The founding fathers never expected such a selfish, corrupt idiot to reside in the White House.  Still, the pardon powers are his and we have to live with how he uses them, it would take amending the constitution to change the presidential pardon.  Americans need to be more careful who they put into office, but Americans are happily dumbing themselves down to the point that democracy and even juries don't really work anymore.

 

Hopefully his attempt at a self pardon would fail, if SCOTUS has any ethics left at all. 

1 hour ago, Walker88 said:

Here's a 'reduction to the ridiculous' to show why the courts will rule that a President cannot pardon himself...

 

If a POTUS could pardon himself, President Joe Biden could execute 45 and his entire family, then simply say, "Pardon me".

 

In essence, such a power would create a monarch, not just above the law, but who is the law. The US specifically does not have a monarch. The Founders could have used the Magna Carta as a base document for the US, which states all are equal under the law except the monarch, but instead Madison and Jefferson wrote the Constitution.

 

Self-pardon will fail in the courts.

 

The pre-emptive pardon may also fail in the courts. Ford's pardon of Nixon was not challenged, so there is not a legal precedent (Nixon wasn't charged with a crime, so his pardon was pre-emptive, just never challenged.). Such a thing, if 45 decides to use it on his grifting family, is fraught with danger. It means ANYONE working for the government, including those with access to classified intelligence, could spend 4 years obtaining and selling intel to, for example, Russia, China or iran, even sharing some of the money with the POTUS, and then POTUS could pre-emptively pardon them (if the crime hasn't come out yet) and pardon himself.

 

The courts will not want to US to go down that rabbithole.

 

As for the pardons already given to convicted felons manafort, stone and flynn, they are not out of the woods yet. Because they were pardoned, they cannot incriminate themselves, so they cannot refuse to answer questions put to them by a grand jury. If asked about 45, what he did and what he knew, they must answer. If they fail to do so, they can be held in contempt, which would be a new charge for which they could face jail time. If they lie, that's perjury, also a new crime for which they can be jailed.

 

In a sense, 45 shot himself in the foot, because the pardons may lead to his own indictment, conviction and incarceration at the Federal level, not just what the NY AG has in store for him. For example, manafort could be asked if he was ever promised a pardon if he kept his mouth shut. If he answers 'yes', that proves the obstruction Mueller noted in his report, and the sole thing preventing Mueller from indicting 45 was the silly OLC 'opinion' which says a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted. After 20 January 45 will not be the 'sitting POTUS'. If manafort refuses to answer that question, it's contempt. If he answers with a lie, it's perjury.

 

On 20 January the US gets a real AG again. That new AG will serve the people, not the POTUS. After 20 January it would not be a good time to be 45 or any member of his family or wider crime family. It can be called a crime family accurately because of all the close associates of 45 who were indicted, tried and convicted of crimes.

 

I agree that a self-pardon is unlikely to survive a court challenge, but that court challenge can only be in the form of a federal indictment of Trump which I am less certain will ever happen.  It depends entirely on who Biden nominates to be AG.  

 

I am not sure if a pre-emptive pardon has ever been challenged in court, but I think it probably has just because there is a substantial history of such pardons.  Andrew Johnson pardoned virtually the entire Confederate Army, of whom probably few had ever been charged with a crime.  Jimmy Carter similarly pardoned the draft evaders of the Vietnam War period.

 

It's certainly interesting that receiving a pardon abrogates the right against self-incrimination, but it's unlikely that that fact will make a prosecution of Trump any more likely.  The same would have been true in Bill Barr's last pardon-palooza in 1992 when at his suggestion Bush I pardoned the Contragate criminals just as Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh's investigation was reaching Bush himself.  The loss of the Fifth Amendment rights of the accused was no help to Walsh who closed down his investigation entirely shortly after the pardons were announced.  Even without the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment the accused can still lie and say they can't remember just as they are accustomed to doing.  Prosecutor's can remove their Fifth Amendment rights by immunizing them, but Walsh evidently did not expect to get useful results that way either.  

1 hour ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

A President is neither above or below the law, therefore, why would they have any less right to a pardon than anyone else?

 

No one has any "right" to a pardon since pardons are for those guilty of a crime.

Can he self-pardon himself for treason?

 

 

2 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

A President is neither above or below the law, therefore, why would they have any less right to a pardon than anyone else?

Because the Constitution prescribes that the President take an oath to uphold the law. So if he uses the power of the pardon to escape the consequences of his criminal acts, he is in violation of that oath.

3 minutes ago, bendejo said:

Can he self-pardon himself for treason?

 

If he can pardon himself for anything he can pardon himself for treason.  The only restriction on pardons is that they cannot be given in the case of impeachment.  But it is very much a question whether he can pardon himself for anything at all. 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because the Constitution prescribes that the President take an oath to uphold the law. So if he uses the power of the pardon to escape the consequences of his criminal acts, he is in violation of that oath.

 

That reasoning cannot be the basis for ruling a self-pardon unconstitutional, because every pardon to a convicted criminal necessarily overturns the law.  Nevertheless, the normal exercise of the pardoning power has never been construed as violating the president's oath of office.

2 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

That reasoning cannot be the basis for ruling a self-pardon unconstitutional, because every pardon to a convicted criminal necessarily overturns the law.  Nevertheless, the normal exercise of the pardoning power has never been construed as violating the president's oath of office.

Pardons overturnconvictions based on  legislated law. Not the clauses of the Constitution. 

52 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Source?

Hehe, if Clintons is criminals, then you do not need any proof that man is as well ???? 

53 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because his pardon to himself puts himself above the law.

 

 

The pardoning of anyone does that...doesn't it?

I could care less if he can pardon himself; he can't. He will be in so much legal trouble with these "favors for pardons" that a new prison will be named after him.

 

God, Jan 20th. please come fast!

43 minutes ago, ChakaKhan said:

If I were a perfectly innocent person and someone offered me a pardon Id refuse, as it IMPLIES im guilty

 

Innocent people have no need for pardons, only guilty people do..........truth is a singular..lies are plural

I presume you'd feel the same if some cop or Fed offered you the Fifth Amendment...shows how much you understand the law. 

2 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

A President is neither above or below the law, therefore, why would they have any less right to a pardon than anyone else?

These people are convicted criminals.  Trump thinks he's above the law, thus, his comment he could shoot somebody on 5th avenue and not lose his base.  His clueless base....

 

So much for law and order.

23 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

No one has any "right" to a pardon since pardons are for those guilty of a crime.

First year law school dropout? 

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

Source?

Every reliable media outlet.  Which you don't seem to like.  But, nice troll post.  Again.

24 minutes ago, bendejo said:

Can he self-pardon himself for treason?

 

 

Any federal crime...treason is a federal crime.

24 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because the Constitution prescribes that the President take an oath to uphold the law. So if he uses the power of the pardon to escape the consequences of his criminal acts, he is in violation of that oath.

The President has upheld all the laws and has not been charged with any federal (or state) crimes. He has nothing to "escape" from, other than rogue Biden administration federal prosecutors. 

53 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

If you are talking about Russia,Russia,Russia or Ukraine-gate , the 2 biggest failed investigations during the last 4 years, there was no guilty verdict nor any reason for Trump to give himself a pardon. If you are talking about some other alleged crime, a link would certainly be helpful as well as being in line with forum rules.

Typical.  Deflect to Russia.  An easy one would be their charitable foundation.  Closed due to criminal activity. 

 

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

Donald Trump and his businesses have been involved in 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal courts and state court, an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate.^[1] Of the 3,500 suits, Trump or one of his companies were plaintiffs in 1,900; defendants in 1,450; and bankruptcy, third party, or other in 150.^[1] Trump was named in at least 169 suits in federal court.^[2] Over 150 other cases were in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida (covering Broward County, Florida) since 1983.^[3] In the 1,300 cases where the record establishes the outcome, Trump settled 175 times, lost 38, won 450, and had another 137 cases end with some other outcome. In the other 500 cases, judges dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Trump.

 

Among the most well-known Trump legal cases was the Trump University litigation. Three legal actions were brought alleging fraud, one by the New York State attorney general and the others by class action plaintiffs.^[7] In November 2016, Trump agreed to pay $25 million to settle the litigation.^[6]

1 minute ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The President has upheld all the laws and has not been charged with any federal (or state) crimes. He has nothing to "escape" from, other than rogue Biden administration federal prosecutors. 

He's been charged with many crimes.  Look at my last post.  Sadly, he's good at negotiating settlements. 

 

Right now, he's untouchable.  Just wait until Jan 20.  As you know, there are dozens of lawsuits waiting for him.  Hopefully, some will involve obstruction of justice.  As pointed out by Mueller.  And ignored by Mitch.

29 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Pardons overturnconvictions based on  legislated law. Not the clauses of the Constitution. 

 

I think you have a misconception that a self-pardon from Trump would apply not only to violations of the law, but also to violations of the Constitution.  But this doesn't make sense.  Violations of the Constitution are not crimes unless they also violate some law.  Violations of the Constitution are not enforceable by prosecution in the courts, which is only for violations of law, but only by impeachment.  That's because the Constitution only specifies the powers of the government, including office-holders, and does not constrain the actions of ordinary citizens not holding office.  You and I, not holding office, are therefore incapable of committing an unconstitutional act.  The only recourse in the case of an office-holder who violates the Constitution is impeachment, unless he also happens to break some law at the same time.  

 

Trump's self-pardon would only protect him from prosecution, not from violating the Constitution, for which he has already been impeached, tried, and acquitted.  Once he's out of office, impeachment is no longer applicable anyway.

 

That being the case, your claim "Because the Constitution prescribes that the President take an oath to uphold the law" [the president cannot self-pardon] doesn't make any sense for the reason I gave which is that every pardon explicitly overturns some law.  Nevertheless, the legitimate exercise of the pardoning power can hardly be construed to violate the president's oath to uphold the law since the Constitution gives him that power.

11 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

These people are convicted criminals.  Trump thinks he's above the law, thus, his comment he could shoot somebody on 5th avenue and not lose his base.  His clueless base....

 

So much for law and order.

Yes...people not convicted of crimes don't need pardons.

 

The statement itself shows it was about the strength of his political support...it had nothing to do with the law. 

3 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Please provide the charge, the date of conviction, and the sentence.

He was found guilty of obstruction of justice and abuse of power.   Both are crimes and he was subsequently impeached.

 

You can check the date yourself.

 

4 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

He's been charged with many crimes.  Look at my last post.  Sadly, he's good at negotiating settlements. 

So you understand the difference between criminal charges and civil lawsuits? Did you see where I referenced criminal charges...or was that filtered out by your <deleted> tinged glasses? Do you also understand we are talking about Trump's actions during his 4 years in office?

Just now, Credo said:

He was found guilty of obstruction of justice and abuse of power.   Both are crimes and he was subsequently impeached.

 

You can check the date yourself.

 

 

Trump was never indicted, much less tried, on the recommendations of the Mueller report, although it's possible such an indictment could be forthcoming from the Biden DoJ after Jan. 20.  

6 minutes ago, Credo said:

He was found guilty of obstruction of justice and abuse of power.   Both are crimes and he was subsequently impeached.

 

You can check the date yourself.

 

Another amateur TV lawyer...the House bill of impeachment is the bringing of charges against a president (like a prosecutor bringing an indictment) and the Senate proceeding was the equilivent of the trial...where, of course, he was not impeached but acquitted (found NOT GUILTY).

"Never had the discussion they falsely attribute to an anonymous source,” Giuliani said on Twitter on Dec. 1, referring to the New York Times report.

 

Of course, Giuliani would never use anonymous sources to falsely attribute voting fraud allegations, would he? O the irony.

32 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Any federal crime...treason is a federal crime.

And you’d be just fine with that.

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

If you are talking about Russia,Russia,Russia or Ukraine-gate , the 2 biggest failed investigations during the last 4 years, there was no guilty verdict nor any reason for Trump to give himself a pardon. If you are talking about some other alleged crime, a link would certainly be helpful as well as being in line with forum rules.

How can there be a guilty verdict with Barr running interference? The Mueller report was castrated redacted by Barr before it ever saw the light of day. Roll on January 20.

Trump can't pardon himself for state crimes. IMO Trump may not go to jail, but he will be in and out of the law courts for several years. And you can bet the legal firms representing him, knowing the liar and cheat he is, will be demanding every last nickel in fees up front, before they set foot in court.

You're alluding to forum rules,  while trolling? LOL.

It will take 45's abuse of the pardon silliness to bring about change. So be it.

 

More 'reduce to the ridiculous' I have heard a legal scholar argue to this effect, using an example as egregious as what I will write, as it brings home the idiocy of unlimited pardon power):

 

President Biden can play like 45, offer me a pardon if I do his bidding, and then ask me to put together a team of my former colleagues, all of us skilled in the dark arts, to eliminate 'certain people' from existence. We do it, he pardons us, and before he is indicted for obstruction of justice (the promise of a pardon for what my team does), he pardons himself.

 

Perfectly legal, according to the system and similar to how 45 is abusing the pardon privilege now.

 

Does the US really want this sort of thing, because under the current system it can happen exactly like this. No one in a civilized democracy should have that much power.

 

I believe this is how---with an egregious example as I've written---the pardon nonsense (self-pardons, pre-emptive pardons) will be argued in court, where the power of pardon along these lines has never been tested in court.

 

Then again, not so egregious compared to what 45 is now considering, according to WaPo, the NYT and various other media outlets.....45 is considering pardoning MbS to prevent any US prosecution of MbS for ordering the flaying alive of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The CIA concluded that MbS did, indeed, order the slaughter. I will not detail what the images taken of the slaughter show; suffice it to say one would not wish to view them while eating. The images were taken as proof to show to MbS that his orders had been carried out, so the CIA concluded in its investigation of the crime. jared and MbS are good friends. Such is the 'morality' of that family.

 

Some repubs are barking about 'Hunter'. They ought to keep quiet, because even if their allegations are true (unlikely), the worst allegations are small potatoes compared to the $1.2 billion in financing jared got from Qatar to refi his 666 Fifth Ave, which had a balloon payment due of $1.2 billion earlier (the current market value of the property is estimated at around only $700 million; the Qataris are not stupid, so there had to be some other consideration for ponying up almost twice the market value). Qatar had sanctions imposed on it for trumped up reasons, 'somehow' jared got the Qatar govt to fork over $1.2 billion, and then the sanctions were removed. Coincidental? Ha.  Oh, and on 20 January President Biden, if he wanted, could pardon Hunter. (Note to jared: WhatsApp encryption can be broken by the FBI and CIA, so anything you thought you hid using that app is not hidden....is this why he might need a pre-emptive pardon?)

 

The opportunities for abuse are almost endless, and it took someone totally lacking in any morals to shine light on how silly the pardon power is.

 

The US will emerge with new limits on the pardon power, perhaps even grandfathered back to 45's many pardons.  if not, I fear a return to frontier justice, where some will take it on to themselves to make the guilty pay for crimes they committed, by were absolved of because of abuse of the system.

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And you’d be just fine with that.

I don't accept the underlying premise...but seeing how the Democrat Party tried to twist the Russian collusion delusion into an ultimately unsuccessful impeachment, I wouldn't put it past a partisan Democrat federal prosecutor to gin up a "treason" indictment against Trump during the Biden regime. So yes, I would be perfectly fine with the President issuing a proscriptive pardon for any and all of his actions while in office.