US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Chef Boi RD]

I think a lot of this may have to do with the privatisation of the holding facilities. These companies are paid a per diem per inmate so they have an interest in "losing" people in the system.

If this is true, then as a society this is a toxic shit stain.

[Per]

It's a new dawn in NYC!

[Blob Mckenzie]

Probably fake, but lol. The comments were funny.

EK's gal is a smokeshow.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Republican is right. Just need to lose the clown and a couple of his cohorts.

[Cousin Strawberry]

Probably fake, but lol. The comments were funny.

EK's gal is a smokeshow.

Looks a bit like Manimal halfway through the transformation

[5thhorseman]

I don't know how many of you get Heather Cox Richardson's e-mails. She is a historian who blogs about US politics putting many events in a historical context. Very educational and informative and, yes, liberal-leaning but fact-checked and referenced.

Her piece from two days ago on Trump's 60 Minutes interview was eye-catching:

At the end of her interview with President Donald J. Trump, recorded on October 31 at Mar-a-Lago and aired last night, heavily edited, on 60 Minutes, Norah O’Donnell of CBS News asked if she could ask two more questions. Trump suggested previous questions had been precleared when he mused aloud that if he said yes, “That means they’ll treat me more fairly if I do—I want to get—It’s very nice, yeah. Now is good. Okay. Uh, oh. These might be the ones I didn’t want. I don’t know. Okay, go ahead.”

O’Donnell noted that the Trump family has thrown itself into cryptocurrency ventures, forming World Liberty Financial with the family of Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East. In that context, she asked about billionaire Changpeng Zhao, the co-founder and former chief executive officer of Binance. Zhao is cryptocurrency’s richest man. He pleaded guilty in 2023 to money laundering, resigned from Binance, paid a $50 million fine, and was sentenced to four months in prison.

Trump pardoned him on October 23.

O’Donnell noted that the U.S. government said Zhao “had caused ‘significant harm to U.S. national security,’ essentially by allowing terrorist groups like Hamas to move millions of dollars around.” She asked the president, “Why did you pardon him?”

“Okay, are you ready?” Trump answered. “I don’t know who he is. I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that. And I heard it was a Biden witch hunt. And what I wanna do is see crypto, ‘cause if we don’t do it it’s gonna go to China, it’s gonna go to—this is no different to me than AI.

“My sons are involved in crypto much more than I—me. I—I know very little about it, other than one thing. It’s a huge industry. And if we’re not gonna be the head of it, China, Japan, or someplace else is. So I am behind it 100%. This man was, in my opinion, from what I was told, this is, you know, a four-month sentence.”

After he went on with complaints about the Biden administration—he would mention Biden 42 times in the released transcript—O’Donnell noted, “Binance helped facilitate a $2 billion purchase of the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial’s stablecoin. And then you pardoned [Zhao].” She asked him: “How do you address the appearance of pay for play?”

Trump answered: “Well, here’s the thing. I know nothing about it because I’m too busy doing the other….” O’Donnell interrupted: “But he got a pardon….” Trump responded: “I can only tell you this. My sons are into it. I’m glad they are, because it’s probably a great industry, crypto. I think it’s good. You know, they’re running a business, they’re not in government. And they’re good—my one son is a number one bestseller now.

“My wife just had a number one bestseller. I’m proud of them for doing that. I’m focused on this. I know nothing about the guy, other than I hear he was a victim of weaponization by government. When you say the government, you’re talking about the Biden government.” And then he was off again, complaining about the former president and boasting that he would “make crypto great for America.”

“So not concerned about the appearance of corruption with this?” O’Donnell asked.

Trump answered: “I can’t say, because—I can’t say—I’m not concerned. I don’t—I’d rather not have you ask the question. But I let you ask it. You just came to me and you said, ‘Can I ask another question?’ And I said, yeah. This is the question….”

“And you answered…” O’Donnell put in.

“I don’t mind,” Trump said. “Did I let you do it? I coulda walked away. I didn’t have to answer this question. I’m proud to answer the question. You know why? We’ve taken crypto….” After another string of complaints about Biden, he said: “We are number one in crypto and that’s the only thing I care about.”

If, among all the disinformation and repetition Trump spouted in that interview, he did not know who he was pardoning, who’s running the Oval Office?

It appears House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) doesn’t want to know. At a news conference today, journalist Manu Raju noted: “Last week…you were very critical of Joe Biden’s use of the autopen…[you said] he didn’t even know who he was pardoning. Last night, on 60 Minutes…Trump admitted not knowing he pardoned a crypto billionaire who pleaded guilty to money laundering. Is that also concerning?”

Johnson answered: “I don’t know anything about that. I didn’t see the interview. You have to ask the president about that. I’m not sure.”

[Cornuck]

Yep - I read her work daily. Good stuff.

[5thhorseman]

I was pretty sure you do Corn.

[UWSaint]

I don't know how many of you get Heather Cox Richardson's e-mails. She is a historian who blogs about US politics putting many events in a historical context. Very educational and informative and, yes, liberal-leaning but fact-checked and referenced.

Her piece from two days ago on Trump's 60 Minutes interview was eye-catching:

[lotsa transcript quoting]

O’Donnell noted that the U.S. government said Zhao “had caused ‘significant harm to U.S. national security,’ essentially by allowing terrorist groups like Hamas to move millions of dollars around.” She asked the president, “Why did you pardon him?”

“Okay, are you ready?” Trump answered. “I don’t know who he is. I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that. And I heard it was a Biden witch hunt. And what I wanna do is see crypto, ‘cause if we don’t do it it’s gonna go to China, it’s gonna go to—this is no different to me than AI.

“My sons are involved in crypto much more than I—me. I—I know very little about it, other than one thing. It’s a huge industry. And if we’re not gonna be the head of it, China, Japan, or someplace else is. So I am behind it 100%. This man was, in my opinion, from what I was told, this is, you know, a four-month sentence.”

[more transcript quoting]

After he went on with complaints about the Biden administration—he would mention Biden 42 times in the released transcript—O’Donnell noted, “Binance helped facilitate a $2 billion purchase of the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial’s stablecoin. And then you pardoned [Zhao].” She asked him: “How do you address the appearance of pay for play?”

Trump answered: “Well, here’s the thing. I know nothing about it because I’m too busy doing the other….” O’Donnell interrupted: “But he got a pardon….” Trump responded: “I can only tell you this. My sons are into it. I’m glad they are, because it’s probably a great industry, crypto. I think it’s good. You know, they’re running a business, they’re not in government. And they’re good—my one son is a number one bestseller now.

[more transcript quoting, author's conclusion]

If, among all the disinformation and repetition Trump spouted in that interview, he did not know who he was pardoning, who’s running the Oval Office?

[more article]

Let me say that I think O'Donnell's question is a good one, and that Trump's answer is not a good one, and there's plenty to pick apart and criticize about it.

But the author's conclusion Trump "did not know who he was pardoning" in order to create a (false) equivalence with the (allegations) about Biden's midnight pardons being without his approval is evidence of an author more committed to narrative than truth. When Trump says "I don't know who he is" and then proceeds to describes things that show he knows who Zhao is, that means that "I don't know who he is" means he doesn't know Zhao personally. Given that there is a suggestion that the pardon was improper, Trump may very well process the question as first requiring a relationship response. I don't know this guy from Adam stuff. And that's not a surprise, President's don't know (in one sense of the word) the vast majority of the people a President pardons, but they are briefed on their case. (O'Donnell get important info here -- it was Trump's son that briefed him on the case -- you can do a lot with that as a reporter or a news "analyst"). And so when Trump then says what he does know, he's saying why he made the pardon. Good reason or bad, that's fodder to argue about. Whether he's telling the truth or lying, same -- up for discussion.

When Trump says "I know nothing about it," he is either referring to details behind the Binance purchase, or he is referring to the those pay to play complaints, not that he didn't know who Zhou was.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't find Trump's response very credible, and I think there's a public interest in journalists trying to put these pieces together and trying to get responses. I think there's plenty to criticize about the response (and question about the transaction). But when an author misinterprets comments -- takes words out of their contexts -- and then tried to shoehorn them into a different narrative, it does no one any good and its poor analysis. I mean, her takeaway here seems to be "Trump = Biden," thus back off the Biden stuff or now we have a guy asleep at the switch and this time we are concerned about it. But this narrative is far less truthful and far less interesting than what O'Donnell is poking around about -- which ultimately is a story about selling pardons. (I'm not saying he did or didn't, but that's where the smoke is). If one's takeaway from this portion of the interview is that Biden equivalence narrative, it is a classic "look at this shiny object over here" shift that someone intentionally seeking to *protect* Trump might make because it takes the eyes off the real ball. I am not saying this author is doing it for this reason; I think own-goals are often a byproduct of tunnel vision/confirmation bias (I am analyzing this story not for what it might teach me but how I can use it to further another narrative that protects the Biden pardons).

[2Fingers]

Pardons shouldn’t be given out like candy, I don’t care who the president is.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Probably fake, but lol. The comments were funny.

EK's gal is a smokeshow.

Looks a bit like Manimal halfway through the transformation

Weird comment.

[Per]

Pardons shouldn’t be given out like candy, I don’t care who the president is.

Pardons shouldn't be given out. Period.

It encourages corruption and undermines the independence of the judiciary system when the executive branch can override it.
It means a president can ask someone to break the law and then pardon him for it.
It is contradictory to rule of law and the concept of all being equal under the law.

We don't have it here, and our government has absolutely no say in the justice system, except for appointing judges.
The parliament passes legislation and the courts act on that legislation.
The executive branch should have nothing to do with it.

[Chef Boi RD]

Pardons shouldn’t be given out like candy, I don’t care who the president is.

Pardons shouldn't be given out. Period.

Yup.

I see that embarrassment to Italians “Giuliani just got a pardon from his pal.

[UWSaint]

Pardons shouldn’t be given out like candy, I don’t care who the president is.

Pardons shouldn't be given out. Period.

It encourages corruption and undermines the independence of the judiciary system when the executive branch can override it.
It means a president can ask someone to break the law and then pardon him for it.
It is contradictory to rule of law and the concept of all being equal under the law.

We don't have it here, and our government has absolutely no say in the justice system, except for appointing judges.
The parliament passes legislation and the courts act on that legislation.
The executive branch should have nothing to do with it.

We had a governor in the state I live in who felt the same, and pardoned no one. For the 8 years he served. And I think that's a valid, defensible position.

But I think the pardon power is a good one for a system to have. I should add to this, I think the pardon power is only something that can be performed after conviction -- which is how it was traditionally understood, though some Presidents (Ford, Biden, maybe Trump?) have asserted the power preemptively. Whether to prosecute or maintain a prosecution should be left to the prosecutorial authority duly authorized at a given time. Were it otherwise, then pardon's are a dead hand exercising present prosecutorial authority, which makes no more sense than a legislature passing a law that says it can't be changed in the future.

I understand the argument about separation of powers, but separation of powers (in the US) exists in only as part of a system of checks and balances. The question is whether there should be a release valve in a separate branch of government (checks) to address things which may be injustices or merely as an exercise of forbearance. And while I get pardons are the most extreme form of cancelling the acts of another branch, rather unexceptional concepts like parole and commutations (which do not expunge the underlying conviction) are the way that post-incarceration information and behavior can make a difference or address other issues (e.g., full prisons....), and yet these things are only known "after" the sentence. And while Presidents (or governors) at the state level can in effect override the judiciary with a pardon, they cannot impose more force on another with that power, and they are accountable to the electorate such that the wrongful exercise of that power has political consequence.

What's more, no one seems to question pre-charging forbearance (prosecutorial discretion), and some (but few) question plea bargains as part of the process. While the rule of law as equally applied to all is a terrific theory, there are several true things that make the concept messy (or hard to apply): (1) the facts and circumstances of each case are different -- sometimes the same crime has vastly different effects in terms of harm; (2) we live in such hyper-regulated societies, that I don't think there are any of us here that haven't committed some sort of offense--many of which no longer require criminal intent--and so strictly speaking applying the rule of law each and every time has us all in jail; (3) it is a world of limited resources in terms of the number of prosecutors and the number of jail cells -- discretion is required merely to keep the system running.

And there's no question that prosecutorial discretion is subject to the kind of abuse that might accompany the pardon power. Well, its different in one way. It takes a conspicuous act to pardon someone; what crimes are not charged typically happens without public knowledge.

I think that anytime you give vast discretion to a government agent, there is a potential that they will benefit their friends or harm their enemies, and that will be the sole purpose of doing the thing. But if you remove all discretion, you are going to end up incarcerating people on facts and circumstances that was never the aim of that law, there will be unjust results in individual cases, and that's without even getting the fact we live in a world of limited resources.