due to the tradition of direct elections of some judges. I'd say it's arguably worse than the British model it was copied from, not because the Brits were psychi…

You just saw the checks and balance function today - the sitting executive used every trick he could think of to keep himself in power. He was rejected by Congress (the other arm, who he does not control), and this was affirmed by the Judiciary (who he does not control because of the lifetime appointments and other history, despite appointing a number of people aligned with his party to it). In many countries he coul…

> the sitting executive used every trick he could think of to keep himself in power.

I agree. The checks and balances worked as they were supposed to.

Note that if there was evidence of widespread election fraud, the checks and balances on display here would (hopefully) provide a check on that.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#908

Post by DFHippie »

mantap wrote: post #868
tehjoker wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pardon power should obviously at this point be severely limited, it has a purpose, but clearly its major use is corruption or the threat of corruption in order to secure deals. So many modern presidents have used it to do crimes and then pardon their helpers.

However much you may dislike the particular individuals that trump has pardoned, he has used the pardon in a much more restrained way than Obama, who gave an order of magnitude more. So far, the pardon power is still a net good.

Trump has pardoned far fewer people, but for the same reason the ratio of compassionate to corrupt pardons under Trump is much worse. Dozens of Trump's pardons had some direct benefit to him or his cronies. And among modern presidents he has pardoned strikingly few people.

I am not aware of any corrupt pardons under Obama similar to that of Marc Rich under Clinton, much less more egregiously corrupt pardons like that of Ford by Nixon or Manafort by Trump.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#909

Post by cogman10 »

simonh wrote: post #891
cogman10 wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While pardon power originated from British law, the reason we kept it was what the OP referred to (see the federalist papers [1]). When forming the government the founders didn't just blindly copy British government. There was a lot of debate over what to keep and what to omit (For example, we don't have a king. Presidents were seen as servants not as rulers). Pardon power is mostly a direct copy of British pardon po…

That's a perfectly reasonable take especially on the federal/state separation which was novel, but is it really not possible there was some back-rationalisation going on? The British system was very familiar, and while it had potential flaws visible to them at the time they were known familiar flaws. I find it doubtful that someone coming up with an entirely novel and unfamiliar system would have got anywhere at all,…

I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not disputing the fact that they took ideas directly from the British government. I disputing the fact that it was done without consideration, reform, or reason. There's ample evidence that they heavily debated each part of the British government that they adopted.

The fact is, the founders remedy for a corrupt president was impeachment. They made that perfectly clear. Corruption included things like misusing the pardon power (High crimes/Bribery).

What they didn't anticipate was the fact that we'd end up with a 2 party system equally spitting the country where neither side would remove their president from office. The put a LOT of faith in "honor" and the fact that the general electorate would punish dishonorable leaders. They did not expect things like wedge issues.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#910

Post by throwaway90434 »

tartoran wrote: post #574
tinyhouse wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest I don't know the fine details about the allegations against him and what he already paid. His reputation would definitely never be the same. The fact he didn't spend time in prison might be a good thing. I recall seeing a horrifying doco about a guy in prison who stabbed another inmate like 100 times and killed him. The stabber was already doing life in jail for murder. But his partner who helped him by…

I doubt this type of crime would land in the same type of prison this type incident you mentioned happens. But I might be wrong. If anybody knows, What chances are for convicted white-collar criminals to end up with violent cellmates of non-white collar crimes?

As someone convicted of a low level white collar crime, who ended up in a prison with many violent criminals and saw people get stabbed, I would have to disagree. This is a totally incorrect speculation. BOP has no oversight and is totally wack. I'm glad he didn't go to prison: he's already suffered the reputation consequences he deserves.
Post reply on HN