Preemptive Pardons

LurchAddams said:
Google? I didn't think Russian trolls like you had access to that, Vlad.

Eat a bag of dicks, loser.
Click to expand...

Say traitor, isn't the country you support against America the main ally of Russia? As you give aid and comfort to Iran in this war, aren't you also aiding Russia?


But then you scumbag commies always supported Russia, from 1917 to the present.
 
gfm7175 said:
On or before January 20th 2029, President Trump will issue preemptive pardons for himself, and leftists (who were completely fine with it four years prior) will suddenly be outraged that Trump is doing it "in order to avoid accountability for his crimes" (aka to protect himself and his administration from the leftist lawfare that would ensue against them if he didn't do it).

Remember, leftists, the Autopen has already set the precedent on this one. Every administration will now need to do this upon exiting (leftists in order to shield themselves from accountability for their crimes, and righties in order to shield themselves from leftist lawfare against them)
Click to expand...


1) What is factual vs speculative​

❌ “On or before January 20th 2029, President Trump will issue preemptive pardons for himself…”​

This is pure speculation about a future event. There is no evidence this will happen.

Also, there is a major constitutional/legal uncertainty embedded in the claim:

  • A self-pardon has never been tested in court.
  • Most legal scholars argue it is constitutionally invalid or at least unproven, based on the principle that no one can be a judge in their own case.
  • So the claim assumes something both unknown and legally contested as if it were inevitable.

⚖️ “Preemptive pardons for himself…”​

Two separate issues are being blended:

  • Preemptive pardons for others: Historically possible and has precedent (e.g., Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974).
  • Self-pardon: No precedent exists; it is not an established presidential power.
So the comment incorrectly treats a disputed legal theory as if it were settled practice.

❌ “Leftists were completely fine with it four years prior”​

This is a broad generalization without evidence.

What actually happened in recent years:

  • Presidents of both parties (including Joe Biden and Donald Trump in his first term) issued pardons that were criticized by opponents.
  • Some Biden pardons (including family-related pardons in 2024–2025 reporting) were controversial, but there is no clear, uniform “left was fine with it” consensus.
This is a strawman-style framing: attributing a single unified opinion to “leftists.”

❌ “Autopen has already set the precedent on this one”​

This is misleading.

  • The autopen is a mechanical signature device used for routine executive documents.
  • It has been used across administrations for decades for things like bills and proclamations.
  • There is no established legal precedent that autopen use creates a new norm requiring future presidents to issue pardons upon leaving office.
Importantly:

  • Pardons are constitutionally granted by the President.
  • Whether they must be personally signed or can be autopen-signed has been debated, but it has not created any binding precedent requiring future administrations to act similarly.
So this is not a valid constitutional or institutional “precedent-setting” claim.

2) Logical / rhetorical bias analysis​

The comment contains several strong bias indicators:

🔴 Political labeling / loaded language​

  • “leftists”
  • “lawfare”
    These are loaded, ideological terms that signal persuasion rather than neutral description.

🔴 Mind-reading / assumed intent​

  • Claims future motives of political groups (“leftists will suddenly be outraged”)
  • Assumes intent behind pardons (“to avoid accountability for his crimes”)
This is speculation presented as certainty about emotions and motives.

🔴 False equivalence​

It equates:

  • hypothetical Trump actions
    with
  • assumed reactions of political opponents
    and then
  • generalizes it as a systemic rule (“every administration will now need to do this”)
This is not supported by legal or historical evidence.

🔴 Slippery slope framing​

“Every administration will now need to do this…”
Click to expand...
This suggests an inevitable chain reaction without evidence that institutions are actually heading in that direction.

3) Bottom line​

  • The claim is mostly speculative and not fact-based
  • It misrepresents legal precedent around pardons and autopens
  • It overgeneralizes political behavior
  • It uses ideologically loaded framing and predictive certainty without evidence

If you want a neutral summary of reality:​

  • Presidents can issue broad pardons for others, including preemptively.
  • Self-pardons are unsettled legally and not established precedent.
  • Autopen use does not create constitutional precedent requiring future pardon behavior.
  • Predictions about future presidents doing specific legal acts are not factually verifiable claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top