Hacker News Reader

Comment by ketamine__ | Hacker News Reader

Why not just do it now? It rings hallow.

Not sure if you're genuinely asking because you don't know, but the reason is because they have a policy for this (1). Personally, I find it both compelling and reassuring.

(1) https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/worldlead...

They have a public policy written down somewhere, but I'd wager the reasoning is more "we're not going to antagonize individuals who have a direct impact on our bottom line through legislation/prosecution." He lost that card.

> 15 October 2019

A policy that they've been ignoring where Trump is concerned for over 4 years now.

I'm actually not sure if you're genuine or aloof. Talking about one last chance after someone does despicable things is despicable.

Well, perma-banning the president is going to stir yet another round of controversy. Since he's going in two weeks, it seems safer to just wait two weeks and perma-ban the ex president of the United States. (Assuming he and his supporters don't try to take it up another notch in the meantime.)

I think the intent is to prevent his supporters from taking it up another notch in the meantime.

Because he still has the power and influence to bring up questions over whether or not Twitter is a publisher. Censorship/ostracision is only useful for people that can't fight back. Just like a lot of Trumps deals/leases/accounts will likely be terminated the second Biden is sworn in.

This would be the most dangerous time to do it, funnel all his followers on to a hyper radicalized platform like Gab or Parler right after insurrectionists have literally stormed the Capitol and couldn't be stopped even after police shot one of them.

The smart move is to bide their time slowly backing him down without angering him until January 20th when he no longer has any power to use any lever of power.

A furious Trump issuing a blanket pardon to anyone on Parler after being kicked off twitter could be a real result.

IANAL, but I somehow doubt that's how pardons work.

EDIT: What I specifically doubt is that Trump can just write out a pardon for "anyone on Parler". Doesn't it have to be a pardon for someone specific? Or can it be as generic and vague as he wants?

I've found these videos enlightening about how pardons work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZc9H54eBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx4FD6xtLJM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMiOMNIRs3k

TLDR: He can pardon any federal offense.

Thanks, I should've been more explicit about what I was doubting. I'll go edit my comment so I don't have to repeat the explanation to everyone who decides to reply :)

There's some precedent:

President Carter pardons draft dodgers

On January 21, 1977, U.S. President Jimmy Carter grants an unconditional pardon to hundreds of thousands of men who evaded the draft during the Vietnam War.

In total, some 100,000 young Americans went abroad in the late 1960s and early 70s to avoid serving in the war. Ninety percent went to Canada, where after some initial controversy they were eventually welcomed as immigrants. Still others hid inside the United States. In addition to those who avoided the draft, a relatively small number–about 1,000–of deserters from the U.S. armed forces also headed to Canada. While the Canadian government technically reserved the right to prosecute deserters, in practice they left them alone, even instructing border guards not to ask too many questions.

<https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-carter...>

(Not an endorsement of a mass pardon of all Parler members.)

Thanks! As an immigrant, I'm still not very well versed in American history.

That's a specific crime though. If Trump says "I pardon all Parler users for all crimes", can Parler start selling its accounts as a "get out of federal crimes free" card?

Pardons can not apply to future crimes, only crimes already committed and only to those specified at the time of pardon. Someone joining after would need to be pardoned again

Also, the President can only pardon federal crimes. States can still prosecute.

Not so, Ford pardoned Nixon for any (i.e. unspecified) crimes he might be accused of doing while President.

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

The Nixon pardon was issued after he left office and was for any crimes he committed while in office. Specifically in the past.

Good point, and a specific past offence, rather than any possible future offence committed by some rather nebulously-identified class of people.

But the Carter case does address the circumstance of pardoning a large (and arguably unknowably large) class.

Interesting. So the bone spur thing has already been pardoned.

> can it be as generic and vague as he wants?

Carter pardoned anyone/everyone who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483

Thanks, I didn't know that. I'm still learning about American history.

There are a bunch of other examples too; I wrote a bit about that over here a few years ago: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19519/can-the-p...

He could just pardon them individually if necessary, just print up a list of names based on the arrest records.

Not sure he and his people are capable of that, I mean it involves research and a printer...

I don’t know why this is being downvoted. Seems reasonable to me.

Look, the guy just wants Poland, so I say we just give it to him. He calms down a bit and we avoid a nasty war. Everybody wins! (Well, except maybe the Poles, I guess.)

Conventionally, at least in Britain, you just say "Peace in our time" (or more correctly "Peace for our time") to invoke this idea. That's what Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said after he landed in Britain with signed agreement from Hitler that there would be no war.

But I suppose that might be unfamiliar to American readers as they did not enter the war at the beginning, and "Peace for our time" was invoked in a different context by JFK.

I think this isn't really about his hard-core follower base; those people are kind of lost already, for the moment at least, but rather for the more moderate followers/supporter base, who won't follow him to Gab or whatnot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com