Trump Thread

[Shaka_Khan]

[Strike For The South]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/trum...on-myself.html

Trump thinks he can pardon himself. That might actually be the tipping point, finally, probably not though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/trum...on-myself.html

Trump thinks he can pardon himself. That might actually be the tipping point, finally, probably not though.

Constitutionally, I believe he does have that right. If he does it before Halloween of the year preceding the inauguration of he predecessor, that would get him impeached and removed from office. No further legal action would be possible, but that would indeed get him tossed I believe.

[Montmorency]

Constitutionally, I believe he does have that right. If he does it before Halloween of the year preceding the inauguration of he predecessor, that would get him impeached and removed from office. No further legal action would be possible, but that would indeed get him tossed I believe.

It's debatable, but that's a problem in itself. A cleverer tyrant than Trump could wield it as a loophole in attaining autocracy, and dare the rest of the government to call their bluff.


Edit: From Bunny's linked article:

St. Clair, Nixon’s lawyer, once said: “The president wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.”

[Shaka_Khan]

[HopAlongBunny]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/trum...on-myself.html

Trump thinks he can pardon himself. That might actually be the tipping point, finally, probably not though.

He might be right
The problem will end up in the courts; will they halt or support the idea?; if it gets bounced to Congress they could decide "their" president [B]is[B] above the law.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-no...errick-garland

The problem with the systems we make is they are human, all too human

[Hooahguy]

He might be right
The problem will end up in the courts; will they halt or support the idea?; if it gets bounced to Congress they could decide "their" president [B]is[B] above the law.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-no...errick-garland

The problem with the systems we make is they are human, all too human

I doubt that case would gain much traction:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If it did come down to the Supreme Court on whether or not a president can pardon himself, and god forbid they found in favor of Trump, the US governmental system as we know it is over.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Trump absolutely has the power to pardon himself. "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

There were plenty of Founding Fathers who leaned toward the "enlightened monarchy" camp and they left their mark in the extent of the President's powers.

Trump is above the law. Trump is the law. Your recourse are as follows:

1. Vote him out.
2. Take away his money.
3. Impeach him.

If this isn't to your liking, well next time remember elections have consequences.

[Gilrandir]

1. Vote him out.
2. Take away his money.
3. Impeach him.

4. Tar and feather him.

[Fragony]

Trump is pebably deeply sorry letting 230.000 job just appear out of nowhere, policy has nothing to do with it

[a completely inoffensive name]

4. Tar and feather him.

Impeachment was put in place in the constitution to prevent that resort from being used.

[rory_20_uk]

Trump absolutely has the power to pardon himself. "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

There were plenty of Founding Fathers who leaned toward the "enlightened monarchy" camp and they left their mark in the extent of the President's powers.

Trump is above the law. Trump is the law. Your recourse are as follows:

1. Vote him out.
2. Take away his money.
3. Impeach him.

If this isn't to your liking, well next time remember elections have consequences.

Trump represents the law - he is not the law any more than a judge is. This is why there are methods to remove him in the same way there are those who represent government / healthcare / etc.

[Montmorency]

There were plenty of Founding Fathers who leaned toward the "enlightened monarchy" camp and they left their mark in the extent of the President's powers.

You can argue for a self-pardon power if you interpret text in isolation from the rest of the document and don't take history or legal meta-principles into account, which account nevertheless judges of all ideological stripes tend to take in analysis of issues of all sorts, so neglecting them in this type of case would be prima facie goal-oriented reasoning demanding a very good explanation. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution, for example, that preemptive pardons prior to the commission of a crime are forbidden, so under the positivistic approach Trump may permanently shield himself and his family/allies from federal criminal liability in a single proclamation. Such a result would allow Trump as a private citizen to defy the federal government or even personally execute the entire sitting Congress without fear of prosecution at any point in his life.

Ultimately there is that fig leaf permitting a far-right court (which we don't quite have yet) to endorse the irresponsible reading, but it would seriously damage the authority of the Court and may eventually grease comprehensive reform... For now let's keep in mind the "pragmatic" constraints on Trump that keep this line of thinking a rhetorical device, that self-pardon (as opposed to pardon by POTUS Pence, Acting President VP Pence, or some future POTUS), whether it's tested or not, guarantees eventual state-level prosecution and conviction barring irrevocable seizure of power. Moreover, there's a very strong case that a corrupt self-pardon (there is no other kind) would in itself be a criminal offense in violation of Obstruction of Justice statutes.

But I don't think there's reason to believe either that a faction of the Framers consciously intended this opening, or that they leaned toward "enlightened monarchy" as opposed to an executive capable of effectively balancing Congress. I understand that self-pardon was never explicitly discussed in documented form during the Constitutional Conventions, whereas proper checks on executive overreach were extensively discussed, so it's up to you to dig up any Framers who took the position that reproducing the privilege of a Charles I or Louis XIV was desirable in a time when even that of a George III was rejected. To reiterate, there is a difference between "energetic executive" and "royal prerogative", especially in the context of the null-executive Articles of Confederation.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Trump represents the law - he is not the law any more than a judge is. This is why there are methods to remove him in the same way there are those who represent government / healthcare / etc.

The only means of removing him are political, not criminal. If he commits a crime, he can pardon himself. Impeachment is a political tool, to use it doesn't make his actions in violation of the law, it makes his actions in violation of political taste. Every president over the last 200 years has broken the law as they see fit. We don't call Lincoln a criminal for suspending habeus corpus without congressional approval.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump absolutely has the power to pardon himself. "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

There were plenty of Founding Fathers who leaned toward the "enlightened monarchy" camp and they left their mark in the extent of the President's powers.

Trump is above the law. Trump is the law. Your recourse are as follows:

1. Vote him out.
2. Take away his money.
3. Impeach him.

If this isn't to your liking, well next time remember elections have consequences.

Voting him out is, and was, the preferred method. Impeachment was, and is, the tool in place to remove an executive who was clearly in breach of the law or who was trending toward tyranny. Taking away someone's money was NOT supposed to be a function of government. Taking his money? Courts can fine him according to established criminal guidelines if guilty and individuals may sue him for damages, but these would have to occur after his time in office is concluded.

Trump is not above the law, though the law's ability to touch him is held in abeyance during his term of office (at 1201 Eastern, 20 January 2021 [or 2025] he could be arrested if an arrest warrant has been promulgated).

Congress could impeach him on malfeasance in office as a 'misdemeanor.' I believe they would do this if he pardoned himself while in office to avoid a criminal charge for which convincing evidence had already been proffered. I think Congress would impeach ANY President who stepped outside the spirit of the Constitution so completely.

I suspect, as noted in posts above, that he could pardon himself, again, while he is in office and entitled to do so. In doing so, he could avoid conviction for any crimes he may have committed. He would also, in my opinion, trigger impeachment and removal from office.