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

911–920 of 996 posts

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#911

Post by koheripbal »

dagw wrote: post #280
koheripbal wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the pardon power of the Constitution. What gives you the impression pardons are limited to those that are "delivered" and/or "accepted". How would that even be legally demonstrated to a court.

What gives you the impression pardons are limited to those that are "delivered" and/or "accepted". The Supreme Court apparently ruled that way in a case a long time ago and that precedence has never been challenged (or come up again for that matter) See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9IRZ9FzWEA But realistically if they tried to revoke a pardon today it would certainly go to the Supreme Court again and they would a…

A Youtube video of someone's opinion is not a reliable source.

Looking up Grants revocation of Johnson's pardons - it's hard to find details, but it does seem like a Federal judge took issue that they were not delivered prior to the new president revoking them.

Given that there's no such limitation in the Constitution, I wonder if it would hold up to SCOTUS. ...and maybe that's why they announce them publicly these days.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#912

Post by koheripbal »

ghaff wrote: post #339
koheripbal wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, you are correct. https://www.wklaw.com/double-jeopardy-federal/ Of course, there's still the limitation that the State would need to find it's own law that the accused violated - they have no jurisdiction over Federal law (and vice-versa). Still... it doesn't sit quite right with me. If someone is acquitted by a jury in, let's say, Rhode Island for murder. It doesn't seem right that the Federal government c…

And for that matter, even if acquitted in a criminal trial, someone can be found guilty in a civil trial (with a lower standard of evidence). See, famously, OJ Simpson.

I suppose, but for that you cannot be sued merely for committing a crime - you need to prove tangible personal direct damages.

...and that can happen regardless of criminal conviction.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#913

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

sleepybrett wrote: post #884
apozem wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adam Serwer, an excellent writer, explained it: [1] > Law and order, for this president, simply means that he and his ideological allies are above the law, while others, such as [George] Floyd, are merely subject to it. Lewandowski's pardon request was endorsed by Peter Thiel, a huge Trump backer, so he gets to be above the law. Simple. [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/chauvin-di...

I saw reporting that Thiel (and Palmer Luckey) also received a pardon. Anyone have a link to that, I'd like to see specifically what he was pardoned for...

That's not correct. The reporting was that Thiel and Luckey lobbied Trump to get a pardon for Levandowski.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#914

Post by lazide »

nemothekid wrote: post #866
lazide wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the resources those states provide. In almost all cases, resources (food, minerals, oil, energy) flow from those more sparsely populated states to feed, fuel, etc. the more densely populated ones. If you think NYC could be supported purely by NY state alone (or frankly even just 'Blue' states), you'd be in for a rude shock. That much of the value add/economic activity happens in the more densely populated…

California produces, by far, the most food of any state, ($50B for California, $27B for #2 Iowa)[1]. Texas produces, by far, the most oil of any state (1.8B barrels vs 512M for North Dakota)[2]. Catastrophic famine? The data doesn't support that assertion at all. Rude shock? I guess I'm more shocked at how much California feeds the nation, but is ruled by sparse smaller states. Your initial claim is so wrong I'm inte…

Not sure you're supporting the point you think you are, or are addressing my points?

CA's central valley produces fruits, vegetables, and nuts, much of which gets exported, and a bit of, but not a huge amount of staple foods - and if you add up all California's agricultural output, it is still only ~13.5% of the US total. [https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/#:~:text=California's%20a....]

The areas in California that produce that food are solid red, through and through. Texas is red, ESPECIALLY the areas that produce that oil - but let's set aside the intra-state conflicts on this. None of the states mentioned are 'ideologically' self sufficient in their needs (CA for Oil, despite being a major food and oil producer, Texas for food - among literally millions of major and minor needs), and NY State or NYC are most decisively not in either category.

[https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery...]

If you look at your own chart, you'll also see that ~90% of all of the remaining entries following California (who make up the bulk of production) would be called midwest, near midwest (definitely not blue), or 'flyover territory'.

If you go to the link you had and filter by staples (as compared to expensive-per-calorie foods like almonds or strawberries), you'll see this reflected even more strongly [https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17844#P7521943176f...]

California has a LOT of people in it. 11% of the nation. While they might not personally feel the brunt of a major famine right away - running out of fuel for the harvesters, or the steel products to repair their equipment, or the equipment itself (predominantly produced in 'red' areas or imported), would mean it wouldn't be that long either.

If we look at the wider context, losing 50%+ of the agricultural products aka inland 'flyover' areas and the midwest would definitely cause catastrophic famine. And that is at least how much is there from your own links.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#915

Post by pokot0 »

russellendicott wrote: post #878
pokot0 wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I am aware of how it works and indeed it would be interesting to see a change in the election laws. For all practical purposes though, people vote directly for the president (last election is the proof that even a full front effort won't sway the election outcome from the people's votes). The only practical difference is that one single vote has a different weight depending on what state you live in. Rural areas…

> Rural areas are incredibly over-represented imo. This should be addressed more than the tiny details that don't really change the outcome. So the most populous cities should have the unopposed power to decide all of the federal policies that could impact the lives of rural people? This sounds like the recipe for a Hunger Games classist uprising. This is the same as saying your vote counts less than someone with mor…

Hmm.. I struggle to understand your logic. Embedded in the concept of Democracy is the fact that there is a rule by which a decision is made and once taken it impacts everyone lives.

Just try to look from the other side of the fence. I can rephrase your question as:

"So the few individuals living in rural areas should have the unopposed power to decide all of the federal policies that could impact the lives of the vast majority of the people in the USA?"

So yes. I am sorry but with a democracy, you sometime lose and have to accept that the decision is different from your preference.

In the US this only applies to federal, how much federal laws should impact states is not really in discussion here (and honestly I have no opinion on the matter. I am originally from Europe and have limited understanding of a lot of states laws and structures).

Also, you are confirming my point that rural areas are over-represented. You seem to intend that it is rightly so, but I do find this criteria unjust, just like your example of voting power coupled with amount of friends is.

To me, the only criteria that I find just is "every person has one vote with the exact same power". It's simple and naïve, but only one I have seen that I consider fair.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#916

Post by pygy_ »

Udik wrote: post #687
fredophile wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that a bunch of people from 4chan spreading misinformation online could be considered trolling. Taking it into the real world is a step I have a hard time believing. What would the troll's logic be? "I'm going to make all these suckers think I'm a racist"? That seems like an unusual step from anonymous online activity.

Trolling, at least in its original meaning, is not "spreading misinformation". It's saying things for the sake of provoking anger in other people that you despise or you just don't connect emotionally with. So it makes perfect sense to me for rightwing trolls to excite anger and confusion in leftwing people by appropriating a completely innocuous gesture and using it as a provocation. It doesn't really have to mean a…

So the goal is to troll anti-racists. That makes it an anti-anti-racist symbol. I'll let you factor out the double negative.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#917

Post by triceratops »

chipsa wrote: post #872
triceratops wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The federal government is the government of the individual states. In that case, why aren't state legislatures or state governors voting for president and members of congress?

Technically, the state legislatures are entirely in control of which electors are sent for the Presidency. It's just that all of them use the popular vote to determine that. They could pass a law that the governor decides who goes, or that the state legislature chooses exactly who. But they don't at this time. And prior to the 17th, Senator were chosen by the state governments as well.

> But they don't at this time

Presumably because people of those states don't want it that way. Which means they consider the federal government "their" government, not the "government of the state".

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#918

Post by baryphonic »

simonh wrote: post #417
WalterBright wrote: post #111

It's important to note the reason the President has the power to pardon anyone for any reason is it's one of the checks and balances, the Constitution is full of them. It's meant as a check to blunt overzealous prosecutions. Note that the President does not have the corresponding power to convict anyone. An interesting set of pardons was when Andrew Johnson pardoned all the rebels in the Confederacy, including Jeffer…

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…

This is sort of correct, except for two parts: The first constitution was the Articles of Confederation, which was extremely different from British constitutional design of the day; and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is distinctly British and did not migrate into the US Constitution.

The idea of a First Amendment such as we have in America would be entirely foreign in Britain, for instance, since no sitting parliament could ever restrict a majority of a future parliament from passing any law they saw fit. Even Royal Assent at the time was largely ceremonial and usually carried out by Royal Commissioners rather than the monarch. In fact, the last time assent was withheld was 1708 under Queen Anne.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#919

Post by kidproquo »

kjakm wrote: post #340
WalterBright wrote: post #111

It's important to note the reason the President has the power to pardon anyone for any reason is it's one of the checks and balances, the Constitution is full of them. It's meant as a check to blunt overzealous prosecutions. Note that the President does not have the corresponding power to convict anyone. An interesting set of pardons was when Andrew Johnson pardoned all the rebels in the Confederacy, including Jeffer…

As a foreigner Presidential pardons + the appointment (and life terms) of Supreme Court judges baffle me. How can a country that claims to be a leader in democracy have these two wildly abused bugs? Edit: fixed use of election instead of appointment

As a foreigner, gerrymandering[0] baffles me. Someone please explain how this makes sense?

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#920

Post by barbacoa »

rirarobo wrote: post #897
barbacoa wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like how you've been brainwashed by the TV into thinking the "others" are evil, trump people are brainwashed into thinking you hate them and want them dead. Both sides see themselves as the victim and the others as the attacker. >Why is it always on us to be nice to people who hate us and want us dead? Do you see how this is perpetuating the problem?

I am from the Deep South. I have evangelical family members who have disowned others because of their beliefs. Who wish for the Kingdom of God to be realized, so that the non-believers can spend eternity in suffering. I grew up with peers who told me I would burn in hell for believing in evolution. Peers from middle class backgrounds with financial security, who then worry about "white genocide" and the "great replac…

There are shitty people of all walks of life. I'm sorry to hear that you didn't have a good family/upbringing. Glad you found a place that you are more happy in.

The media has spent the last 4 years portraying Trump and his voters as evil racists. What is not mentioned is that his support among minorities increased from 2016 to 2020. He had more black and hispanic percentage of voters than any republican in in living memory. Ironically Trump lost the election because middle class white voters abandoned him.

Don't get me wrong Trump was a terrible president and there are countless criticisms that can be leveled at his administration. But the key question no one is asking is why did people vote for him in the first place and why did so many vote for him again? To me answering that with "because they're all racist/fascist" is nothing more than a cop-out from established political powers to distract from their own failure of public confidence.

Post reply on HN