Trump: 'I have the absolute right to pardon myself'

[Oceander]

Except it's just part of a technical legal argument they're making to Mueller's office as to why they would not have to comply with a subpoena.  It's not like this argument was advanced publicly for its own sake.

Which by its silliness simply undermines the rest of the letter.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Which by its silliness simply undermines the rest of the letter.

For political reasons, I'd agree that isn't a good argument to make.  You're giving your foes an issue with which they can demagogue you.  But that's what this is -- a political miscalculation.  Not the end of the Republic -- as much as some foes of Trump would like it to be.

[the_doc]

Now, if you want to argue that it is politically tone-deaf for him to tweet that in the first place, fine.  But that is not the same thing as people here going off on how this is a prelude to dictatorship.  It's just being used to whip up political hysteria, which is the exact thing I said it was in the first place.

I'm not one of those guys who seem to be saying his tweet is a prelude to dictatorship.  I am actually saying what you are saying--but I don't think Trump's tweet is just a tempest in a teapot.   The MSM is not going to let this go away quietly now that Trump has posted his moronic tweet.  Heck, even Trump's arguably proper tweets get used against him;  now we have a flagrantly improper, obviously un-Constitutional position from our POTUS going viral.  It is being used to whip up political hysteria.  The temporary distress on TBR is probably a lot less than the longer-term public backlash will be against Trump.

Now, the real issue is actually a bit more subtle -- the "I can pardon myself" argument is one thread of an argument about why the President doesn't have to respond to a subpoena, which was an argument raised in a letter from his attorneys to Mueller.  Trump's tweet wasn't how this story broke -- it was Mueller's office is who leaked it in the first place.

Thanks for the clarification.  But as despicable as the leak was, I think it's almost equally despicable--stupidity-wise--that Trump's attorneys gave Mueller legally asinine material for a damaging leak. 

My point is that the lawyerly (?) idea that it was "one thread of the argument" against Mueller's out-of-bounds behavior doesn't make it something that should have been included in the larger argument.  Isn't it axiomatic with good lawyers that one should never offer a horrible argument in support of a proper argument?  Heck, a horrible argument will become the enemy of the proper argument--especially when crap like the horrible argument gets leaked out to our dumbed down hoi polloi, who will be simultaneously hearing Giuliani (correctly!) saying that a sitting POTUS couldn't be indicted even if he were to shoot Comey.  (And the whole mess will get rolled up with Trump's disgusting campaign statement in 2016 that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and he would still be popular.)

The reason why the Mueller team leaked the "one  thread of the argument" is precisely because it was a despicable thread of argumentation and because the public as a whole would regard it as despicable.

In short, the bad argument was extraordinarily inflammatory, especially considering the widespread disgust people already have for Trump.  Confirming the White House's pseudo-legal stance by Trump's very own tweeting of the patently stupid "opinions" of "top legal scholars" have made the entire moronic mess flowing from the White House even more inflammatory in the public mind.  Trump is so politically tone-deaf (i.e.,narcissistic) that he probably thought it was okay to stipulate that his lawyers' atrocious argument was part of the discussion with Mueller. 

The upshot of this is that Trump's tweet, will now tend to make the ignoramuses in our electorate incorrectly hear Giuliani's CORRECT argument against Mueller's investigation. 

And the first time Trump takes aggressive, possibly even martial-law action (against sanctuary cities, for example), the self-righteous lefties who have called Trump as bad as or even worse than Hitler will get traction for recruitment to their Resistance.  Thus, I suspect that the MSM is deliberately going to keep the controversy alive until it bears very evil fruit.

[ABX]

I'm curious what the federalist papers say on the topic. Those are always good to get a full meaning behind what's in the Constitution.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I'm curious what the federalist papers say on the topic. Those are always good to get a full meaning behind what's in the Constitution.

It's discussed in No. 74.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed74.asp

I personally don't think the rationale applies to self-pardons.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

In short, the bad argument was extraordinarily inflammatory, especially considering the widespread disgust people already have for Trump.

Well...nothing is going to change that.  Those who hate him aren't going to hate him any more or less for this.  Not to the extent it matters, anyway.  It just the fodder of choice until there's something else.

[Hoodat]

While Trump may be 100% wrong in what he says, I must commend him for his uncanny ability to keep his detractors off balance in a constant state of indignation.

[the_doc]

I'm curious what the federalist papers say on the topic. Those are always good to get a full meaning behind what's in the Constitution.

I believe Oceander's post #52 destroys the scenario of a POTUS pardoning himself. And I don't think it takes a lawyer to figure this out. 

In fact, I think that any lawyer who "finds" that the Constitution was intending, among other things, to give a POTUS an automatic "get out of jail free card," then that lawyer is a loophole-minded crook who cares not one whit for what our Framers actually intended. 

Sadly, we do have a lot of shrewd but decidedly bad lawyers.  (Ask Prince Hal how pervasive the problem is.  Ask Thomas Jefferson how dangerous "activist judges" are.)  Bad lawyers are oddly lawless legalists in that they have no regard for, much less respect for, the spirit of the law.  And we cannot discern the spirit of the Constitution unless we notice that the entire point of drafting the Constitution was to create a document that would serve as the head of the Body Politic.  In a terribly important manner of speaking, the Constitution was intended to make sure that we have no human being (or committee of human beings) despotically ruling us.  To use Plato's language, our Republic needed a Benevolent Despot to rule us, but our wise Framers realized that we needed to install that Benevolent Despot in the form of a document that supremely rules the Body Politic, not a person, not even a power-grabbing branch of government. 

Even when we confess that a document drafted by the wisest assemblage of political philosophers in history still poses exegetical challenges for interpretation, a proper hermeneutic must consider the above-stated purpose of the Constitution.   Constitutional law is not to be handled as a bunch of inadvertently unclosed loopholes opening up opportunities for lawlessness.  Lawlessness invariably leads to tyranny.

As George Washington himself confessed, he was to function in a way of presiding in a way of decency and order under the Constitution, not by ruling as the Emperor (Despot) of the United States.  Impeachment was the Constitutional provision intended as a necessary provision for reining him in if he becomes lawless--after which impeachment he is obviously prosecutable as an accused criminal, for the final resolution of his high crimes and misdemeanors.  But if a POTUS has a "get out of jail free card," he can do monumental, tyrannical damage even under the relatively minor threat of impeachment.

Finally, if the loophole a__holes had their way, they would give a "get out of jail free card" to a POTUS whom they liked (or who paid for their lawyerly fees).   The whole scenario is so sick, so disgusting that I doubt that the Federalist Papers would have deigned to cover the matter of a President pardoning himself.  Perhaps the Federalist Papers do talk about the reasons for giving the POTUS the right to pardon others, but I suspect that even Alexander Hamilton would turn over in his grave if he knew we were even discussing the matter of whether the right to pardon includes a POTUS pardoning himself.

Even if legalistic lawyers claim that the Constitution allows such a scenario, it definitely does not.   The very idea is an insult to our Republic.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Even if legalistic lawyers claim that the Constitution allows such a scenario, it definitely does not.   The very idea is an insult to our Republic.

 

As the day goes on I suspect this is more reality TV stuff from Trump tbh. Genius or idiotic, i cannot say.

[Mesaclone]

Let me say...thank goodness for Bill Martin. You are an island of sanity in a sea of dimwitted, emotionally driven, fact deprived absurdities in this thread.

The presidential power to pardon any American is absolute AS PER the Constitution itself. The President and his lawyer simply stated this fact.

Further, the Supreme Court can say what it will, but it is a co-equal branch and has no authority to limit or remove a constitutionally granted power from another branch of government. There are only two checks that can redress a president who has committed a criminal act and/or exceeded the boundaries of justice while in the Presidency...the ballot box, and impeachment. That is the design our Founding Fathers created and delineated in the Constitution. This is not dictatorial in any way, though it creates a strong Executive (which was their intention), BECAUSE it provides these instruments for removing a President.

Republican Rome fell, in part, due to neverending legal prosecutions of men who had served in Executive positions...Governorships and in the Curule chair. Caesar crossed the Rubicon because the Senate would not grant him immunity from the lawsuits and prosecutions of his Senatorial opponents...he repeatedly offered to lay down arms and surrender power if the Senate was willing to forego such actions. This is relevant, because our current trend in criminalizing political opponents is a big step down that road to true dictatorship...this is deeply relevant in today's context. For example, while I deeply dislike Hillary and believe Obama violated the law in using the FBI/CIA as a political weapon against the opposing party...it is important that we NEVER attempt to prosecute, much less convict, either of them. Their actions should be investigated and fully exposed, and a full pardon then immediately issued...because down the road of prosecuting defeated political opponents and/or criminalizing the political acts of sitting Presidents...lies the collapse of our Republic.

The law must never be used to punish political enemies...even when they are genuinely guilty of political illegalities (capital crimes like murder and such do not fall into this category of course). Our political battles MUST be restricted to the arena of electoral politics...if we fail in this as a nation, we will not long maintain our Republic, much as the Romans lost theirs.

[the_doc]

Let me say...thank goodness for Bill Martin. You are an island of sanity in a sea of dimwitted, emotionally driven, fact deprived absurdities in this thread.

The presidential power to pardon any American is absolute AS PER the Constitution itself. The President and his lawyer simply stated this fact.

Further, the Supreme Court can say what it will, but it is a co-equal branch and has no authority to limit or remove a constitutionally granted power from another branch of government. There are only two checks that can redress a president who has committed a criminal act and/or exceeded the boundaries of justice while in the Presidency...the ballot box, and impeachment. That is the design our Founding Fathers created and delineated in the Constitution. This is not dictatorial in any way, though it creates a strong Executive (which was their intention), BECAUSE it provides these instruments for removing a President.

Republican Rome fell, in part, due to neverending legal prosecutions of men who had served in Executive positions...Governorships and in the Curule chair. Caesar crossed the Rubicon because the Senate would not grant him immunity from the lawsuits and prosecutions of his Senatorial opponents...he repeatedly offered to lay down arms and surrender power if the Senate was willing to forego such actions. This is relevant, because our current trend in criminalizing political opponents is a big step down that road to true dictatorship...this is deeply relevant in today's context. For example, while I deeply dislike Hillary and believe Obama violated the law in using the FBI/CIA as a political weapon against the opposing party...it is important that we NEVER attempt to prosecute, much less convict, either of them. Their actions should be investigated and fully exposed, and a full pardon then immediately issued...because down the road of prosecuting defeated political opponents and/or criminalizing the political acts of sitting Presidents...lies the collapse of our Republic.

The law must never be used to punish political enemies...even when they are genuinely guilty of political illegalities (capital crimes like murder and such do not fall into this category of course). Our political battles MUST be restricted to the arena of electoral politics...if we fail in this as a nation, we will not long maintain our Republic, much as the Romans lost theirs.

WWWW.    

[INVAR]

The law must never be used to punish political enemies...even when they are genuinely guilty of political illegalities (capital crimes like murder and such do not fall into this category of course).

Then all you have done is to legalize lawlessness as long as it is committed by politicians and the politicly-connected.

And it is precisely how corruption becomes so endemic to how the system operates, that no correction is possible lest the entire edifice of the country collapses with it.

It's just another avenue of how tyranny is established.

[edpc]

'The president hasn’t done anything wrong,' Sarah Sanders says 9 times in 15 minutes

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Monday sidestepped questions from reporters about President Trump’s assertion that he has the “absolute right” to pardon himself, arguing that he wouldn’t need to because the president “hasn’t done anything wrong.”

“Thankfully, the president hasn’t done anything wrong and wouldn’t have any need for a pardon,” Sanders said when first asked about Trump’s tweeted claim.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-hasnt-done-anything-wrong-sarah-sanders-says-9-times-15-minutes-202449988.html


She's already been hung out to dry twice, with the Daniels payment and the Don Jr statement.

[libertybele]

'The president hasn’t done anything wrong,' Sarah Sanders says 9 times in 15 minutes

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Monday sidestepped questions from reporters about President Trump’s assertion that he has the “absolute right” to pardon himself, arguing that he wouldn’t need to because the president “hasn’t done anything wrong.”

“Thankfully, the president hasn’t done anything wrong and wouldn’t have any need for a pardon,” Sanders said when first asked about Trump’s tweeted claim.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-hasnt-done-anything-wrong-sarah-sanders-says-9-times-15-minutes-202449988.html


She's already been hung out to dry twice, with the Daniels payment and the Don Jr statement.

Exactly what has President Trump done wrong?  What crime(s) has been committed?  Why does Mueller continue an investigation when several Congressmen have come forward and stated that there is no collusion?  Why does Clinton/Bammy/Holder/Rice/Jarret, etc., continue to get a free pass?  Why are Rosenstein and Mueller still in play?

So what if Sanders stated that the POTUS has done nothing wrong several times.

[edpc]

Exactly what has President Trump done wrong?  What crime(s) has been committed?  Why does Mueller continue an investigation when several Congressmen have come forward and stated that there is no collusion?  Why does Clinton/Bammy/Holder/Rice/Jarret, etc., continue to get a free pass?  Why are Rosenstein and Mueller still in play?

So what if Sanders stated that the POTUS has done nothing wrong several times.

I'll attempt to answer you in the order asked.  We don't know yet, since the Mueller and SDNY investigations are ongoing.  Again, we don't know yet, since the Mueller and SDNY investigations are ongoing.  The members of Congress have different levels of access to evidence.  Because the president himself said the Clinton, et al stuff was good for the campaign, but now, we don't care so much.  Because despite all his bluster, Trump knows firing them is too costly, politically.

She has no idea if he's done anything wrong and she's looked foolish with previous denials on other matters.

[Concerned]

I'll attempt to answer you in the order asked.  We don't know yet, since the Mueller and SDNY investigations are ongoing.  Again, we don't know yet, since the Mueller and SDNY investigations are ongoing.  The members of Congress have different levels of access to evidence.  Because the president himself said the Clinton, et al stuff was good for the campaign, but now, we don't care so much.  Because despite all his bluster, Trump knows firing them is too costly, politically.

She has no idea if he's done anything wrong and she's looked foolish with previous denials on other matters.

Just as several of Sanders' past statements have been proven to be inaccurate, I suspect future ones will be also if she continues to be Trump's press secretary.  I believe Trump lies to her and she simply repeats the lies (the alternative is that she knowingly lies, which I doubt).  As you note, she has no way of knowing whether Trump has done anything wrong beyond him telling her he hasn't, and he appears to lie all the time.

[Mesaclone]

Then all you have done is to legalize lawlessness as long as it is committed by politicians and the politicly-connected.

And it is precisely how corruption becomes so endemic to how the system operates, that no correction is possible lest the entire edifice of the country collapses with it.

It's just another avenue of how tyranny is established.

It legalizes absolutely nothing. And this is not about extortion, or murder, or kidnapping or any non-political criminal action....what you do NOT do is attempt to prosecute prior Presidential administrations and/or defeated Presidential campaigns. Their actions are chastized by the voters, if you criminalize political activity you invite instability and 3rd world style governance by retribution. What you DO, is to investigate and fully expose actions to the public scrutiny...from there, it is the job of voters to eliminate corruption and lawlessness. If they chose not to do so, than we will have corruption...and there is no criminalization of political activity that could ever stop it. The integrity of government rests in the ethical hands of those who vote.

[Mesaclone]

I'll attempt to answer you in the order asked.  We don't know yet, since the Mueller and SDNY investigations are ongoing.  Again, we don't know yet, since the Mueller and SDNY investigations are ongoing.  The members of Congress have different levels of access to evidence.  Because the president himself said the Clinton, et al stuff was good for the campaign, but now, we don't care so much.  Because despite all his bluster, Trump knows firing them is too costly, politically.

She has no idea if he's done anything wrong and she's looked foolish with previous denials on other matters.

You miss the point entirely.

To date, there is zero evidence of any wrongdoing. Asserting that some investigator somewhere might have something...is void of any validity whatsoever.

Its not that we don't know YET, we simply don't know of ANY evidence at all. Period. And that's AFTER years of investigation, corruptly efforting to find or make a criminal of the president while having no evidence of a crime.

[edpc]

You miss the point entirely.

To date, there is zero evidence of any wrongdoing. Asserting that some investigator somewhere might have something...is void of any validity whatsoever.

Its not that we don't know YET, we simply don't know of ANY evidence at all. Period. And that's AFTER years of investigation, corruptly efforting to find or make a criminal of the president while having no evidence of a crime.

No, you miss the point.  There are people who are cooperating and have yet to reach sentencing.  Manafort is still being prosecuted and may or may not cooperate.  They haven’t come close to getting through all the material in the Cohen case.  Nobody, outside of the investigation team, knows anything.

[libertybele]

I'll attempt to answer you in the order asked.  We don't know yet, since the Mueller and SDNY investigations are ongoing.  Again, we don't know yet, since the Mueller and SDNY investigations are ongoing.  The members of Congress have different levels of access to evidence.  Because the president himself said the Clinton, et al stuff was good for the campaign, but now, we don't care so much.  Because despite all his bluster, Trump knows firing them is too costly, politically.

She has no idea if he's done anything wrong and she's looked foolish with previous denials on other matters.

Oh come on here.  Mueller and Rosenstein both worked under or for the Clintons/Bammy in way or another.  They are both involved in some way with Uranium One, yet, these are the two investigating Trump collusion?  Connect the dots.  The longer the investigation continues the more time that evidence and proof against those truly involved in Russian collusion; namely Clinton and Bammy is buried for good. 

[Concerned]

Oh come on here.  Mueller and Rosenstein both worked under or for the Clintons/Bammy in way or another.  They are both involved in some way with Uranium One, yet, these are the two investigating Trump collusion?  Connect the dots.  The longer the investigation continues the more time that evidence and proof against those truly involved in Russian collusion; namely Clinton and Bammy is buried for good.

Mueller is a registered Republican and Rosenstein was a Trump Administration appointee:  “Only the best people”.

[edpc]

Oh come on here.  Mueller and Rosenstein both worked under or for the Clintons/Bammy in way or another.  They are both involved in some way with Uranium One, yet, these are the two investigating Trump collusion?  Connect the dots.  The longer the investigation continues the more time that evidence and proof against those truly involved in Russian collusion; namely Clinton and Bammy is buried for good.

You come on.  Trump is the one who is supposed to be in charge of the DOJ.  He can order Wray to conduct an investigation and suggest another special counsel (as he has in the investigation of the investigation), even though he has recently said the SC is unconstitutional.  As with most politicians, he doesn't really want the inquest, he wants the issue open to use for rallying his base.

[INVAR]

It legalizes absolutely nothing. And this is not about extortion, or murder, or kidnapping or any non-political criminal action....what you do NOT do is attempt to prosecute prior Presidential administrations and/or defeated Presidential campaigns. Their actions are chastized by the voters, if you criminalize political activity you invite instability and 3rd world style governance by retribution. What you DO, is to investigate and fully expose actions to the public scrutiny...from there, it is the job of voters to eliminate corruption and lawlessness. If they chose not to do so, than we will have corruption...and there is no criminalization of political activity that could ever stop it.

Such rot and bullshit.  All you just did was justify the fact that politicians are above the law.  Voters have no power to eliminate corruption and lawlessness outside of voting for someone FOR office.  They have no power to prosecute corruption, bribery, extortion, graft and treason by those holding office and using that office to break the law to feather their own nests or spy on citizens for use in blackmail or intimidation.  Creating a political caste system whereby the rule of law cannot be applied to politicians who violate the rule of law is simply tyranny via another avenue, and the road we are already on.

The integrity of government rests in the ethical hands of those who vote.

You are obviously oblivious to the institutionalized corruption in such places as Cook County, IL.  Such a statement is laughable on it's face.

[Chosen Daughter]

Such rot and bullshit.  All you just did was justify the fact that politicians are above the law.  Voters have no power to eliminate corruption and lawlessness outside of voting for someone FOR office.  They have no power to prosecute corruption, bribery, extortion, graft and treason by those holding office and using that office to break the law to feather their own nests or spy on citizens for use in blackmail or intimidation.  Creating a political caste system whereby the rule of law cannot be applied to politicians who violate the rule of law is simply tyranny via another avenue, and the road we are already on.

You are obviously oblivious to the institutionalized corruption in such places as Cook County, IL.  Such a statement is laughable on it's face.

Its a no returns policy.  If the goods are bad, too bad.  It is unreasonable in todays politics to believe any of them are working for you.

“Yes, We’re Corrupt”: A List of Politicians Admitting That Money Controls Politics


Jon Schwarz

July 30 2015, 9:23 a.m.

https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/politicians-admitting-obvious-fact-money-affects-vote/

[driftdiver]

A statement from Ted Cruz on this.

On the question of whether a president can pardon himself, we're seeing an abundance of knee-jerk partisanship and dishonest journalism. Virtually every Dem is saying "of course not, the president can't pardon himself (mostly because we hate Trump)." On the other hand, some Rs are saying "of course the president can."
 
If we were actually focusing on the Constitution, the answer would be more complicated. The text of the Constitution provides, the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." That text has no limitation on WHOM can be pardoned (although nobody can be pardoned from impeachment or for non-federal offenses).
 
However, in the 1970s, the Department of Justice did issue a legal opinion that the president cannot pardon himself, relying on the principle that nobody can be the judge in his own case. That legal principle has a long and venerable history, but it is not reflected in the constitutional text.
 
Whether the Department of Justice opinion is right is an open legal question, with scholars on both sides of the political spectrum disagreeing in good faith. 
 
Some dishonest journalists have attacked me for "taking 18 seconds" to answer -- without acknowledging that I was walking through the Capitol, late to a meeting, and simply ignoring a question that a reporter had called out at me (as senators do every single day in the Capitol). When reporters chased me down the hall, and another asked the question again, I chose to answer.
 
Yet others (see https://bit.ly/2M0mf6e) have focused on my criticisms of President Obama's abuse of executive power, suggesting that it is somehow hypocritical not to oppose Trump's assertion of executive power. They cite a law review article I wrote saying that Obama's executive amnesty was illegal, and that the pardon power did not justify it. What those attacks miss is that it is clear that (1) pardons must be retrospective (looking to crimes in the past), not prospective (pardoning future crimes), and (2) they must be addressed to specific persons, not generic categories of offenses. Both are straightforward legal propositions; neither is implicated because they do not concern WHOM can be pardoned.
 
Finally, other partisan journalists have attacked me for saying "that is not a constitutional issue I have studied, so I will withhold judgment at this point." That was true then, and is true now. This is not a question one should answer based on knee-jerk partisanship, as opposed to careful constitutional analysis.  As for me, I still haven't studied the issue at that level of detail, and I don't intend to -- because this is nothing more than an academic debate. At this point, none of the investigations has demonstrated any criminal conduct needing to be pardoned, as much as those who hate the president might wish otherwise.