Self Pardoning

[Thurmal34]

Can a President pardon himself for anything he sees fit?

 

If yes, does that make him/her above the rule of law in America?

 

If no, is he subject to the normal investigatory process?

 

Discuss.

[Azalin]

55 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said:

 

Discuss.

 

 

I have a better idea, Einstein - why not tell us what you think. I'm sure this will be most illuminating indeed.

[Coach Tuesday]

Why are you asking the six nutjobs on what remains of this board?

[Wacka]

21 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Why are you asking the six nutjobs on what remains of this board?

You, Tibs, Baskin, Thurmal, LAGrant, and  #34?

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Why are you asking the six nutjobs on what remains of this board?

Hit-and-run posting refers to a tactic where a poster at an Internet forum enters, makes a post, only to disappear immediately after.^[1] The term comes from the hit-and-run crime on auto vehicles, in which the driver hits another car or person causing an accident and then flees the scene. It is also known as making a "drive-by" posting, a play on the phrase drive-by shooting. The post often consists of a lengthy text making lots of claims that can be, but are not always, on topic.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_posting

[Keukasmallies]

Or, hit and run posting can consist of a short pithy comment expressing the feelings/position/beliefs of an individual who wishes to make that comment, but not enter into an attempt at discourse with some of the Johnny-come-lately posters ( See knuckle draggers) new to the board.

[US Egg]

Everyone should self pardon, like Superman does:

 

 

.....it's rude not too.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Ifartalot

[3rdnlng]

17 minutes ago, Keukasmallies said:

Or, hit and run posting can consist of a short pithy comment expressing the feelings/position/beliefs of an individual who wishes to make that comment, but not enter into an attempt at discourse with some of the Johnny-come-lately posters ( See knuckle draggers) new to the board.

Or just calling them a Coach Tuesday works too.

[IDBillzFan]

3 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Why are you asking the six nutjobs on what remains of this board?

 

Nice contribution. Come up with that on your own, or did Tibs help you write it?

 

 

[Koko78]

While the dipschiff OP is trolling (and will likely just start calling us all racists again), this is an interesting Constitutional question. What did the framers intend? Nothing in the Constitution prevents self-pardoning by the President. Was that intentional, or an oversight? I think it was intentional.

 

Federalist No. 69 indicates that they intended that impeachment by the House, followed by removal by the Senate, is the primary remedy when a president (or any other impeachable official) misbehaves while in office. This would make sense, as the president, being the head of the executive branch, effectively controls the federal prosecutors, and it keeps in line with the separation of powers/checks and balances doctrine. Impeachment does not prohibit further prosecution, absent a pardon, and pardons are ineffective against impeachment proceedings. There is no way for a president to escape at least some liability for "high crimes and misdemeanors" while in office.

 

Quote

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law...

 

...He is to have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT;

 

...The power of the President, in respect to pardons, would extend to all cases, EXCEPT THOSE OF IMPEACHMENT. The governor of New York may pardon in all cases, even in those of impeachment, except for treason and murder. Is not the power of the governor, in this article, on a calculation of political consequences, greater than that of the President? All conspiracies and plots against the government, which have not been matured into actual treason, may be screened from punishment of every kind, by the interposition of the prerogative of pardoning. If a governor of New York, therefore, should be at the head of any such conspiracy, until the design had been ripened into actual hostility he could insure his accomplices and adherents an entire impunity. A President of the Union, on the other hand, though he may even pardon treason, when prosecuted in the ordinary course of law, could shelter no offender, in any degree, from the effects of impeachment and conviction.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Speaking of pardons

 

I thought Donny was anti drug (dealers).   

 

 

So why why did he just pardon a woman who was trafficking for the cartels???

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Speaking of pardons

 

I thought Donny was anti drug (dealers).   

 

 

So why why did he just pardon a woman who was trafficking for the cartels???

Because she had completely changed her life around, had spent 22 years in prison and had prospects for being a positive influence on other people. Instead should we be spending taxpayer money to keep her locked up?

[row_33]

Depends

 

if it’s total bogus garbage as it fully appears, then Trump can dismiss it with a shrug

 

the Senate is the important deliberative body and would be the sounding board for the rightness of such an action

 

 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, Koko78 said:

While the dipschiff OP is trolling (and will likely just start calling us all racists again), this is an interesting Constitutional question. What did the framers intend? Nothing in the Constitution prevents self-pardoning by the President. Was that intentional, or an oversight? I think it was intentional.

 

Federalist No. 69 indicates that they intended that impeachment by the House, followed by removal by the Senate, is the primary remedy when a president (or any other impeachable official) misbehaves while in office. This would make sense, as the president, being the head of the executive branch, effectively controls the federal prosecutors, and it keeps in line with the separation of powers/checks and balances doctrine. Impeachment does not prohibit further prosecution, absent a pardon, and pardons are ineffective against impeachment proceedings. There is no way for a president to escape at least some liability for "high crimes and misdemeanors" while in office.

 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp

 

Interesting. My problem with this take is the circumstances were such a situation could arise. Is the president pardoning himself/herself after being convicted? So that would mean a trial while in office, which I'm not sure can even happen. 

 

Now lets say say it's like the Nixon situation where he was given a blanket pardon for anything he may have done. Say a president issued himself/herself a blanket pardon the day before leaving office. I just don't see that being functional in a nation of laws. It would put the presidency into the above the law situation where presidents could do anything they wanted and then excuse themselves. 

 

The president swears an oath to preserver protect and defend the constitution, and to faithfully executte the laws, a self pardon would essentially violate that oath. It would never fly. Supreme Court would probably rule that unconstitutional and allow a prosecution of the president to go forward. 

43 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Speaking of pardons

 

I thought Donny was anti drug (dealers).   

 

 

So why why did he just pardon a woman who was trafficking for the cartels???

To remind his criminal cronies, who he can't talk to, that he has their backs if necessary. So don't sing! 

[DC Tom]

Just now, Tiberius said:

The president swears an oath to preserver protect and defend the constitution, and to faithfully executte the laws, a self pardon would essentially violate that oath. It would never fly. Supreme Court would probably rule that unconstitutional and allow a prosecution of the president to go forward. 

 

Considering that the Constitution and US code puts no such restriction on the President, that a self-pardon would be a violation of oath is debatable - not wrong, just open to question.

 

BUT...when does the President get tried in criminal court, anyway?  The President gets tried in the House and Senate - which pardoning the Constitution does specifically prohibit.

 

I think almost everyone is conflating multiple issues in the discussion.  I suspect, if it were presented to the Supremes, how it would shake out is that the President can pardon himself for crimes committed before he became President, as those are not impeachable offenses, but can't for crimes during his term.  

[Koko78]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Interesting. My problem with this take is the circumstances were such a situation could arise. Is the president pardoning himself/herself after being convicted? So that would mean a trial while in office, which I'm not sure can even happen. 

 

Now lets say say it's like the Nixon situation where he was given a blanket pardon for anything he may have done. Say a president issued himself/herself a blanket pardon the day before leaving office. I just don't see that being functional in a nation of laws. It would put the presidency into the above the law situation where presidents could do anything they wanted and then excuse themselves. 

 

The president swears an oath to preserver protect and defend the constitution, and to faithfully executte the laws, a self pardon would essentially violate that oath. It would never fly. Supreme Court would probably rule that unconstitutional and allow a prosecution of the president to go forward. 

 

Pardons are not ordinarily reviewable, however I think it could be reviewed by SCOTUS to answer whether or not you can pre-pardon a person under the Constitution, whether you need to specify what specific 'crimes against the United States' are being pardoned, or whether there must actually be an active prosecution first (regardless of whether or not there is a conviction at the point of pardon.) I suspect that it would be the latter.

[K-9]

1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Speaking of pardons

 

I thought Donny was anti drug (dealers).   

 

 

So why why did he just pardon a woman who was trafficking for the cartels???

The force of Kanye’s dragon energy. 

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Speaking of pardons

 

I thought Donny was anti drug (dealers).   

 

 

So why why did he just pardon a woman who was trafficking for the cartels???

 

You could have just as easily asked, "I thought Donny hates women" or "I thought Donny hates blacks" and your point would be just as ridiculous.

 

Try harder.

 

[row_33]

scream at the sky, it's really the most useful thing you can do

 

[/dev/null]

"self pardoning" sounds like something Leftists do while watching Stormy videos

[Doc Brown]

If somebody accepts a pardon it's an admission of guilt.  Something Trump may have a hard time doing if it ever gets to that point.

[K-9]

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Considering that the Constitution and US code puts no such restriction on the President, that a self-pardon would be a violation of oath is debatable - not wrong, just open to question.

 

BUT...when does the President get tried in criminal court, anyway?  The President gets tried in the House and Senate - which pardoning the Constitution does specifically prohibit.

 

I think almost everyone is conflating multiple issues in the discussion.  I suspect, if it were presented to the Supremes, how it would shake out is that the President can pardon himself for crimes committed before he became President, as those are not impeachable offenses, but can't for crimes during his term.  

Your second paragraph is key to the issue. Which is why so many legal scholars don’t think he would succeed even if he did pardon himself as the Senate may construe the act as an impeachable offense in and of itself. It would be an interesting test of the Senate.

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Your second paragraph is key to the issue. Which is why so many legal scholars don’t think he would succeed even if he did pardon himself as the Senate may construe the act as an impeachable offense in and of itself. It would be an interesting test of the Senate.

 

Impeaching the President for pardoning himself for criminal charges he couldn't be impeached for as they didn't occur in office?  That would be byzantine as ****.

[K-9]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Impeaching the President for pardoning himself for criminal charges he couldn't be impeached for as they didn't occur in office?  That would be byzantine as ****.

If the Senate construed the act of self pardon as an abuse of power, the crimes and when they occurred don’t matter. How can it be an abuse of power if that power is enumerated in the Constitution? The idea I’ve heard put forth is the notion of using that power for his own self interest is in itself an abuse of that power. 

 

I keep thinking of that old Looney Tunes cartoon with the elephant that plays baseball and the line “there’s nothing in the rule book that says an elephant can’t pitch.”

[DC Tom]

Just now, K-9 said:

If the Senate construed the act of self pardon as an abuse of power, the crimes and when they occurred don’t matter. How can it be an abuse of power if that power is enumerated in the Constitution? The idea I’ve heard put forth is the notion of using that power for his own self interest is in itself an abuse of that power. 

 

I keep thinking of that old Looney Tunes cartoon with the elephant that plays baseball and the line “there’s nothing in the rule book that says an elephant can’t pitch.”

 

1) If using power in self-interest is an abuse of power, there are a LOT of people in DC that need to be impeached.  

2) If the Constitution doesn't prohibit it, and the courts have consistently refused to put limitations on the power to pardon above and beyond what the Constitution specifies, can it truly be an abuse of power in any legal sense?

 

Don't get me wrong...I think it's a loophole the founders never considered, and would entirely support an Amendment that says "the President can't pardon himself, or anyone currently holding an office either by election or Senate approval."  But what it should be, and what it is, are not necessarily the same thing.

 

If it happens, it'll be a hellaciously interesting Constitutional issue.

[K-9]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

1) If using power in self-interest is an abuse of power, there are a LOT of people in DC that need to be impeached.  

2) If the Constitution doesn't prohibit it, and the courts have consistently refused to put limitations on the power to pardon above and beyond what the Constitution specifies, can it truly be an abuse of power in any legal sense?

 

Don't get me wrong...I think it's a loophole the founders never considered, and would entirely support an Amendment that says "the President can't pardon himself, or anyone currently holding an office either by election or Senate approval."  But what it should be, and what it is, are not necessarily the same thing.

 

If it happens, it'll be a hellaciously interesting Constitutional issue.

1) Totally agree.

2) The “legal sense” doesn’t necessarily matter when it comes to what the Congress may consider as “high crimes and misdemeanors” and “abuse of power” may have a wide scope in their deliberation of the matter. Especially when the president would had to have been found guilty of a crime in order to have something to pardon himself for in the first place. Conduct deemed unbecoming may be enough. 

 

I totally agree with everything else in your post. One helluva Constitutional issue indeed. 

[Koko78]

4 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

If somebody accepts a pardon it's an admission of guilt.  Something Trump may have a hard time doing if it ever gets to that point.

 

You act as if someone can actually reject a pardon.

[Doc Brown]

27 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

You act as if someone can actually reject a pardon.

You can reject a pardon. Nixon struggled with accepting the pardon from Ford because it was an admission of guilt.

 

 

[/dev/null]

12 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

If somebody accepts a pardon it's an admission of guilt.  Something Trump may have a hard time doing if it ever gets to that point.

 

8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

You can reject a pardon. Nixon struggled with accepting the pardon from Ford because it was an admission of guilt.

 

 

 

Which is kinda why I want to see Trump pardon Obama and Comey for the domestic spying during the 2016 Election. 

 

That would either shatter the Leftist visage of St Barack or expose their hypocrisy for continuing to defend his actions.

 

[Tiberius]

19 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Pardons are not ordinarily reviewable, however I think it could be reviewed by SCOTUS to answer whether or not you can pre-pardon a person under the Constitution, whether you need to specify what specific 'crimes against the United States' are being pardoned, or whether there must actually be an active prosecution first (regardless of whether or not there is a conviction at the point of pardon.) I suspect that it would be the latter.

That quote from the federalist you posted was very interesting. It is basically saying that a president has to be impeached in order to be indicted and the only  AFTER he gets kicked out of office. He cannot pardon himself or any of his co-conspirators if it is connected to an impeachment. That opens up so many possibilities in he way this thing can turn out. 

 

For instance, there is absolutely nothing that can be done if he pardons himself and others shortly before leaving office. No way would an impeachment get going fast enough to do anything about it. He'd be Scott free, though I'm sure there would be a court battle someway. 

 

On the other hand, an impeachment vote would put a hold on all pardons related to what Mueller indicted those Russians for, namely a plan to defraud the United States government, assuming that Trump and company are connected. 

 

As K-9 stated, a pardon might lead directly to an impeachment, but I'm not sure. Maybe, maybe not. What if he is only found guilty of stupidly obstructing justice by Mueller, but not found to have a Russia connection? Impeachment would just die on the vine. It would just be a fiasco. No way the obstruction charge holds up on its own. But, if Mueller actually finds evidence of collusion and money laundering etc., then no pardon in the world will save any of them. But the Senate might. Which opens up another can worms. Suppose the Senate fails to convict even though he is obviously guilty, would the pardon still hold? I think probably. But it would be challenged I'm sure. 

 

The fact that these crimes occurred during the campaign and not while he is in office would be a moot point. The obstruction of justice charge would connect them to his time in office. 

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Apparently the prize in this morning's Cracker Jack box was a legal dissertation.

[3rdnlng]

58 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

That quote from the federalist you posted was very interesting. It is basically saying that a president has to be impeached in order to be indicted and the only  AFTER he gets kicked out of office. He cannot pardon himself or any of his co-conspirators if it is connected to an impeachment. That opens up so many possibilities in he way this thing can turn out. 

 

For instance, there is absolutely nothing that can be done if he pardons himself and others shortly before leaving office. No way would an impeachment get going fast enough to do anything about it. He'd be Scott free, though I'm sure there would be a court battle someway. 

 

On the other hand, an impeachment vote would put a hold on all pardons related to what Mueller indicted those Russians for, namely a plan to defraud the United States government, assuming that Trump and company are connected. 

 

As K-9 stated, a pardon might lead directly to an impeachment, but I'm not sure. Maybe, maybe not. What if he is only found guilty of stupidly obstructing justice by Mueller, but not found to have a Russia connection? Impeachment would just die on the vine. It would just be a fiasco. No way the obstruction charge holds up on its own. But, if Mueller actually finds evidence of collusion and money laundering etc., then no pardon in the world will save any of them. But the Senate might. Which opens up another can worms. Suppose the Senate fails to convict even though he is obviously guilty, would the pardon still hold? I think probably. But it would be challenged I'm sure. 

 

The fact that these crimes occurred during the campaign and not while he is in office would be a moot point. The obstruction of justice charge would connect them to his time in office. 

 

 

Once again you've extended your dumb !@#$ lead over the competition.

[row_33]

12 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

You can reject a pardon. Nixon struggled with accepting the pardon from Ford because it was an admission of guilt.

 

 

 

yeah right

 

he grabbed that like it was oxygen and he was stranded on the moon

 

 

[Doc Brown]

9 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

 

Which is kinda why I want to see Trump pardon Obama and Comey for the domestic spying during the 2016 Election. 

 

That would either shatter the Leftist visage of St Barack or expose their hypocrisy for continuing to defend his actions.

 

There's a better chance of the Bills winning the Superbowl this year than Obama getting indicted.

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

There's a better chance of the Bills winning the Superbowl this year than Obama getting indicted.

 

I'll settle for a RICO indictment of the Democratic Party.

 

(Though to be honest, I'd rather see the GOP get a RICO indictment.  Unreasonable Democratic self-righteous joy at Republican indignation is a hell of a lot more fun than Republican gloating over Democratic whinging and creebing.)

[Deranged Rhino]

18 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

There's a better chance of the Bills winning the Superbowl this year than Obama getting indicted.

 

People said that about McCabe and Comey too...

 

 

[Doc Brown]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

People said that about McCabe and Comey too...

We'll see.  There's still quite a lot of people to go through to get to Obama.

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

We'll see.  There's still quite a lot of people to go through to get to Obama.

 

Let's suppose that a certain tarmac conversation was intercepted and recorded.  If that exists, do you think there's any way he could avoid being indicted?

[DC Tom]

17 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Let's suppose that a certain tarmac conversation was intercepted and recorded.  If that exists, do you think there's any way he could avoid being indicted?

 

Hell, let's just suppose he was caught on a hot mic conspiring to collude with Russia after the election...

[Koko78]

17 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Hell, let's just suppose he was caught on a hot mic conspiring to collude with Russia after the election...

 

Now, now. That was simply principled diplomacy.

 

Trump's non-existent collusion, however, warrants impeachment and a severe beating.