Federal Judge Slams Door on Trump's Broad Pardon for Pennsylvania Man Accused of Double Voting in 2020 Election.
A federal judge has ruled that a pardon issued by President Donald Trump does not cover a Pennsylvania man accused of double voting in the 2020 presidential election. Matthew Laiss, who voted twice - once in person and once via mail ballot - was charged with violating election laws.
Laiss' attorney argued that the "plain language" of Trump's pardon proclamation applied to his client, citing that the president granted "a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all United States citizens" for conduct related to the 2020 election. However, Laiss' attorney also noted that others specifically named in the pardon had committed more egregious acts.
Judge Joseph Leeson Jr., who presided over the case, rejected this argument and ruled that Laiss had not applied to receive a certificate of pardon from the Office of the Pardon Attorney, as required by the plain language of the pardon. The judge noted that the pardon proclamation did not mention the U.S. pardon attorney as part of the review process.
In his decision, Leeson emphasized that it was beyond his authority to determine whether the pardon applied to Laiss and defers to the Office of the Pardon Attorney's determination on this matter. "The plain text of the Pardon" is clear, he wrote.
Laiss' defense team had argued that Trump's blanket pardon for those charged in connection with the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, demonstrated the president's habit of issuing broad pardons that needed to be interpreted by courts. However, Leeson noted that this pardon did not include a review process, whereas Trump's November 2020 pardon proclamation explicitly mentioned the Office of the Pardon Attorney.
Laiss' case sets a significant precedent for how the pardon proclamation will be applied in the future. The ruling may also raise questions about the limits of presidential pardoning power and how it should be enforced by courts.
A federal judge has ruled that a pardon issued by President Donald Trump does not cover a Pennsylvania man accused of double voting in the 2020 presidential election. Matthew Laiss, who voted twice - once in person and once via mail ballot - was charged with violating election laws.
Laiss' attorney argued that the "plain language" of Trump's pardon proclamation applied to his client, citing that the president granted "a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all United States citizens" for conduct related to the 2020 election. However, Laiss' attorney also noted that others specifically named in the pardon had committed more egregious acts.
Judge Joseph Leeson Jr., who presided over the case, rejected this argument and ruled that Laiss had not applied to receive a certificate of pardon from the Office of the Pardon Attorney, as required by the plain language of the pardon. The judge noted that the pardon proclamation did not mention the U.S. pardon attorney as part of the review process.
In his decision, Leeson emphasized that it was beyond his authority to determine whether the pardon applied to Laiss and defers to the Office of the Pardon Attorney's determination on this matter. "The plain text of the Pardon" is clear, he wrote.
Laiss' defense team had argued that Trump's blanket pardon for those charged in connection with the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, demonstrated the president's habit of issuing broad pardons that needed to be interpreted by courts. However, Leeson noted that this pardon did not include a review process, whereas Trump's November 2020 pardon proclamation explicitly mentioned the Office of the Pardon Attorney.
Laiss' case sets a significant precedent for how the pardon proclamation will be applied in the future. The ruling may also raise questions about the limits of presidential pardoning power and how it should be enforced by courts.
. It seems like Trump's pardon proclamation was pretty clear, but somehow got twisted to apply only to those who followed the right process 
. I mean, wouldn't you want a blanket pardon to cover everyone, right? 
Still, I get why Judge Leeson Jr. had to rule in this case - it's all about following the rules and not getting too creative with the law 
. Now we'll have to see how this plays out in future cases... will pardons be more or less open to interpretation? 
. I mean, Trump just gives out pardons willy-nilly, but there's actually some fine print that says you gotta go through some process to get one. Matthew Laiss' lawyer was like "hey, since the president said it all or nothing, my client should get a pardon" 
.
just read about this judge who shut down trump's attempt to give a pardon to this guy matt laiss for allegedly voting twice in 2020 election... like what even is going on here? 
anyway, the judge said that because Laiss didn't go through the proper channels (i.e. apply for a certificate of pardon) he wasn't technically eligible for the pardon. and also, trump's pardon proclamation was super vague, which isn't exactly what you want when it comes to pardons 
It's like saying "you're all good" to someone who's been charged with voter fraud 
. I get why the judge was skeptical - it doesn't exactly say "Office of the Pardon Attorney" in there, does it? 
. The judge did the right thing in deferring to the Office of the Pardon Attorney on this one 
. It's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out in future cases 
. Trump's pardon proclamation does need some clarification, you know? It's not just about giving someone a free pass for committing something wrong, it's about following the rules 
. The judge made the right call, but it's just another example of how complicated pardons are. I mean, who has time to figure all that out? And what's with the Office of the Pardon Attorney not being clear enough about their role? It's like they wanted Laiss to be confused too 
.