Live data from Hacker News

Trump pardons convicted Binance founder

wsj.com

51–60 of 1001 posts

Re: Trump pardons convicted Binance founder

#51
post #12

Serious question - it seems that many of this Administrations activities are illegal in some way or the other. I know that government officials are shielded from a lot of actions so they can not be prosecuted. What actions that have been taken could actually be prosecuted? For example, I would have to assume that the ballroom demolition and build-out is illegal, there were $0 appropriated from Congress for this, and…

> For example, I would have to assume that the ballroom demolition and build-out is illegal, there were $0 appropriated from Congress for this, and it doesn't seem like direct donations would be legal either.

Maybe it's funded by the $230M he's demanding from the Department of Justice?

Re: Trump pardons convicted Binance founder

#52
post #4

I'm impressed. Leavitt managed to Blame the Biden administration, effectively asserting that Zhao's crimes were a result of the Biden administration's "war on crypto." Never mind that Zhao was engaged in criminal activity for which he was prosecuted, tried, and found guilty.

[deleted]

Re: Trump pardons convicted Binance founder

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JD Vance is a great debator, and might appeal to some urban Republic voters. But I don't see him having and away on the rural voters like Trump does.

I’m very confused. Rural voters can connect with a dynastic NYC real estate developer, but Vance at least has origins much closer to typical Americans. Is it just media nostalgia? Trump was on the TV shows they liked and so they trust him more?

A lot of politicians have tried to replicate Trump’s style with limited success. We could probably debate forever what it is about Trump that makes him unique. I think his crude and abrasive personality won people over; it felt authentic and cathartic. Nowadays I think he has immense inertia.

Re: Trump pardons convicted Binance founder

#56
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it seems that many of this Administrations activities are illegal Many are. This one is not. The President has sweeping pardon powers. The solution is to strike the final phrase in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” [1]. There isn’t a place for one-man pardons in a r…

It seems like whatever party gets into power, suddenly doesn't want to change the system they inherited. I remember Trudeau talking about eliminating first past the post in Canadian elections. But once he got into power he forgot about it. We need a way to vote for popular ideas via referendum at the federal level. That might get it through.

Uhm, the Republicans will change their mind quickly when the next Democrat president takes control with the expanded powers they inherited from the Trump administration (even the Supreme court doesn't like to contradict itself so quickly). I'm pretty sure...if America survives at all, we will have a constitutional convention really soon that push through changes because the current status quo has become an unstable mess.

Re: Trump pardons convicted Binance founder

#57
post #12

Serious question - it seems that many of this Administrations activities are illegal in some way or the other. I know that government officials are shielded from a lot of actions so they can not be prosecuted. What actions that have been taken could actually be prosecuted? For example, I would have to assume that the ballroom demolition and build-out is illegal, there were $0 appropriated from Congress for this, and…

Assuming a normal election where the pendulum swings back and a normal transfer of power (no certain things), the outgoing President could pardon everyone from his chiefs of staff and cabinet officers to low-level federal law enforcement on the way out, and then the Democrats would wring their hands and say there's nothing they can do, bar some large scale political realignment where Republicans lost control of numerous state legislatures and governorships by a large margin, as well as in Congress.

The best opportunity for a major restructuring of the legal environment would bea Constitutional Convention, but because Republicans have pursued this as a strategic goal for a while, Democrats invested all their relevant energies in being against it rather than developing any kind of strategy of their own, guaranteeing that they would get rolled if one actually took place because they went in with wholly defensive mindset and no plan to win. The fundamental flaw of the modern Democratic party is that it sees itself as a vehicle for competent management of the status quo, not a force for implementation of its voters' political aspirations. Thus is pays lip service of what its supporters want but operates to dampen and delay those same supporters whenever it gets into office in the name of continuity and responsibility. It operates on a combination of political rent seeking and fundamental conflict aversion.

This is why I find myself increasingly impatient with self-styled moderates. Wanting to talk things out and compromise is good, but it only works when there is mutuality between counterparties. When the political opposition is indifferent to questions of truthfulness or corruption, moderation degrades into appeasement; moderates will sell out their own supporters in the name of peace and quiet, while giving away the strategic initiative over and over. The previous Trump administration engineered a mob overrunning Congress in an attempt to stay in power, and only failed because the Vice President declined to aid the scheme; a mistake the current one surely doesn't intend to repeat. The incoming administration spent a great deal of energy prosecuting every footsoldier they could find who set foot inside the Capitol, but shied away from going after the people who actually organized it. The results speak for themselves.

Re: Trump pardons convicted Binance founder

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Well, when the president does it ... that means that it is not illegal" -- Richard Nixon (1977) "Well, when the president does it ... that means that it is not illegal" -- SCOTUS (2024) That leaves impeachment as the only legal remedy, which you've correctly identified as not a possibility with the current congress.

His two previous impeachments don't seem to have slowed him down, so it seems unlikely that a third would be any different. Not to mention his felony conviction.

The actual legal remedy is impeachment + conviction by the senate. That hasn't happened yet and seems unlikely unless he actually loses the support of his own party.
Post reply on HN