If Congress holds Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress and throws him in jail, can the President pardon him?
Constitutional Question: What if...?
- Thread starter The Tradition
- Start date
Well first the DOJ would have to charge him.
But if the DOJ charged him and he was convicted then it is legal for the president to pardon him.
Should he? No I don't think he should.
First of all, Congress doesn't have the ability to throw anybody in jail. But, assuming they referred him to the USAO, who prosecuted him, and he was convicted, and sentenced, sure, why not?
Yeah, but on a far more pressing note we are about to find out if the President is immune from crimes. If the Supreme Court is foolish enough to say that, yes, he is, then if I'm Joe Biden I not only pardon Hunter, but I throw Trump's ass in jail, declare myself the winner of the next election, remove Scalia, Thomas, the three Trump appointed Supreme Court Justices, and any lower court judge approved during the Trump era that was rated as "not qualified" for the position and appoint my own judges. I would ignore any Senate games on these judges (not that there would be any since the filibuster was eliminated already) and place them no matter what they said.
Sound scary MAGA's? Because that's what the Supreme Court will be allowing to happen if they try and say that Trump is immune from prosecution. They will effectively end Constitutional Rule in the United States.
Sound scary MAGA's? Because that's what the Supreme Court will be allowing to happen if they try and say that Trump is immune from prosecution. They will effectively end Constitutional Rule in the United States.
Very scary.
My question is, when you dig up Scalia, what are you going to do with him?
Bio, removing Scalia would be a pretty neat trick. Welcome to the 2020s.
As to the underlying question of presidential immunity, I'm hard pressed to believe that the Court would recognize such a right. About the only plausible basis that I could envision for it would be that the impeachment powers specified in Article I represents the sole and exclusive remedy (for 'high crimes and misdemeanors') available against a president. Aside from the fact that I don't recall anything to that effect from my readings on the text and history of the impeachment power, at the end of the day, impeachment is a political remedial process and there's no basis to suggest that such processes displace other legal remedial processes such as the criminal law.
Last edited:
It’s been 17 months since Steve Bannon was found to be in contempt of a congressional subpoena and that dumbass is still walking around.
I don’t think this is a top concern for Hunter.
I don’t think this is a top concern for Hunter.
Dangit, I meant Alito. But sure, defile Scalia's corpse while we're at it. Nobody could stop him because the President is immune from prosecution.
Article I, Section Three* pretty clearly contemplates further legal process beyond impeachment and removal. If the Court is going to find immunity here, it will have to be implied from the nature of the presidential office and separation of powers concerns (like the civil immunity case Nixon v. Fitzgerald).
*Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
But Trump would not be using it to reverse impeachment but for protection against the crimes he committed. I'm sorry, allegedly committed because people who did not commit crimes always look for ways to prevent any prosecution of them rather than look for ways of showing innocence. Anyway, the extension of that is the current President would no longer have to worry about any prosecution for crimes he committed while he was President. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Biden tried to "be the example" and kept things above board anyway. That would be a mistake with this group of Republicans because they only care about power, they don't care about being respected or liked.
Hunter has a point. This is political in nature.
I actually don't have much of a problem with him dodging the committee.
Before you liberals get all excited, you should know that all the Trump stuff is political too.
If you twist and re-contextualize enough, anyone can be made into a criminal. It's a little easier with the likes of hunter and trump. When Joe is one day brought up on charges by a republican administration, that too will be political.
None of these 3 pose any real threat to democracy or national security. That's just reality folks.
I actually don't have much of a problem with him dodging the committee.
Before you liberals get all excited, you should know that all the Trump stuff is political too.
If you twist and re-contextualize enough, anyone can be made into a criminal. It's a little easier with the likes of hunter and trump. When Joe is one day brought up on charges by a republican administration, that too will be political.
None of these 3 pose any real threat to democracy or national security. That's just reality folks.
Yeah, that's why it's important the Supreme Court doesn't do something stupid.
Honestly, I don't think they will on this one for the exact reasons I just pointed out. Any ruling that protects Trumps actions when he was President will also protect Biden's actions now and Biden might feel he needs to make a pre-emptive strike to protect himself and his family from reprisals in the future.
However, Gunter has pretty much fessed up, paid his “past dues” and interest and voluntarily sought to bring this chapter of his life to an end....Somehow the GOP House feels it necessary to blame the sins of the son upon the father.
Trump has never done any of this...just maintained he was the victim of “ a with hunt” and blamed all others for his sins and shortcomings. Hunter here seems to be dealing in reality. Trump is still living in “reality TV”...
Hunter should simply ask Gym Jordan and Mark Meadows for advice on how to handle Subpoenas.
Nope. There's always someone to look through colored glasses and say why it's different for their guy and the other guy is still bad. In this case that's you, and your glasses are blue.
Well, it's quite obvious you've not read the Federalist Society's primer on the topic.
Let me guess...blah blah parliamentary impeachment in 1632 and 1474 reflected blah blah blah
Yeah I'm about 80% confident the SCOTUS will rule the right way on this which is about 20% too low.
