From "No, President Trump can’t pardon himself" by the former federal judge J. Michael Luttig (WaPo).
Luttig has a strong conservative reputation. He was a law clerk to Justice Scalia, appointed to the the 4th Circuit by George H.W. Bush, and often mentioned as a potential Supreme Court nominee when George W. Bush was President. Per Wikipedia: "Luttig was the leading feeder judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, with virtually all of his law clerks having gone on to clerk with conservative justices on the Supreme Court, a total of 40, 33 of whom clerked for either Justice Thomas or Justice Scalia."
Of course, the issue whether the President can pardon himself is an open question. We will only get the answer if and when a President pardons himself and there's a case that a court has to decide. Is prosecution more likely or less likely if there is a pardon to be presented as a defense? Luttig's argument should have influence with Trump, and there were already good political and legal reasons why Trump should resist pardoning himself.
पोस्ट्स
१५२ टिप्पण्या:
Yeah yeah yeah.
No that's not an answer-- I have to come back later to reread it.
Narr
No legal discussion before noon, please
Presidents can only issue pardons while President.
Presidents can only pardon people who have already been convicted of a crime (and a Federal one, no?).
He can't pardon himself preemptively for future possible convictions, because the pardon power doesn't work like that for anyone, ever.
"there were already good political and legal reasons why Trump should resist pardoning himself"
You mean, like, the legal reason that he hasn't done anything wrong?
Anyway, he should try to pardon Obama for siccing the FBI on him.
Will Trump pardon himself?
No. He has never been charged with breaking any actual law.
Should he?
No. He should declare Martial law.
Would the pardon hold up in court?
Depends on if it was a judge making the decision or a globalist shill wearing the skin of a judge.
We have literally had a judge throw out a case in Nevada calling witness statements made under penalty of perjury "hearsay" making it impossible for them to testify in court.
You can't make this shit up.
Law warfare will be waged against Trump until his dying day.
Like the impeachment, it doesn't even need to succeed: the process is the poison, to be administered again and again.
The last four years taught us that everything -- everything -- about the state is politicized and weaponized: there are no fair trials or neutral observers.
As such, I don't care if he pardons himself: they'll sue him and his family, anyway, over and over, regardless.
And THAT is how we will know the American Experiment is over: the rhetorical guillotine of the French Revolution will be used here aggressively.
I am Laslo.
This idea that Trump will pardon himself is just another liberal myth, like the one that he won't leave the White House. Or that he colluded with the Russians to steal the election.
Chuck and Inga believe all three.
Will Trump pardon himself?
For what? He has been investigated like no other POTUS or politician EVER and the best they could do was a sham of an impeachment for a phone call.
Could a President pardon himself, I would think not, in part due to the summary you included.
Would Trump need to is the question not asked and the honest answer is no in that there is not enough time left in this current term for him to be charged, tried, and convicted of something to be pardoned from. If he were to serve an additional term right now, with the Senate makeup, does not look like he would be convicted for any additional sham impeachments so again, no need for a pardon.
Sigivald: He can't pardon himself preemptively for future possible convictions, because the pardon power doesn't work like that for anyone, ever.
Quick question: What crime was Nixon convicted of when he got the pardon from Ford?
Show your work.
Pardon for what?
Blogger Jersey Fled said...
This idea that Trump will pardon himself is just another liberal myth, like the one that he won't leave the White House. Or that he colluded with the Russians to steal the election.
Chuck and Inga believe all three.
And sadly, about 40% of Americans. How we recover from this is a tough one.
Pardon himself over what?
Beating lying corrupt pile of shit Steel Dossier Hillary? Is that a crime?
I think Presidents can pardon themselves for past federal offenses and that would not be obstruction or other such nonsense. The language of the pardon power is pretty broad and I don't think that SCOTUS will want to place a limit on the power. Obviously, the president can't pardon anyone for future federal offenses. I think in most cases, it would be an abuse of power and an impeachable offense...but not all cases. For instance, a preemptive pardon could be justified if a president-elect had a track record of trying to put his political opponents in jail and is from a party openly calling for the prosecution of their political opponents.
I fail to see what federal crime Trump is supposed to have committed for which he would need a pardon, but I think his concerns about being harassed by the Biden regime are legit, especially in light of the Obama and Biden's previous attempt to frame him for colluding with the Russians to steal the 2016 election and the Democrats' openly stated desire to see Trump prosecuted for the crime of being Trump.
President Trump is without a doubt, the most investigated person in the world, he was surveilled by the all of the intelligence agencies, NSA, FBI and CIA. Investigated by the congress, a special council, the state of New York, the IRS and on an on, they have found nothing, that is simply amazing when you think about it. There will be nothing requiring a pardon.
Missing entirely from this discussion is why Trump would need to pardon himself.
The NY AG, among others, has vowed to continue fishing for a charge to bring against Trump, and his “accusers” make no pretenses of actually knowing of any criminal act he may have committed.
This is unprecedented, and it’s horrifying.
As Althouse and her references have stated this, it makes it appear as if Trump has committed or contemplates committing criminal acts.
We have a number of absolutely shameless, vicious commenters here who are so stupid that they want to create a precedent of an unlimited fishing expedition against Trump.
Sigvald said:
"Presidents can only issue pardons while President.
Presidents can only pardon people who have already been convicted of a crime (and a Federal one, no?).
He can't pardon himself preemptively for future possible convictions, because the pardon power doesn't work like that for anyone, ever."
First statement is true.
Second statement is NOT true or Nixon's Pardon was null and void.
Third, that is an open legal question and I would like to see your answer on why and reference it to the Constitution.
As to The Professors question I said no, no, yes
Nixon wasn't charged with anything before he was pre-emptively given an unconditional pardon by Ford for any crimes he might have committed.
Jersey Fled said...
This idea that Trump will pardon himself is just another liberal myth, like the one that he won't leave the White House. Or that he colluded with the Russians to steal the election.
Chuck and Inga believe all three.
If he truly believes the election was stolen you need to take a look at #2.
Given that he will likely end up in jail for the crime of defeating Hillary in 2016 he should too.
"They would have viewed a self-pardon as a presidential act more akin to an obstruction of justice for criminal offenses against the United States by a president, the prosecution for which can be brought, at least according to the Justice Department, only after a president leaves office."
The thing about a pardon is that it removes your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination (since you can't be prosecuted for the events you're being questioned about). So Trump pardoning himself can not obstruct any desire to discover the truth about what Trump did.
So there's no obstruction of any real pursuit of "justice".
Presidents can pardon people at any time, not just as they're leaving office. So the "the President can't be prosecuted while in office" whine is a red herring.
The President can pardon anyone for any crime. The only limit on his power is that he can't use it to block impeachment. The Supreme Court would find for the President at least 6 - 3, because this is a bag of worms Roberts doesn't want to get involved in.
Did I miss something? Pardon himself for what?
He should issue a pardon to Biden for stealing the election.
mockturtle said...Did I miss something? Pardon himself for what?
Took the words from my mouth.
For what? You have to have been found guilty of committing a crime. Trump hasn't committed a crime, much less been convicted in a court.
Being unlikable to the liberals is not a crime. It is an ACHIEVEMENT!
Trump should pardon himself "for all politically motivated prosecutions in retaliation for his lawful actions as an employee of the federal government."
That would be an interesting pardon to have to overturn.
Serious Question
Are Democrats SO STUPID that they think making a martyr of President Trump would be a good idea?
Seriously, i'm asking, because i don't know. ARE the democrats, SO STUPID that they think that giving the 40% of americans with 393 million guns a reason to use them is a good idea?
Igna? Chuck? Cook? any of you democrats want to help give me some insight?
Unknown said...
President Trump is without a doubt, the most investigated person in the world, he was surveilled by the all of the intelligence agencies, NSA, FBI and CIA. Investigated by the congress, a special council, the state of New York, the IRS and on an on, they have found nothing, that is simply amazing when you think about it. There will be nothing requiring a pardon.
Absolutely Naive and completely wrong.
You need to pay attention to the left posters here like Chuck and readering.
Nothing short of burning Trump at the stake will make these people happy.
Witch trials need very little proof.
"Being unlikable to the liberals is not a crime...."
Until a Hawaiian judge gets involved.
I am Laslo.
So it's a penumbra. The other argument is that the power is sui generis and so affects nothing else, and there's no contradiction possible and no penumbra.
If Trump was as evil as liberals say he is, he would resign on January 19 and work a deal for Pence to pardon him before noon on January 20.
It would be sketchy, but at this point I don't care what he does to stick his finger in the eye of the the deep state radicals...
mockturtle said...
Did I miss something? Pardon himself for what?
Do any of the leftists here seem particularly attached to the rule of law?
Does Ann seem at all attached to the rule of law?
They are all bent on accepting an election where democrats violently expelled republican poll observers while they were counting votes.
None of these people care about actual laws.
To engage with the question is to give the left the victory they seek. They want the idea out there that Trump has done something for which he *needs* to pardon himself. For some reason these reports and speculations never answer the quetions "Pardon himself for what?"
Bunkypotatohead said...
He should issue a pardon to Biden for stealing the election.
i think you're on to something! we NEED TO BRING AMERICA TO HEEL, AND GENERATE UNITY
nothing would do this quicker than President Trump telling us...
"America, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
A self-pardon would imply guilt and would damage his chances in 2024. No, no, no.
Luttig quit his federal judiciary sinecure when W passed him over for SC.
Then Luttig became General Counsel of Defense Contractor Boeing about the same time Comey became general counsel of Defense Contractor Lockheed Martin.
The Swamp.
The pardon power always has been an affront to the rule of law. Applying it to a self pardon makes as much sense as any pardon.
The Constitution states that the only limit on the pardon power is that it can’t be used to stop an impeachment and removal from office. That’s it. It doesn’t limit a self pardon.
"Quick question: What crime was Nixon convicted of when he got the pardon from Ford?"
-- To be fair, I think, technically, that pardon wouldn't have withheld scrutiny, but no one wanted to test it either way, so the point was moot.
I'm ignorant of the law as to presidential pardons and so will not vote. I do echo the questions above: pardon himself for what?
A really good move, and entirely Trumpian move, would be to declare himself pardoned of any and all future convictions for crimes committed before and while he was POTUS. Then watch the tiny liberal heads explode!!!
Why bother discussing whether or not Trump has the authority to pardon himself when, at this very moment, LLR-lefty Chuck's beloved radical Judge Sullivan is refusing to accept Trump's authority to pardon Gen Flynn?
After what these radical left judges and their supporters, like our own LLR-lefty Chuck and the rest of the pro-marxists, have done, its difficult to see any path back to anything that averts a more violent struggle on some level.
"they want to create a precedent of an unlimited fishing expedition against Trump."
The precedent would be for fishing expeditions against all future former presidents.
I hope he pardoned himself his family and all of his cronies. The last thing we need are a bunch of political show trials that will only serve to burnish and harden the temper of his very put out very loyal very pissed off supporters.
However if there are those show trials then the Democrats will most certainly lose the house in the Senate in 2022.
You’re not ashamed of your side, Chuck, for making this discussion necessary?
You’re the problem. Not Trump.
You’re completely lacking any kind of moral compass.
Blogger Sigivald said...
Presidents can only pardon people who have already been convicted of a crime (and a Federal one, no?).
Yes, he can only Pardon people for Federal issues.
No, he can Pardon people who have not been charged with any crime. A Presidential Pardon is not "prospective", which is to say it can not cover any actions the individual might engage in after receiving the Pardon.
But he can absolutely Pardon any individual for any and all actions that person has engaged in up to and including the second of the Pardon
AZ Bob said...
A self-pardon would imply guilt and would damage his chances in 2024. No, no, no.
What do you think is going to happen in 2024?
There is no possibility where Trump is the nominee.
Pardon for what?
For dragging the corruption of our betters into the light.
Conviction first. Trial later.
Just rumor, but I've heard that in the interest of expediency and global justice (aka the selling of America) they will just ship the entire Trump family off to China and let them handle it for us. The CCP has already made a down payment to Biden etal to make this happen.
The pardon discussion is a bullshit scenario in which the left puts forth its fantasy that Trump is a criminal in need of a preemptive pardon. He's no criminal. But It doesn't matter--the point is to get the word out there: pardon pardon pardon pardon. It's for all the low information people who hear "pardon" and "Trump" and think, huh, guess he's a criminal. Must be if he needs a pardon.
Very well put, Howard @11:29 (not words I ever thought I'd utter non-ironically)
Four years into this deal, Chuck, it continues to be amazing that people, even attorneys, can lower themselves to the type of scumbag tactics you favor for revenge over political disagreement.
You really are a piece of shit. You must be a complete incompetent. Being an attorney demands some level of moral decency, and you have none.
Obviously there is a precedent for pardoning potential crimes. since Trump is United States citizen and he has the right to pardon any United States citizen it doesn't say except himself in the Constitution so therefore ipso facto he is completely within his appropriate constitutionally mandated rights as president of the United States.
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Drago said...
Why bother discussing whether or not Trump has the authority to pardon himself when, at this very moment, LLR-lefty Chuck's beloved radical Judge Sullivan is refusing to accept Trump's authority to pardon Gen Flynn?
Wait what? Is he really?
After what these radical left judges and their supporters, like our own LLR-lefty Chuck and the rest of the pro-marxists, have done, its difficult to see any path back to anything that averts a more violent struggle on some level.
They could surrender and start obeying election laws.
"A felony conviction as "Individual 1" in the Michael Cohen case would prolly damage Trump's chances in 2024. 'Specially if he was incarcerated in Otisville during the Iowa caucuses."
-- Hope springs eternal.
AZ Bob said...
A self-pardon would imply guilt and would damage his chances in 2024. No, no, no.
No, a self-pardon would be based on the reality that the Democrats are thugs who want gulags for their political opponents.
I have no real feel for whether it's a political winner or not. But I can easily see the political argument for making it
"However if there are those show trials then the Democrats will most certainly lose the house in the Senate in 2022."
-- Counterpoint: The LAST show trials got them the presidency.
Wait a second.... the walls are closing in...
Breaking.... BOMBSHELL....
Maddow-Mueller-Schitt have the goods.
Here it is.
Mrs X. I'm really sorry about Malcolm I think about him everyday.
I think all the talk about the preemptive pardoning is a tactic on the left to increase the negative political effect of a suspected criminal saving himself from prosecution.
Trump is a risk taker and I think there is a non-zero chance he will call their bluff and will pardon everybody but himself. Knowing that it will be very difficult to convict him and also knowing that it will boost his popularity it's like shooting the Moon in the game of hearts.
There’s something stunning and bewildering about the Democrats here suddenly becoming interested in the rule of law.
We just suffered through 8 months of your storm troopers, Antifa and BLM, trashing our cities in an orgy of arson, looting, rioting and cop killing.
If somebody should be facing criminal prosecution, it’s all the controlling members of the DNC who directed this campaign of terror against the American people.
What I'm more concerned about is the self-centered marginally competent Machiavellian attention whore governor of New York will go after Trump in State Court hammer and tong.
I've said it many times elsewhere Thomas. Trump has cast his spell over most liberals forcing them to play directly into his hands. One day they are going to call Svengali a real Trump.
Moral decency in an attorney. I didn't realize you were such a naive innocent boy scout there shouting Thomas. I thought you were a man of the world.
When I was but a baby lawyer a partner told me to circle the word “clear” when it appeared in an adversary’s brief, because it marked a weak point in the argument. Luttig isn’t very bright. His first point is that the language of the Pardon power in the Constitution is ambiguous because he wants it to be more explicit. He reads the minds of the “Framers” instead of asking what the language meant to those who actually voted to ratify or not. Did he learn nothing from Nino?
If something is clear, you don’t need three reasons to explain it.
You don’t need any reason to explain it.
mockturtle said...Did I miss something? Pardon himself for what?
For his brazen audacity to think that a non-politician could be POTUS. He must be made an example of so that the Democrat and Republican political class can go back to collecting their graft and not feel threatened again.
That is why we have that POS Chuck here on this blog. Its all about protecting rice bowls. In the case of our other resident idiot lefties, its about protecting their delusions.
The pardon power isn’t ambiguous.
Luttig is a fraud.
Blogger Howard said...
What I'm more concerned about is the self-centered marginally competent Machiavellian attention whore governor of New York will go after Trump in State Court hammer and tong.
Yes and that SDNY Soros funded DA. Soros was very wise to spend the money he has on minor offices, like DAs and SoSs The new DA for Los Angeles is going to empty the prisons.
The President “shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Case closed.
Moral decency, even among lawyers, is a lot more common that is generally thought.
Met every kind of person in the garb of a lawyer in my 20 years in corporate law.
Some were great people. Some were terrible. Most, just as in any other profession, were in between.
Shouting Thomas said...
"You’re not ashamed of your side, Chuck, for making this discussion necessary?
You’re the problem. Not Trump.
You’re completely lacking any kind of moral compass."
Blogger Shouting Thomas said...
"Four years into this deal, Chuck, it continues to be amazing that people, even attorneys, can lower themselves to the type of scumbag tactics you favor for revenge over political disagreement.
You really are a piece of shit. You must be a complete incompetent. Being an attorney demands some level of moral decency, and you have none."
It makes sense when you consider that Charlie is on the take and more than likely helped with the vote fraud in Michigan. He lies because he has to make his corruption seem legitimate.
Fuck me. I'm going to have to Grant myself a drink after reading that shitty excuse for an opinion
Pardon himself from what? Irritating the socialists?
Just curious. I am not a lawyer. If Trump were to pardon himself, who would have standing to challenge in court? Senate? House? Someone else.?
I agree with Charles Randall of Lawton, Michigan. Of course a President Biden would prosecute Donald Trump, despite the fact that the Mueller inquiry has failed utterly and that the Democrats ran as far away from impeachment as possible during the election. Randall is thrusting his tiny exposed junk in your face like a Weinstein or Rosenbaum, screaming "what are you going to do about it, you fucking peasant?!"
Saint Kyle Rittenhouse provided one possible answer. I certainly don't hope Charles suffers to the same extent of child rapist Joe Rosenbaum.
So, you don’t have the sense to be ashamed of yourself, Chuck, and you’re proud of your stupidity and viciousness.
And you want to exhibit this on a public forum.
You spend a lot of time here. I can see why you have nothing better to do.
I think Trump should issue a flurry of pardons to criminals who have, so far, escaped prosecution -- just to highlight the crimes.
Pardon former EPA director Lisa Jackson for violating FOIA law by doing government business under the alias "Richard Windsor".
Pardon former IRS commissioner Lois Lehnrner for violating the civil rights of opposition groups seeking 503 tax status with unprecedented delays and demands.
Pardon former Congressional (Democratic) I.T. specialist Imran Awan for hacking and spying on Congressional laptops and e-mail servers.
Pardon Huma Abedin for forwarding and printing off classified State Department emails to a unsecured email account in her private home office.
Everybody on the "conspiracy theorist" lists should get a pardon, just to spotlight and headline the crimes all over again.
Everybody not named "Clinton"...
Trump has cast his spell over most liberals forcing them to play directly into his hands. One day they are going to call Svengali a real Trump.
They can't help themselves, Howard. Leftists run on emotion first, logic second. It's the defining characteristic of being a leftist. So when he pushes their buttons, they're going to react.
For the "it means he can't assert the 5th Amendment" crowd:
That's not true.
"In contemplation of law, it so far blots out the offence, that afterwards it cannot be imputed to him to prevent the assertion of his legal rights."
- Knote v. United States
https://www.justice.gov/file/20206/download
“Just curious. I am not a lawyer. If Trump were to pardon himself, who would have standing to challenge in court? Senate? House? Someone else.?”
Judge Sullivan?
Essentially, the United States, as represented by the AG or a USA. They would be the ones bringing charges, and the pardon would be interposed as a defense to the charges. Arguably, no one else would have standing, moreover, there would be no Case or Controversy, absent federal charges against him, and, thus no jurisdiction by federal courts.
"Can Trump pardon himself?"
The question assumes facts not in evidence, i.e., that the rule of law still exists in the USA today. As someone mentioned earlier, if a globalist wearing the skin of a judge gets to rule on the issue, NOTHING Trump says or does to defend himself will be declared valid. The Swamp has made it clear that they will hound Trump to his dying day regardless of law or precedent or decency, and no doubt will continue to do their best to blacken his name long after he's dead and buried.
"Can he pardon himself for crimes he hasn't been convicted of?" The Nixon precedent seems to say, yes. But, again, this assumes that the rule of law exists still, and it clearly doesn't so the answer is moot.
i reject the premise of the post. Try harder...
Luttig’s arguments seems awfully weak. The first, that the Constitution is ambiguous, is entirely subjective. It does not seem ambiguous to me. The second is the exception for impeachment. Impeachment is a function of the legislative branch. To allow the president to negate that power would violate the separation of powers. The third just imagines what the founders might have thought but did not express.
Trump should sign pardons for his family, have them witnessed, then lock them in a safe. Surely they will be targets of vindictive prosecutions.
I Callahan said...
Trump has cast his spell over most liberals forcing them to play directly into his hands. One day they are going to call Svengali a real Trump.
They can't help themselves, Howard. Leftists run on emotion first, logic second. It's the defining characteristic of being a leftist. So when he pushes their buttons, they're going to react.
They are just a tribe doing tribal things.
There is little difference between the Democrats/Republicans in DC and the Sunni Hussein regime in Iraq before he was deposed.
If I were Trump, I would pardon myself, as well as my family and tp advisors, then pocket the pardons. Currently, there is nothing requiring that Presidential pardons be publicly disclosed, at least until interposed as a defense to prosecution. Glenn Reynolds, in a short paper, has suggested that the Presidential Pardon power is plenary, so is difficult to curtail by Congress, but requiring that such pardons be recorded somewhere is probably within the power of Congress.
My suggestion has to be seen within the political dynamics that the pardons would possibly be used within. Charging the Trumps with federal crimes committed while he was in office would be political suicide. There has been a long tradition of not charging losing candidates for President for their past crimes, and the most noted beneficiary is, of course, Crooked Hillary. She had literally thousands of felonies hanging over her head, when Trump took office, and she was behind the Russian Collusion hoax that hampered him for the last four years. But she wasn’t prosecuted, because it would have set a horrible precedent. Yet, Chuck and Inga continue to believe that Trump will be prosecuted by a Biden Administration, so there has to be a segment on the left that is, and will continue, to push forward that very strongly. The prosecution is unlikely to succeed, because to do so, Trump would have had to do something that no agency or person in the federal government could have done, because they, all, were operating with power and authority delegated by him, as President.
Imagine the effect on the 75 million people, many heavily armed, who voted for Trump. They mostly believe that their votes were stolen from them by the massive election fraud that the Dems, along with their Deep State allies, utilized against them. Indicting Trump, for BS charges, just because they had stolen the power to do so, would very likely be, I think, what is termed a Causa Bella ("an act or event that provokes or is used to justify war").
Which is why, I suggested granting the pardons, pocketing them, and only bringing them out if charged for crimes that they should be effective in overcoming. At that point, I expect that we would be on the verge of armed rebellion, and this would give Dems one last chance to backdown. And, if they didn’t, then one more justification for armed regime change. Besides, until the Dems get a couple more Justices confirmed, I expect that the Supreme Court, seeing the inevitable conflagration, if they vote to ignore the pardons, is, I think, unlikely to make the situation worse by refusing to enforce them. Right now, I would expect maybe 7-2 in favor of enforcing the pardons.
Here we pretend and pontificate on something that is not going to happen because there is no Trump criminal conspiracy to pardon. But, with that, if Biden is installed as our unelected ruler, I would fully expect the Democrats to engage in lawfare and go after Trump and his supporters.
More interesting is, if Trump actually is fraudulently removed from the White House, what pardons will he hand out before leaving? Snowden? Assange?
What pardons will he hand out if Texas is successful in front of the Supreme Court?
Bruce Hayden said...
Imagine the effect on the 75 million people, many heavily armed, who voted for Trump. They mostly believe that their votes were stolen from them by the massive election fraud that the Dems, along with their Deep State allies, utilized against them. Indicting Trump, for BS charges, just because they had stolen the power to do so, would very likely be, I think, what is termed a Causa Bella ("an act or event that provokes or is used to justify war").
12/8/20, 12:50 PM
The Biden bots conclude, probably correctly, that your average Iraqi has responded more forcefully to vote fraud than your average American. However, the President hasn't been restaffing the Pentagon because he anticipates handing it over to a zero like Joe Biden.
I keep seeing this argument about whether he could, or should, or might pardon himself.
Can I ask the simple question: What crime has he been accused of? Because I've heard for four years that he's the worst sort of person and should be in jail, yet whenever I ask for a specific crime, I get blank stares.
Please- don't answer me with "taxes". That won't do it.
One has to wonder why, if DJT is so evil, why has he not just had all of the people opposing him disappeared? It isn't that hard to do.
As to the pardon, I went with no,no,no. Even if DJT did pardon himself, or arranged to resign so Pence got sworn in and then Pence gave him a pardon as given to Nixon - it would not do any good. The same swampy creatures that have attacked him for no reason since 2015 would manage to get some federal judge to put him trial for breathing and taking up space, and thus damaging the world as we know it.
The democrats are drunk with power and will continue their unrestrained use of said power until the country is thrown to the wolves, while they reign from their protected mansions.
But what the heck, it is all good and will unite the country behind putting all of the deplorables on the trains to the new gulags Good time, good times..
"What crime has he been accused of?"?
The left won't say so out loud, but it's because he "stole" Hildabeest's prize. It was Her Turn and Trump ruined it so he needs to be destroyed.
Democrats will charge Trump with mopery and dopery of the space lanes. That is, they'll make something up that's not a crime. Like Michael Cohen's payments to Stormy Daniels. Those payments were not campaign expenses and it's not illegal to pay someone to keep quiet on a personal matter that's not illegal.
Democrats hate Trump and will do anything to hurt him.
The problem with pardons is that the lawfare against Trump and his family will be mostly at the state level by corrupt DAs, many funded by Soros and his allies.
"Judge" Sullivan is now contesting Trump pardoning Flynn.
There is no law that the globalists will not ignore.
This is followed up by a federal "Judge" dismissing the lawsuit in Georgia that includes video from a camera everyone working in the building knew was there and agreed to being recorded by clearly breaking election laws.
This is officially a lawless country.
Tell me, other than beating Hillary in 2016 or his mere existence, what "crimes" is Donald Trump guilty of that he would need a pardon?
Trump should publically pardon Hunter Biden.
Larry J has it right. Pardon himself for what?
That won't stop Cuomo and company and other deranged Democrat ding dongs from pursuing Trump once he's out of office. I do think that the Donald has enough dough to hire good lawyers. And I also think that the prospective persecution of a past President has a distinct whiff of Banana Republic (and I'm not talking the clothing store) about it--and may well backfire on the DIMS. Said to say it might set a precedent for hounding Slow Joe once he's out of office--although he's likely to be pushing up daisies in the normal course of things by 2025.
"One has to wonder why, if DJT is so evil, why has he not just had all of the people opposing him disappeared? It isn't that hard to do."
Maybe he watched House of Cards. Didn't end well.
A couple of items about the WaPo piece;
The Constitution clearly says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion; yet there are laws providing Executives at various levels of government to call an emergency and then prohibit the free exercise of religion. This was recently debated by SCOTUS and resulted in a 5-4 decision, suggesting that clarity doesn't hold much value.
The idea that impeachment exists, therefore the President can't pardon himself is silly. Even if the President did pardon himself; this would prevent the Executive Branch (DOJ) from trying the President. As that would be difficult for many reasons; Congress has the power of impeachment, which works despite a Presidential pardon.
I voted no, no, yes; but re-reading, I'd say no, no, no. If there was some supposed crime worthy of trying a President; then I don't think a pardon would work in court or anywhere else. By anywhere else; if such a crime occurred that was so egregious; then I suspect the public would riot for justice. I know we had a few paid riots that succeeded thanks to a willing local government. I know progressives somehow think Trump committed some egregious crime (supposedly by colluding with Russia to steal the Presidency, but no evidence has been presented that has survived scrutiny). But I look forward to attempts to try Donald Trump for crimes in court. Quit playing word games; and poke that beehive with a stick. At some point, the kindness of others to listen will be breached.
I don't think he needs to pardon himself. I think if they manage to find something they can indict him with he will end up being acquitted and it will help him in his 2024 campaign.
He probably should consider preemptively pardoning his family and key members of his administration to shield them from legal harassment. It would be a rotten precedent but prosecuting members of the incoming administration like Michael Flynn is a rotten precedent as well and enough Democrats have announced their willingness to persecute members of his administration by any available means that it might be the right thing to do.
"Luttig isn’t very bright."
Here's where I come for batshit crazy takes on legal matters.
Missing in some of the comments is the fact that there is reliable reporting that Trump has been discussing pardoning himself. Reportedly, he is considering so many general pardons to members of his administration that some, who genuinely have nothing to worry about from Biden DOJ, are worried about the stain on their reputation from a Trump pardon.
Personally, I'm still rooting for the outcome where he resigns on Pence's promise for a Nixon-style pardon plus the naming of Ivanka as VP.
Blogger Larry J said...
"Tell me, other than beating Hillary in 2016 or his mere existence, what "crimes" is Donald Trump guilty of that he would need a pardon?"
He interrupted the flow of graft in Washington D.C.. It was like exposing a vampire to sunlight.
Can't have that.
He should pardon Fang Fang/Christine Fang. Then she can't take the Fifth.
As Louie the Looper points out, Luttig's legal arguments are utterly feeble. (As excerpted by Althouse - I don't propose to dig ehind the WP paywall to see if he offers more substance there.) But if Luttig is a template for conservative judges, it solves the puzzle of why they usually disappoint conservatives.
His second argument - "the Framers clearly contemplated in the impeachment provisions of the Constitution that the president would not be able to violate the criminal laws with impunity" is woeful. The impeachment provisions are not particular to the President, and state that the impeachee remains subject to indictment according to law. But the pardon power is exercised according to law, and Luttig's argumet implies that anyone who is indicted could not be pardoned in respect of subsequent criminal charges - which is obvious tripe.
His third argument - the alleged animating constitutional principle that no man, not even the President, is above and beyond the law - is straight out of liberal jurisprudence 101. Let us wave our hands and invent someting that appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution and insist that it must trump the stuff that is actually there.
But worst of all is his first argument - that the text is ambiguous because it fails to state explicitly that the President may pardon himself. If this is the guy who's been training textualist proteges in textualism, Gawd help us. The pardon power doesn't state explicitly that the President can pardon red haired people, or quarterbacks, or ballerinas, or gay people, or people with one leg. It doesn't specify all these potential pardonees, because the text is UNAMBIGUOUSLY general. The text is not qualified by ANY exceptions.
A lot of people made a lot of money off of Trump running for and being President. Undoubtedly a lot more than anyone else has ever done for people, especially liars like people in the media, lawyers, political consultants, and fixers, not to mention books books books of lies by liars. Yet they all wanted him gone. A simple thank you would have been appropriate.
Althouse said:
"Luttig's argument should have influence with Trump..."
You didn't quote Luttig's next and final paragraph in your cut-out:
"The current president, never shy about violating norms, may well be tempted to challenge the Constitution by pardoning himself for any possible crimes he may have committed during his presidency. If he does, he may discover that neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court will allow him to forever escape liability for any crimes he may have committed against the nation he served."
That sounds terribly hostile towards Trump and almost a promise of future criminal charges from a looped-in player.
If Luttig's argument has an influence on Trump it could well be in the direction of granting the pardon.
s/b Luttig's argumeNt implies that anyone who is IMPEACHED could not be pardoned in respect of subsequent criminal charges - which is obvious tripe.
readering said...
"One has to wonder why, if DJT is so evil, why has he not just had all of the people opposing him disappeared? It isn't that hard to do."
Maybe he watched House of Cards. Didn't end well.
Because fiction is more descriptive for readering than reality.
The argument that “impeachment is a possibility so he cannot pardon” is ridiculous. Even on the level of mind reading the founders, the pardon power *excludes* impeachments.
The claim no one is above the law is silly too, since the pardon power is allowed by law.
The whole article is a giant exercise in begging the question, since it proceeds from the assumption Trump has done something for which he might desire a pardon. I have yet to see any indication Trump has committed a crime.
In any event, I find this judge's reasoning weak.
Regarding point #1: Ambiguous wording can't be assumed to support the position you favor. "The language is ambiguous, so it must mean" is always followed by a statement of the speaker's preferred position.
Regarding point #2: Clearly he can't use the pardon to get himself out of impeachment, but just as clearly impeachment and criminal prosecution are two different processes. And we're back to point #1.
His third point isn't an argument based on law, so it needs no rebuttal. Beware the man who presumes to speak for people long dead.
"No, President Trump can’t pardon himself"
Answering a question not asked.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "It's weird to me why that comment would be taken down...."
Banned commenter who was banned doesnt understand why his comment was taken down.
With that degree of "insight" our LLR reaches AOC levels of comprehension.
RMc: "Answering a question not asked."
Its not the first time.
Remember this one?: So while President Trump can name his son "Barron", he cannot make him a Baron.
"they want to create a precedent of an unlimited fishing expedition against Trump."
The precedent would be for fishing expeditions against all future former presidents.
Remember why Caesar crossed the Rubicon..
Seems to me the third reason is garbage and extra-constitutional. Why is pardoning oneself violative of “no man...” and not pardoning someone else. Both say under some circumstance, restricted, as they might be someone can be “above the law” or perhaps beyond. Of course I would prefer Trump not doing that, but very reluctantly. Would not lose sleep if he did, given all that has happened in past almost 5 years. All’s fair....
Chuck's link offers little wisdom :
eg "I have been unable to discover a single instance in which a king, royal governor, or any similar official purported to pardon himself." Try harder, maybe ?
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-granting-himself-pardon-governors-641150
Took me about 15 seconds on Duck Duck Go.
The "grant" argument is equally weak - history is replete with rulers granting themselves everything from titles to medals to other people's wives to deification.
Here's where I come for batshit crazy takes on legal matters.
Missing in some of the comments is the fact that there is reliable reporting that Trump has been discussing pardoning himself. Reportedly, he is considering so many general pardons to members of his administration that some, who genuinely have nothing to worry about from Biden DOJ, are worried about the stain on their reputation from a Trump pardon.
More mind reading by the crazy one. Facts are wishes in his/her/xur's world. "Reliable reporting" by those anonymous insiders again.
Where are the charges against Joe Biden for his criminal activity?
Why is Chuck still here?
Nobody ever accused Chuck of being smart.
If Trump wants a pardon, Trump will pardon himself, resign, and then Pence will pardon him again.
Isn't that the advice that any decent lawyer would give him in the circumstances given the ambiguity surrounding the pardon power? Trump has to have Pence pardon him so that he can be sure that the pardon will be upheld. Trump has to pardon himself first, because he can't be sure that Pence will do it.
Note: That also gets Trump out of attending the Biden inauguration, as Pence not Trump will be the outgoing President. Plus, Pence gets to have an inauguration ceremony and be President for a day. I see this is the last way Trump can win the losing of the election.
Will Joe Biden's first act as 'President' be to pardon himself?
Should Trump come up short with regards to this election, he should resign before inauguration day and have Pence pardon him - see: Nixon/Ford.
The US SC denied hearing Kelly’s case.
readering: "Here's where I come for bats*** crazy takes on legal matters."
Here's where you've been coming to deliver bats*** crazy conspiracy theories and laughably false history un-factoids for years.
You and LLR-lefty C**** were made for each other.
Unanimous decision.
Why would a man such as I had once thought Luttig to be, even dignify the question with a response?
Needless to say, PDT requires no pardons, not for any actual federal crimes, as he has committed none.
Althouse - imagine a mouthful of egg salad, forever.
... and for Drago, mustn't forget him.
Pence should not wait until last day. Make Trump move out so Mrs Pence gets use of the place for a short time.
What's it take to pardon anyway? Does it have to be written down? Does it have to be published? Pronounced on the White House lawn? Cite the Constitution or case law where appropriate.
I could see Trump "issuing" himself a pardon in a sealed envelope. "Break in case of Sally Yates going nuts as AG" sort of thing.
It wouldn't be produced until after sentencing though. It's the kind of "win-win" Trump is famous for.
They'll have to be nuts to prosecute him for anything though. It would serve to only drive attention to him. Why would you want to give ammo to your enemies?
If I were Trump, I would pardon myself, as well as my family and tp advisors, then pocket the pardons.
Much better said than me. Agreed Bruce.
As all have already mentioned. No Crime
That is not an opinion. It is fact as revealed by Nadler, Schiff and Pelosi. A perfect vehicle to list the crimes committed, was impeachment articles. No crime could be found to add to the 2 non-criminal articles of impeachment. Even the Trump deranged Democrats were smart enough to understand how stupid they would look attempting to claim a crime, but lacking any and all elements required to define a crime.
Most interesting comment was asking who would have standing to challenge a President possessing a pardon signed by self.
Second most interesting was the revelation, there is no requirement to inform 'government' of what pardons are issued. So until the possibility of having to go behind bars is real, you just keep the pardon in your pocket.
The Supreme Court did not deny hearing Kelly’s case.
The denied his request for an injunction.
His petition for certiorari is still pending.
Blogger Inga said...
The US SC denied hearing Kelly’s case.
Yes, the steal is almost accomplished. Only the Texas suit remains, aside from a mountain of evidence of vote fraud.
I don't like pardons for people who haven't done anything wrong. Like General Flynn. Or Trump. It's an admission (unnecessary, in my opinion) that the system is hopelessly broken and criminal charges are nothing more than vengeance the winners wreak against the losers. Which no small number of Democrats want it to be, but we haven't sunk that far yet.
Why are we even talking about this? What would he supposedly pardon himself for, except whatever fantasy crimes the Democrats, being - what they are - dream up?
We are witnessing a fait accompli. Everyone knows the vote fraud was massive and brazen. But if we say it out loud, we have to admit that our News Media is really as Soviet as we think it is. We would have to confront the bureaucracies, not only in Wash DC, but in our State Capitols. I live in the 'reddest' of 'red States. Our Capitol City is solid Blue. Progressives flock to Government, because that's where you get to order people around, and make education policy for the next generation.
We speculate about pardons because we've given up. It was easy for us. Post War 1946 through now encompasses most of us. We could afford to be frivolous.
A man born in 1917 Russia and lived 70 years spent his life in Soviet Hell.
A man born in 1946 America and lived 70 years had a life of ease with a little effort.
There's a poetry to that I think. The wheel turns.
Ah, Inga. Delighted to see you again, just great.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/07/no-the-georgia-vote-counting-video-was-not-debunked-not-
even-close/
The next time you put up some stupid nonsense by a "verified" Facebook factchecker and literally no one buys into it, I don't want you to be terribly surprised.
In the same vein, I doubt the Supreme Court will give a worthwhile remedy, much less the one I want. But I doubt Alito recommended the Penn. case (about to be championed by Senator Cruz) just to let it pass without dissent. 48 hour rule is in effect.
“The argument that “impeachment is a possibility so he cannot pardon” is ridiculous. Even on the level of mind reading the founders, the pardon power *excludes* impeachments.”
“The claim no one is above the law is silly too, since the pardon power is allowed by law.”
Agreed. The plain meaning is that a President cannot avoid impeachment by pardoning himself. But he won’t be I office if/when he needs a pardon, so impeachment would not be applicable. What would they impeach him from - being an ex President?
Per the Constitution:
The President cannot pardon himself from impeachment.
When did people forget how to read plain text? I mean, besides lawyers?
Reason and logic are invaluable in this world. What if others are defying reason and logic? What if others are deceiving, and insisting that up is down. Reason and logic then becomes impotent. How does one person handle gaslighting? What if one is forced into Plato's Cave?
Does a Law degree mitigate that? Hasn't so far.
“The Biden bots conclude, probably correctly, that your average Iraqi has responded more forcefully to vote fraud than your average American. However, the President hasn't been restaffing the Pentagon because he anticipates handing it over to a zero like Joe Biden.”
Sure. Initially the average American, or even the average, illegally thwarted, Trump voter, isn’t likely to go kinetic over the election, or even the prosecution of an ex President Trump. But we are talking bell curves here, and that means that there are plenty of people out at 2 standard deviations above the mean. 2 STDs is roughly 95%, but we only want the portion on one end, which is half the remainder of 5%, which is 2.5%. 2.5% of 75 million is 1,875,000. That is easily more than 10x the number of armed federal agents available to confront them. Throw in enough martyrs, and you could possibly pull in another standard deviation, roughly 16%, or a total of 12 million. This, of course, would also swamp the number of active and reserve military, who are normally forbidden from operating within the US against civilians. So, President Harris declares a state of insurrection. What happens next? A large percentage of the enlisted ranks likely defect, taking their weaponry with them (and, yes, it has apparently been heavily discussed in some barracks around the world). Keep in mind that, as in 2000, active military have apparently been disenfranchised again, in order for the Dems to win, both through destruction of ballots, and switching Trump for Biden votes. Much of the military knows this. Moreover, demographically, the enlisted ranks, in particular, mostly come from Trump country. They are not about to shoot their relatives or high school classmates, esp for someone like Biden or Harris.
Trump should pardon everybody on January 18.
(Insert the "EVERYBODY!" meme from the move The Professional here.)
On January 19 he should resign.
President Pence should then pardon Trump.
In 2025.
Why would Trump pardon himself? The obvious solution is to resign the day before, and have Pence pardon him.
And so, the subtext is the Democrats will go after Trump, breaking all norms and traditions. the old rule is you didn't want to have people getting destroyed by the opposition party that follows them into office. That way, you have a peaceful transition of power. Only banana republics and Communist regimes jail the former leaders.
I guess that's the way we're headed, and everyone is cool with it. As long as its a Republican.
Bruce...speaking of the Military. In our new Army, black women make rank quick. White males spend most of their time in sensitivity training. In Basic Training, the recruits are given a Red Card. If the Black Female Drill Sergeant is yelling too loud, the girls we dress in soldier costume can hold up the Red Card and be excused from formation to go to a safe space to cry. That is our Military.
Why do you think we only use the all male Special Forces teams for actual combat now?
Don’t join the military.
Chuckles, he did worse. He assented to use of the national security apparatus against a political opponent. Far, far worse.
Who would have standing (i.e., be harmed) to file a suit?
Hercules, ntot, pulls no punches.
Historian Martin van Creveld makes a similar point--why, he asks, in a society where women are equal, do they still not play field and contact sports against men? (Cf. elite military forces.)
Might it be because they're more trouble than they're worth in those situations?
Narr
Just sayin'
Women are not more trouble than they're worth. Women are worth a lot. They're not soldiers though. They get men killed. As a society we hold men's lives cheap. It is the men who we now deem more trouble than they are worth.
SGT 11th Armored Cav.
Bruce Hayden said...
They are not about to shoot their relatives or high school classmates, esp for someone like Biden or Harris.
12/8/20, 6:42 PM
You'd be on excellent ground to say they'd do the exact opposite. But predicting what a President Harris would do may be overthinking it- quite a few actual soldiers are ready to ENTHUSIASTICALLY respond to the President's orders, as their oath requires them to do, and if those orders include slaughtering disloyal flag officers so be it.
I think your numbers are almost absurdly pessimistic: at this point I would say that the hardcore 3% is closer to representing people who would insist that "McVeigh was right" and are willing to attack without orders. If you want a sobering thought, I'd suggest looking to Althouse, Correia, and Dreher. All these people are somewhere between hostile to supportive of Trump on different issues. None of them actually voted for him, partly because of the intense social pressure in their social/ work groups. The people who did vote for the President are somewhere between enthusiastically supportive and mindlessly fanatical. If the Derp State thinks they are all going to sit still, that's the kind of "greeted as liberators" thinking that's going to end with all their heads on pikes.
No pressure from lying hack press for crook Biden to pardon himself.
He can resign 2 days early and Pence can pardon him. Easy-peazy.
Why should he have be pardoned??? Is the SWAMP going after him even when he is out of office?? NUTS!!!
Hercules, ntot, says, "It is the men who we now deem more trouble than they are worth."
Not sure I follow. Who is the "we"? And who are "the men" who are more trouble than they're worth?
I'm assuming that you served in some shitholes, and were able to observe how the locals reacted to the arrival of our rainbow coalition forces, and the PC battlecry:
"We're Infidel Perverts, and We're Here to Save You!"
Narr
I know of lots of people who are MTTTW.
Pardon himself for what?
Ask him.
No, he shouldn't pardon himself, for aesthetic and political reasons... and practical reasons. It will be seen as an admission of wrongdoing, as an unseemly selfish act, it will end any viability he has as a future candidate or king-maker. And, because it isn't allowable under the Constitution as per the article, it would be a waste of time and effort.
Yes, he likely needs a pardon because the Democrats are going to try and end his political viability by any means necessary, including using all of the power of local, state, and federal government as they attempt to bankrupt and jail him and his immediate family for having the unmitigated gall to challenge the Establishment.
No, it wouldn't stand up in court for the reasons given in the post.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा