Legal Question If Trump Pardons People who Invaded the Capitol

Seems legit...

 

Agree to a large extent unfortunately

 

What a perfect way for the government to get these idiots to confess.

 

If Trump pardons these people, then they will have this to look forward to.

 

Alright, that was a good day of football. Sorry for the late reply.
A good test of what's going on in this space is the current lawsuit filed by one of Trump's alleged rape victims, E. Jean Carroll, for defaming her and calling her a liar. The federal judge that's overseeing it is currently overturning precedent and saying that Trump is not a government employee (that the Act was only intended for non-executive branch members) and also because the president (edit) WAS NOT acting in an official capacity. So the judge is allowing the lawsuit to move forward. This will be a slow and dragged out process, along with the other suits. The problem is that higher courts have ruled otherwise, but they are in other circuits.

For this current situation, I think Trump has a better argument that he was acting as a president in speaking in front of that crowd. Now we'll see (if sued) if the president is considered a government employee. Procedurally, if the Carroll case ruling were to be overturned by the appellate, then the DOJ would step in as Trump's personally lawyers, and then the case would be automatically thrown out by law. Now that Trump won't be in office, I have no idea if DOJ is obligated to defend Trump in the future for a lawsuit stemming from his actions as president - it would be so weird huh?

This is definitely something to keep an eye on. Will Trump Jr. and the rest of the gang get sued by victims' families? Pretty weird that in these types of lawsuits, it's more settled law that Ted Cruz and Hawley get more protection from the law for their speech.

 

That was good football. Sorry for the late reply. I agree that if it were to happen, there would be challenges.

That said, the plain language of the Constitution grants extrememly broad pardon powers to the president and the legal challenges would fail. Pardon powers are decendent from the ancient right of kings, and all those originalist federal judges will not curb it's power imo. I hope this all stays hypothetical, but it would be facinating to see it play out.

As for Barr, iirc, he was speaking about pay-for-pardons scenarios right? Even in those circumstances, I've heard Con Law scholars say the pardons themselves would be legal, but the act of paying for the pardon could be charged. I need to look this up now and followup. But if you're looking for examples of presidential pardons involving potential crimes involving his henchmen - see Bush and Iran Contra.

Your argument seems to skew towards more of what the law should be vs. what the law is. In this hypothetical scenario of the Trumps supporters getting pardoned, I would see a higher likelihood of them getting punished for any other crimes or infractions, and then having the sentencing be increased by taking into account the storming of the capitol. It's a weird legal remedy, and kind of unfair, but happens in practice all the time.

 

It's encouraging to see a trump supporter wear a mask.

 

Found a good article on the pardoning power debate arguing for a more narrow power than has been allowed, and even in it's limited interpretation (arguing that Stone's pardon is unconsitutional) of the power, the reality of today is that the president's pardoning power is not being challenged (and hasn't been). These scholars' arguments will definitely be used if Trump issues these pardons. But even after reading this article, it would only apply to nullilfying the pardons if Trump were impeached first, then handing out pardons. The argument that Trump pardoning his directed traitors is illegal might not hold up anyways.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...nal-interpretation-pardon-power-wrong/614083/