The President Should Only Be Allowed To Pardon 1 Person During Their Term

[GhostofDempsey]

He didn't pardom Chelsea Manning

No he granted clemency, just as bad. He also sympathized with Bergdahl the deserter.

[Motorcity Cobra]

No he granted clemency, just as bad. He also sympathized with Bergdahl the deserter.

No. Commuting a sentence isnt worse than a pardon. You might disagree with what he did but don't be dishonest

[GhostofDempsey]

No. Commuting a sentence isnt worse than a pardon. You might disagree with what he did but don't be dishonest

Either way, this tranny was spared a 35 year prison sentence. A well-deserved sentence. I don't care if you call it pardon, clemency, commuting, it was a slap to face. Obama had a soft spot for traitors like Manning and Bergdahl. In some ways Bergdahl is even worse because soldiers were shot and in one case paralyzed trying to rescue his cowardly ass. Now he is entitled to $300K back pay.

[The Comic DON]

The President Should Only Be Allowed To Pardon 1 Person During Their Term.

I still think about Trump pardoning that *** arpario but was wondering if he only had 1 pardon maybe it would have been used more wisely.

I know if I was president, and had 1 pardoned I wouldn't use it for fear that my son or something like that might make some crazy mistake and gets themselves into serious shit and I can set them free.

No, the president is the chief law enforcement officer, meaning his over the FBI, DEA, CIA, and all other federal police agencies. Why shouldn't he as the boss be able to overturn their decisions?

But let's be real, your real question is should people you don't like have more than 1 pardon and should they be able to pardon people you don't like.

[.!WAR MIKEY!.]

No, the president is the chief law enforcement officer, meaning his over the FBI, DEA, CIA, and all other federal police agencies. Why shouldn't he as the boss be able to overturn their decisions?

But let's be real, your real question is should people you don't like have more than 1 pardon and should they be able to pardon people you don't like.

lol no one should be over the law.

I dont really care what people I dont like do or dont. I like to see people who commit crimes face their consequences, just like I have to do, just like any other Citizen have to do again I repeat no one should be above the law. Arpario committed a crime and should have face his consequences, had he not committed a crime he wouldnt have needed a pardon.

[The Comic DON]

lol no one should be over the law.

I dont really care what people I dont like do or dont. I like to see people who commit crimes face their consequences, just like I have to do, just like any other Citizen have to do again I repeat no one should be above the law. Arpario committed a crime and should have face his consequences, had he not committed a crime he wouldnt have needed a pardon.

Arpaio wasn't given a trial by jury because the judge knew he wouldn't be convicted of the crimes they tried charging him with.

So basically one judge made a decision that he was guilty of a lesser crime for political reasons and to avoid a jury trial. What gives this judge more power to say Arpaio is guilty compared to the President saying the ruling was unfair?

Why shouldn't he have received a trial by jury? Should we limit the power of judges? Or should we only limit the power of those you don't like?

Not saying he's guilty or not but one person made the decision, not a jury of his peers.


Like I said the President is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer if he pardons and commutes a federal crime he has the right to do that. The results of his pardons fall on election day.

[.!WAR MIKEY!.]

Arpaio wasn't given a trial by jury because the judge knew he wouldn't be convicted of the crimes they tried charging him with.

So basically one judge made a decision that he was guilty of a lesser crime for political reasons and to avoid a jury trial. What gives this judge more power to say Arpaio is guilty compared to the President saying the ruling was unfair?

Why shouldn't he have received a trial by jury? Should we limit the power of judges? Or should we only limit the power of those you don't like?

Not saying he's guilty or not but one person made the decision, not a jury of his peers.


Like I said the President is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer if he pardons and commutes a federal crime he has the right to do that. The results of his pardons fall on election day.

the entire system is backwards, if regular people have to face trial by jury no matter if its not in their favor or not so should arpario or anyone else for that matter.

listen lets not really get hanged up on arpario, I think this no matter what, no matter who it is, Arpario is just the example I used as Arpario is someone I know about as I live here in phoenix etc.

[The Comic DON]

the entire system is backwards, if regular people have to face trial by jury no matter if its not in their favor or not so should arpario or anyone else for that matter.

listen lets not really get hanged up on arpario, I think this no matter what, no matter who it is, Arpario is just the example I used as Arpario is someone I know about as I live here in phoenix etc.

In my opinion, the system is fine. No system will ever be perfect, some guilty people will get away while some innocent people get screwed. Although I'm more worried about the innocent getting screwed than the guilty getting away from obvious reasons.

The issue is that some of the people the system are corrupt and use their position to farther an ideological cause.

But it's not as if Presidents face no responsibility for pardons. Elections are what hold President accountable from just pardoning all their friends. And also threats of impeachment.

And just one final thing on Arpaio

I think Arpaio shouldn't have been pardoned simply because he was a piece of **** for the most part in the way he treated prisoners and although sentenced political reasons his time in jail wasn't significant. Trump wasted political capital in my opinion.

I say that even though the judge in that cause circumvented the system to effect an election and denied the request for a trial by jury.

[Rudyo]

I'm all for making politcs like a sporting event so im down.

[.!WAR MIKEY!.]

In my opinion, the system is fine. No system will ever be perfect, some guilty people will get away while some innocent people get screwed. Although I'm more worried about the innocent getting screwed than the guilty getting away from obvious reasons.

The issue is that some of the people the system are corrupt and use their position to farther an ideological cause.

But it's not as if Presidents face no responsibility for pardons. Elections are what hold President accountable from just pardoning all their friends. And also threats of impeachment.

And just one final thing on Arpaio

I think Arpaio shouldn't have been pardoned simply because he was a piece of **** for the most part in the way he treated prisoners and although sentenced political reasons his time in jail wasn't significant. Trump wasted political capital in my opinion.

I say that even though the judge in that cause circumvented the system to effect an election and denied the request for a trial by jury.

Yeah I hear ya, and I agree with that notion of yours that Im more concerned with innocent people being screwed moreso than a guilty person getting his walking papers.

Although the system isnt perfect I just think at points where we can we shouldnt bend/twist the law etc. No one should be above the law, should be the same sentencing guidelines and procedure for everyone (although I understand why they may vary from state to state) but the places where we can apply say the "criminal justice formula" where commiting X crimes = your day in court = outcome, it should be applied.

I've been pretty appalled by the justice since I seen it first hand "bend/twist" to favor those who have favor with those who make the decisions. I've seen so called "pillards of the community" receive favoritism in forms of better plea deals etc afforded to them for the same crimes I have had friends commit who basically didn't get any of that favoritism and basically had to face the firing squad sort of speak.

Now on to the president being elected and the people putting faith in him not to abuse that power (pardoning) I can only think of the saying that 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely' and this is where the "the system is not perfect" falls into I understand that its the way it is and the president should have alot of power to wage war etc but something trivia like civil affairs of justice shouldn't be on the president radar when their are courts systems inplace to handle injustices.