567

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 hours ago

"Pre-emptive pardon" is just another way of saying you are giving someone an exemption from having to follow the law.

[-] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

…for a price, I’m sure.

[-] OneOfManyPerfectCats@sh.itjust.works 20 points 12 hours ago

Maybe it's time to float rewriting the pardon powers so there's checks and balances that can't be abused, because you know if one did it more will do the same otherwise. Invalidate his pardon power, invalidate his pardons, crimes committed by those in office should not be pardonable, etc.

[-] chewypoops@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

We need to make it so that the president can only pardon people who they don't personally know, and who didn't commit crimes that directly benefit them.

The J6ers shouldn't have been pardonable, members of his administration should not be pardonable. Only private citizens whose crimes had no benefit to the president.

And there should be a limit to how many they get. Like 36 a year or something. Thats 3 per month; more than enough!

[-] MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

They were crying when Biden did it.

[-] Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world 29 points 21 hours ago

Tell me you're guilty as fuck without telling me you're guilty as fuck.

[-] smeenz 3 points 6 hours ago

Everything out of that loser's mouth for the last decade has been screaming that he's guilty.

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago

He's unwittingly telegraphing that they should only pursue state-level prosecutions while he's still in office. Not that they didn't know that already.

[-] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 14 points 23 hours ago

How fucked up of a country is it that, in America, if Hitler was around living in Texas and putting Jews in concentration camps and murdering them, the president could pardon him?

This isn't a left or right. Abolish pardons. No one should be above the law. Yes I understand shitty governments would weaponize this fast. I don't care.

Trump. Elon. The whole lot of them need to be on trial for policies that have murdered millions worldwide.

[-] Bieren@lemmy.today 16 points 1 day ago

Pardon for what? Election manipulation? Theft? Treason? Overstaying his education visa?

[-] Snowies@lemmy.zip 29 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Pardoned for what?

They haven’t been convicted of any crimes (yet)?

How is a pre-emptive pardon even a thing? The notion alone seems like a perversion of the original intent.

[-] Yuccagnocchiyaki@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

It's because WE have to follow rules and THEY dont

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 day ago

Unfortunately, there is precedent as Ford's pardon of Nixon included future crimes. It's fucking stupid.

[-] Master_Suck@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago

You can't call it a "precedent" if it was not contested in a legal environment.

That said, the constitution allows too much bullshit. It needs to be culled.

[-] Radical_Socialist_t00t@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago

Next president better reverse all these dollarstore pardons.

[-] goldfndr@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago

If pardons were easily reversed, surely many would've been this year if not last year.

[-] ChonkyLincoln@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago

Won’t stop the hangings after Nuremberg 2.0

[-] Bluewing@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Pardon away. It won't stop state charges.......

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 158 points 2 days ago

Preemptive pardon should not even be a thing.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 85 points 1 day ago

And if it is, the executive should list explicitly what crimes, on what days, against which individuals, cannot be brought to trial.

[-] Carl@anarchist.nexus 81 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is the real crux of the issue. Blanket pardons shouldn’t be a thing. If you want to pardon someone, it should be specific. Which crimes? Where? When? Who was victimized? Who else was involved? What was the outcome of the crime?

The SCOTUS has already ruled in Burdick v. US that accepting a pardon requires admitting guilt of the crime you’re being pardoned of. The wording of the ruling was that a pardon carries “an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it.” The SCOTUS has consistently held that a pardon does not overturn a guilty conviction. Instead, it removes the punishment for the crime. You’re still unequivocally guilty after a pardon.

It shouldn’t be some sort of “I pardon you for waves arms in air vaguely” power, because that turns the whole “needing to admit guilt” part into a sly wink wink elbow nudge situation. It puts the person’s crimes in a quantum Schrödinger state. The person accepting a vague pardon is inarguably guilty of something, because they admitted guilt when they accepted the pardon. But the court doesn’t know what they’ve admitted to until a prosecutor tries to indict them, and they go “oh no you can’t prosecute me, I was pardoned.”

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[-] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

trump doesn't care about helping anyone but he loves being thanked. He's a pretty simple guy underneath all the simplicity.

[-] tacoplease@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Only the guilty need pardons before the crimes are listed.

[-] Formfiller@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

I feel like we’re getting dangerously close to the point where we start making our own justice

[-] bunnybunny@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago

Someone already gave you guys a good example

[-] Ceruleum@lemmy.wtf 3 points 23 hours ago

'Chop chop!!'

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago

Great. If pardoned, they can't take the Fifth for anything they were pardoned for, and they can be nailed for contempt if they don't testify or if they lie.

[-] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago

Look at that. The neo-Nazi scumbag is guilty before the prosecution opens a case.

[-] Bwaz@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago

oh, I think that even if he premptively pardons the entire gang, Congress should investigate anyway. Just so that the record of what they did is made public and Trump doesn't get to revise the historical record.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] cranakis@reddthat.com 87 points 2 days ago

Let's just take all of his money instead.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Formfiller@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

Elon needs to spend the rest of his pathetic loser life in prison

[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago

I think we need an amendment to rescind the pardon. Reduce it to a stay of execution only. Why is it even a thing? Did they really think giving this power to a sitting president would ONLY be used to right injustices? It's a friggin unlimited commit crimes and get out of jail free card.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] GuyFawkesV@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

They invented “Presidential immunity”. Time for Dems to invent “void corrupt pardons”. Found in the same section of the Constitution.

[-] mercano@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago

Great. Then they can’t plead the fifth when questioned by Congress.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2026
567 points (99.0% liked)

politics

31727 readers
3788 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS