Trump said he would consider pre-emptive pardons to protect Elon Musk and other close aides should Democrats take control of Congress

Donald Trump said he would be willing to protect Elon Musk and his staff if Democrats take control of Congress after the midterm elections this week.

In an interview for the “Pod Force One” podcast published Monday, Trump said he would move to “protect” the billionaire SpaceX and Tesla CEO if Congressional investigators targeted him.

Trump also indicated that he was weighing pre-emptive pardons for his close aides and others around him should the Democrats pursue investigations, according to Axios. It is a notion that the president has floated before to keep his team from facing prosecution for actions during the first two years of his term.

  • Fishnoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    They aren’t a thing. You can only pardon a crime that’s already been commited, not for future crimes.

    Also Trump violated his oath of office within 72 hours of this term beginning, so technically none of his pardons mean anything from this term and can just be reversed.

    He wasn’t legitimately serving in capacity of the president since he abdicated his office by violating his oath.

    • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      he abdicated his office by violating his oath

      And the only remedy for that is impeachment, followed by removal, which didn’t happen.

        • Fishnoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Exactly, and there’s always like dozens of not hundreds of possible charges you could bring. If they pardon the few obvious big ones, they can still be charged on all the other ones, and have a judge sentence them to serve consecutively.

          They also aren’t immune to civil suits for monetary damages and other things

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I don’t think he would need to specifcy them?

          I pardon Elon Musk and all DOGE staff for anything and everything they did while working for DOGE.

            • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              19 hours ago

              It doesnt seem unreasonable to need to do that either, but at the same time it can be abused.

              Like let’s say Elon committed 20 crimes in DOGE, and they’re all related in one way or another. The 20th one specifically is related to the 19th how he copied data, but its own obscure law, that everyone’s forgot about, so they pardon the 19, and then get him on copying the data to a non authorized USB stick or something because it wasnt on an authorized seller list.

              So I do kind of think it needs some ability to blanket things, but also, some specificity also seems important.

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

      scRotus says anything dipshit does is just part of his doing the job and he can’t be prosecuted for it at all.

      ‘to the best of my ability’ is also doing some heavy work here. he has no qualifications for office and he’s dumb as bricks. he’s doing the ‘best’ he can, doing the only thing he knows how to: lie, cheat, steal.

      • Fishnoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        What I’m saying is the scrotus already set the path for executive overreach. The next president can use that to have them all killed if they wanted to Uber the same reasoning. Or just make up a pretext that isn’t explicitly stated, like that they are sitting justices who will from here forward serve in a non judiciary capacity.