oh, you might say, the president can’t issue corrupt pardons. ah. but john roberts says that not only can he issue corrupt pardons, but if he tells his staff they are corrupt in the course of issuing them, that evidence is inadmissible in the event that you could somehow prosecute the corruption
President: "Judge, are you planning to hear this case?"
Judge: "Yes and I..."
President to corrupt government employee: "Put this judge with the person whose case he was going to hear."
Also: look at what he did when there was no explicit signal the law didn’t apply to him. Requested that protestors be shot in the legs, using classified documents as coasters at home, Jan 6, etc etc. How much restraint is he going to show now around stuff he maybe technically isn’t allowed to do?
Saving back a couple million dollars and a fancy motor home to convince Clarence Thomas to let me out of the gulag after I undergo state mandated reprogramming
STEPHEN A: Skip I want to ADDRESS the balance of SCOTUS and maybe a political rival.
[BAYLESS nods]
You KNOW I am sensitive to authoritarian power grabs
BAYLESS: Absolutely
STEPHEN A: BUT!
why would they even be corrupt? they would not be in furtherance of illegal activity because the president is immune. they would just be pardons in support of the president's agenda