Most likely, if they can demonstrate that there might plausibly be some state level criminal liability they're not immunised for, then they still get to use the 5th amendment to avoid answering.

After charges. You can pardon from a conviction or a charge but you can't grant preemptive pardons because those are effectively immunities.

You are in error. Nixon was pardoned by Ford for any and all crimes he may have committed in office. Carter issued a blanket pardon for all Vietnam draft dodgers whether charged or not. There is nothing in the constitution or court rulings that blocks a preemptive pardon.

The only rule, from an 1866 SCOTUS ruling is that the pardon must come after the crime, whether there have been charges or not.

“The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.”

Edit to add: Trump's pardon of the Jan-6ers included a preemptive pardon for all those that had not been charged yet.

Yeah let's turn everything into a competition over who can be more insane.

Yeah let’s turn everything into a competition over who can be more insane.

This exact same reasoning would lead to all murder victims just allowing themselves to be murdered.

So what you're saying is that you can't think of any solution that doesn't include violence?

Biden will go down as the second-worst President in history, precisely because he didn't do ANYTHING to prevent what happened.

And to anyone who says he didn't have the ability, Joe Biden was President when the Roberts Court basically ruled that Presidents could do anything as President without being charged, as long as it could be argued that said actions were part of their Presidential duties.

They can still testify.

Yep you and the person before you read this dead on correct.

Even if I were to live another 100 years I’d doubt we’d see a worse President than Biden. Trump did exactly as I always thought he would. But I never imagined the Robert’s court while Biden was still President would hand him emperor powers.

The fact he didn’t pray to his God and then send wet teams after a litany of people, where he’d ultimately be sentenced to death at some point after the constitution would be amended to fix this shit, tells every one how much of a spineless coward Biden was. He couldn’t meet the moment even when he tried.

Where did I suggest violence would work? I agreed that I felt the power of the pardon was too broad and said that I don't see a viable solution. That doesn't equal burn everything down.

until there is

Why shouldn't we? Your life is basically a 0 on the cosmic scale, cause chaos we're all just monkeys wearing pants.

A pardon was issued, there's still an argument about how legal it may or may not be and the consensus is that it would not survive legal test.

You can't pardon someone without them admitting a crime. There is no blanket pardon. The fact no one has tested it does not make it legal but simply untested.

It's only ever been tried ex parte and they said only federal charges. Any state can try treason.

They're asking Trump to give preemptive pardons.

The problem is if Democrats gain enough seats to hold Trump accountable he's going to blame everyone else and won't want to pardon them as punishment for failing him.

Realistically pardons are the stupidest presidential power. I understand they are necessary but the way Trump is using them should be unconstitutional.

Sorry I was tired, I was thinking of the Reagan amnesty, but that was an act of congress that he signed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

Republicans aren’t real good about showing up when subpoenaed to testify.

What is the second solution?

If there is a huge problem that has no solution within the law, that means the problem will not be solved while the law is in place.

So what is the second solution?

I am not even sure they are necessary to have in the hands of a singular person. I think a citizens review board could come in a lot of different forms of varying merits and still be more fair then having it in the hands of one partisan elected person.

If I were designing it I would make it double as almost like a jobs program. You create these boards out of random citizens and make it a full time 40hr/46 week job. They have to research each case, argue the merits, and then vote all on public record. The duration would maybe 3 to 4 years for each cohort, with the first year being education, training and analyzing and debating the decisions of one of the prior cohorts. The other 2-3 years would be their effective working years. I would also have a recruitment office, so after the cohorts terms are done they could transfer into parallel professions if they wish.

I would make it so it has to be representative of the general population too, meaning not just race, sex and age, but former incarceration status has to be taken into account. Make it a lottery system where every name is by default in the system, if they don't want the job (which will be most people) you move on to the next person until you fill your cohort.

Believe it or not, straight to jail.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never suggested there was a "second solution" that I was advocating for. I specifically said I agreed with the other poster that the power of the pardon was too broad but the Constitution cannot be changed in the current political climate. How does that equate to me advocating violence?

If only.

The presidential pardon needs to be abolished.

We can go further: Now that the supreme Court has rules that presidents have immunity for all official acts, the next president could simply imprison the pardoned officials. In fact, the next president should dismiss and replace the Supreme Court justices who voted to give presidents complete immunity, so that the precedent can be reverted.

Because if the system can't be fixed using legal means, then it can only be fixed using illegal means.

It's almost like the writers of the Constitution got tired of arguing after a certain point and did not care about looking deeper at many of the provisions that could easily be abused.

I don't see them as the deep thinkers others do. They had grievances for the times and it's clear that the works are all driven by those grievances and not for a long lasting society.

Elect me as president. I'll start pardoning whistleblowers and antifa. They'll abolish it within a week.

They can be wiped by enforcing 14A3 disqualification and declaring his second term invalid

I didn't say it couldn't be fixed by legal means. Saying I don't know a solution to the problem doesn’t mean that I believe there isn't a legal solution. It just means I Don't Know. Is that clearer?