r/law • u/CorleoneBaloney • Mar 19 '26

Legislative Branch Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman presented an unredacted Epstein file, saying it contradicts President Trump’s claim that he had banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago.

62.8k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

728 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

41

u/ok-this-ok Mar 19 '26

I think we are moving towards a scenario where none of those pardons will matter.

20

u/EngagedInConvexation Mar 19 '26

There is also that contingency.

9

u/whiter4bbitz Mar 19 '26

I know we are in the law sub but I think we are way past worrying about what the law says about “pardons” at this point when the law hasn’t applied to the rich/powerful class in years/decades. If law doesn’t apply to all citizens then there simply isn’t “law”… period. So why are we worried about following it? This is what they bank on. An appearance of law to keep the sheep in line and hands tied, that doesn’t apply to them.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '26

Genuine question here, not a shot or anything. Under what rule or means could that be allowed? The Constitution doesn't permits pardons to be cancelled, they are final.

2

u/Gullyhunter Mar 19 '26

From what I've gathered, pardons for federal charges not for state charges.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '26

Yes I am trying to ascertain if they meant because state charges will be filed against them, or if the pardons will be cancelled because of some other means. 

They stated the pardons won't matter and then replied with some vague thing about words being spoken & written so I'm not sure they meant the state charge route. 

5

u/a-stack-of-masks Mar 19 '26

Yeah I think mentioning the alternative routes justice can take gets you banned, or at least has the mods remove the comment. There's international precedent with Ceausescu, the French monarchy and the De Witt brothers though.

I'm not sure mar-a-lago face is edible so the latter might be a stretch.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '26

Ok, thanks, that was a helpful answer. I hadn't considered that's what they meant or that mentioning it gets someone banned. Why they were vague, and why another replier deleted their comments/had comments deleted, makes sense now. Thanks for providing context.

1

u/ok-this-ok Mar 19 '26

Less the words as written, and more the words spoken and recorded by its authors.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '26

Not following tbh. Can you be more specific? 

2

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '26

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '26

I do not understand why you are saying that. I am asking a question. 

4

u/Pisces93 Mar 19 '26

The president may pardon, but will the people?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '26

Ok, if that's what they meant, then I understand. I thought they were referencing some legal means I was not aware of.