i'm still confused!! Can he or can't he pardon himself????

[bluestarone]

if he does what would be the process?? Who would oppose it? Where would the fight take place? Courts? congress?

[Irish_Dem]

1. Trump will do what he pleases, no one to stop him.

We have a corrupt congress.

[Renew Deal]

2. No one really knows if he can

[MineralMan]

3. That's unclear. However, the idea of pardoning oneself is

odious. I think it's an area where common sense will illuminate the law.

[bluestarone]

4. i would certainly hope

common sense would take hold for sure

[shraby]

5. If he could pardon himself, he could just start killing people and pardon; do away with the Supreme

Court and pardon; disband congress and pardon; tear up the whole constitution and pardon.
He could do anything he wanted to and pardon, so it is not feasible that he would be allowed to pardon himself.

[bluestarone]

6. i hear you for sure

and that is really the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[brooklynite]

25. Let's not go overboard...

Pardoning is the removal of criminal liability for an action. Trump CAN'T "disband congress" and "do away with the Supreme Court" because nobody will let him.

[shraby]

39. Thought I'd go overboard cause that's what trump tends to do.

[Kentonio]

7. It would go to the Supreme Court without any doubt

You'd imagine they'd rule against it, but these days who knows.

[H2O Man]

8. No.

[DetlefK]

9. A President cannot pardon people for crimes that involve him himself.

By extension, a President cannot pardon himself for a crime.

[bluestarone]

12. i would hope so

God i just can't see this any other way!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[onenote]

16. And what is the basis for that assertion?

[DetlefK]

28. I read that somewhere?

If you're looking for legal advice don't look in an internet-forum.

[onenote]

32. I'm not looking for legal advice. Was curious if there was a source for the claim in your post.

In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution or any court decision that would support the contention that a president can't pardon someone involved in criminal activity that also might involve the President.

[shanny]

33. It's a theoretic one, involving a conflict of interest (I believe).

That is, a president cannot pardon himself because that would involve acting as judge in his own case...or something like that. It has never been tested obviously.*

*a whole lot of things have never been tested, and many more have simply been assumed. I think if we survive this, with an intact government, we will see a lot of normally-expected behaviors made into legal requirements.

[unblock]

19. there's no basis for this in the constitution.

a president absolutely can pardon other people for crimes involving the president or the office of president.

self-pardon is an open question, but pardoning other people, even if co-conspirators, i don't think there's any doubt on that.


clearly a president who does such things should be impeached, and perhaps the founders thought that would be enough deterrent, but i can't even think of any constitutional argument preventing the president from pardoning anyone else for any federal crime.

[Siwsan]

10. That would pretty much make him omnipotent

If the Constitution allows for "presidential" omnipotence, we need to do some fast patch work and/or write some new amendments.

[Maraya1969]

29. Another word for "Presidential omnipotence" is "Dictator. He really wants to be a dictator.

[MaupitiBlue]

11. Yes he can.

The short answer is yes. The Constitution places no limits on the president's power to pardon for (federal?) crimes. He can pardon his spouse, neighbor, foreigners, turkeys, and even himself for whatever reason he wants.

Presumably the pardon power's breadth follows from the notion that we always want the criminal justice system to be biased towards exoneration and freedom. The presidential pardon is everyone's last chance at justice and mercy.

[MineralMan]

13. The Constitution Does Prevent a President from Pardoning

in the case of impeachment. That's clear. He might be able to pardon himself from criminal charges, but not against impeachment. Since impeachment is the only means of removing a President, aside from the 25th Amendment, which is even more difficult, he can't skate on the impeachment process.

[bluestarone]

15. and that depends on congress so

we're fucked there right?

[MineralMan]

17. Pretty much, at least until 2019.

We CAN change the balance in Congress, but it will require that we all work together to elect Democrats. I hope we have learned that lesson from 2016.

[unblock]

14. the sequence would be:

(1) prosecutor (mueller or someone else) indicts him on a federal crime
(2) donnie pardons himself (conceivably he could do this before indictment, or after trial, but i'm guessing it happens in this order, if at all.
(3) trial court rules on whether the pardon applies.
(4) whoever loses appeals to a federal court of appeals
(5) federal court of appeals rules
(6) whoever loses appeals to the u.s. supreme court
(7) supreme court rules.
(8) charges are dismissed or trial proceeds based on the supreme court's decision.

donnie's argument would be that the constitution places no limitation on the power of pardon, so he should be allowed to pardon himself.

the government's (meaning the prosecutor's side, not donnie) position would be that the very concept of a "pardon" necessarily, by definition, involves two separate people, therefore one cannot pardon oneself. personally, i don't see any other constitutional argument for saying there's no self-pardon under the constitution as written.

i think it's obvious that the founders never meant for a tyrant to be able to pardon himself, but they didn't draft it in a way that would clearly prevent it. it would be an interesting case. unfortunately, it will likely stink of partisan politics rather than actual statesmanship and legitimate constitutional interpretation.


a separate question is, would all this take place while donnie is president?

the supreme court also has never decided if a sitting president can be indicted and tried for a criminal offense.

personally, i think now that they have decided that a civil case can proceed against a sitting president (jones v. clinton), i can't see why a criminal case couldn't proceed.

that said, i would think if there's a sentence involving restricting movement (imprisonment or house arrest, e.g.) *that* would have to wait until after the president is out of office.

[bluestarone]

18. TY in this case though would your #1 be

Sessions? (as prosecutor?) just wondering

[unblock]

20. at this stage it would likely be mueller, but who know how this plays out.

but yes, it could be rosenstein or sessions.

in theory, anyway.

[bench scientist]

22. The burdens for civil cases are vastly different than criminal cases.

Jones v. Clinton had no bearing on a criminal case brought against a sitting President.
The process for filing a civil suit, versus bringing a criminal indictment, the burdens of proof, the rules by which a civil trial is conducted versus a criminal trial are conducted are vastly different.
The principle reason being what is at stake in both trials. A loss in a civil case may result in a financial penalty paid perhaps an injunction to refrain from an activity or an injunction compelling an activity.
A loss in a criminal case results in the loss of an individual’s liberty-imprisonment.
This is why the burdens in criminal cases are always higher than in a civil case.

Bringing criminal charges against a sitting President remains an open question.

[unblock]

23. i agree that the situation is different and the stakes are usually rather higher.

nevertheless, the jones precedent would undoubtedly be used as part of the argument that is should be possible to indict and try a sitting president. it won't automatically decide the case, but it would certainly be a consideration.

[Lee-Lee]

21. The more likely scenario is he Pardons pence, resigns, Pence then pardons him

and that’s that.

[bluestarone]

24. yep

that's another scenario i guess

[PragmaticDem]

26. It would have to be tested in the courts.

[GallopingGhost]

40. This.

Nixon's lawyers put out tentative feelers on this topic. The difference is Trump is thirty times worse than Nixon. He has no regard for the rule of law (unless it's his), our Constitution, our Republic, any of it.

He would (will) absolutely try to pardon himself. That's going to set off outrage and a constitutional crisis the likes of which this country has never seen.

[Gothmog]

27. Could Trump issue himself a pardon?

I doubt that Trump can legally pardon himself. The fact that we are having to ask the question is so very very sad https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/24/could-trump-issue-himself-a-pardon/?utm_term=.5aac3e6356f6

“We can all only speculate what would happen if the president tried to do it,” said Brian Kalt, professor of law at Michigan State University and author of the book “Constitutional Cliffhangers.” “We’re all just predicting what the court would do if it happened, but no one can be sure.”

The constitutional language governing pardons reads, “The President … shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” That vagueness is part of the reason the boundaries of the authority would need to be interpreted by the courts in unusual cases, like the one at hand.

That said, Kalt’s got an opinion about what the Supreme Court would do if Trump (or any president) tried to give himself a pardon: They’d throw it out.

Kalt’s reasons are similarly rooted in interpretations of the language of the Constitution and the intent of its authors.

For example, a pardon is “inherently something that you get from someone else,” he argued. That’s not explicit in the constitutional language, but, then, other boundaries we understand for pardons aren’t either, such as our understanding that there need not be a criminal charge before a pardon. (The most famous example of this kind of pardon was offered by President Gerald Ford to his predecessor, Richard Nixon.)

P.S. Ruckman, professor of political science at Northern Illinois University and author of the blog Pardon Power agreed with this idea in an email. “Supreme Court jurisprudence has always assumed a dichotomy — the granter and the recipient,” he said — the implication being that one person can’t play both roles.

What’s more, “presidents are supposed to be limited,” Kalt said. “The president has all of this power, but he has a limited term. If he was able to pardon himself, that would project his power well past his term.”

[Sneederbunk]

30. If he can pardon a turkey then. . . .

[Xolodno]

31. It's never been tried....However...

...with that being said, obviously Nixon didn't think so and made a deal with Ford. Granted, he was on his way out anyway...but knew enough that self pardoning could blow up in his face once it went to the courts. Better to strike deal rather than take the risk.

[Hoyt]

34. He can pardon himself, but it probably won't stand up to judicial review. Well, with today's courts

maybe it will.

[redstatebluegirl]

35. Pence will pardon him just like Ford pardoned Nixon.

They will protect each other.

[bluestarone]

37. Probably and if so that is whats wrong with our system

the congress and courts needs to FIX this somehow. (assuming of course if they want to)

[elleng]

36. No.

[tammywammy]

38. SCOTUS would have to rule on it.

No president has ever pardoned themselves, so there's no ruling on if its constitutional or not.

[Kimchijeon]

41. Sure why not , whatever the oligarchs want

Shitbag & crew are helping distract us while they keep robbing us blind. ☹ Longer that piece o garbage stays, the better for corporate goodie grabs.