Trump lawyer: Supreme Court will decide on presidential self-pardon

[mystery-ak]

Trump lawyer: Supreme Court will decide on presidential self-pardon

By Kevin Robillard

07/23/2017 10:51 AM EDT


President Donald Trump's personal lawyer dealing with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation said Sunday it would be up to the Supreme Court to rule on whether presidents could pardon themselves.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Jay Sekulow repeatedly insisted there had been no discussion of pardons among members of the president's legal team. The Washington Post reported last week that Trump had discussed pardoning members of his family as Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign's dealings with Russia continued.

"We have not and continue to not have conversations with the president of the United States regarding pardons," Sekulow said.

more
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/23/trump-pardon-supreme-court-240856

[unite for individuality]

It seems to me that a President could pardon himself
from criminal prosecution, but not from impeachment.

He could pardon himself from criminal prosecution as long as he is President.
Once he is impeached, he is no longer President, and cannot pardon anyone.

[edpc]

You're confusing impeachment with conviction.  Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached - neither convicted.  Both retained the full power of the executive branch.

[Hoodat]

It seems to me that a President could pardon himself
from criminal prosecution, but not from impeachment.

A sitting President cannot be prosecuted criminally.  He would have to be removed from office first.

[Oceander]

President Pence is sounding better and better.

[Cripplecreek]

President Pence is sounding better and better.

And for the most part, wisely remaining under the radar.

[unite for individuality]

A sitting President cannot be prosecuted criminally.  He would have to be removed from office first.

Okay, first the President is impeached by the House,
and then tried by the Senate.
The only thing decided at that point is whether or not he's removed from office.
Criminal prosecution is a completely separate matter.
Gerald Ford established a precedent by giving a blanket pardon to Nixon.
Theoretically, a President could give himself a blanket pardon
before he is removed from office.

[Hoodat]

Okay, first the President is impeached by the House,
and then tried by the Senate.
The only thing decided at that point is whether or not he's removed from office.

So far, so good.

Criminal prosecution is a completely separate matter.

No, it is directly related since you question is about pardons.  The pardons represent relief from criminal prosecution.

Gerald Ford established a precedent by giving a blanket pardon to Nixon.

Nixon was no longer President at the time.  Thus he was subject to criminal prosecution.

Theoretically, a President could give himself a blanket pardon
before he is removed from office.

Again, a sitting President cannot be subject to criminal prosecution.  Therefore, a pardon is simply not applicable.

[Oceander]

So far, so good.


No, it is directly related since you question is about pardons.  The pardons represent relief from criminal prosecution.


Nixon was no longer President at the time.  Thus he was subject to criminal prosecution.


Again, a sitting President cannot be subject to criminal prosecution.  Therefore, a pardon is simply not applicable.

Who says a sitting president cannot be subject to criminal prosecution?

[ABX]

It seems to me that a President could pardon himself
from criminal prosecution, but not from impeachment.

He could pardon himself from criminal prosecution as long as he is President.
Once he is impeached, he is no longer President, and cannot pardon anyone.

A president can be impeached but still remain president. Case in point, Bill Clinton. The house voted to impeach but the Senate voted not to remove him from office.
US Constitution, Article II, Section 4.

[ABX]

Who says a sitting president cannot be subject to criminal prosecution?

Article I, Section 3: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

Most see this as they can't be subject to indictment unless first impeached and convicted (removed from office).

[Hoodat]

Who says a sitting president cannot be subject to criminal prosecution?

The Supreme Court of the United States of America.  (See:  Bill Clinton)

Upon further review, I cannot find a Supreme Court decision that affirms this.  In reading through Clinton v. Jones, I did find some commentary by Justice Steven Breyer who cites language from the first session of the US Congress where this question was brought up.  Vice President Adams argued that the President should be immune from criminal (and civil) prosecution, while the counter-argument stated that "the President "was not above the laws," and would have to be arrested if guilty of crimes-by stating that the President would first have to be impeached, and could then be prosecuted".

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/681/case.html

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Court ruled that the President was immune from civil action emanating from his official actions as President.  'Immunity' is a powerful word here, much different from having to wait for impeachment and removal.  However, it would not be directly applicable here since the official performance of duties should not include illegal activities.

Which always brings us back to the act itself.  What did President Trump do that was illegal?  Because without an actual crime, all this talk is just wasted oxygen.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

A self pardon is basically an admission of guilt.

If Rump tries this, impeach and remove him. Then throw his Orange ass in prison.

[Cripplecreek]

A self pardon is basically an admission of guilt.

If Rump tries this, impeach and remove him. Then throw his Orange ass in prison.

It sounds like there is already an intent to pardon himself and that the supreme court will have to decide. Why else would he say the supreme court will decide?

Sounds like Trump wants to set up a situation like the Honduran debacle from a few years back where the president had his own version of ballots printed with an illegal referendum to make himself president for life. This forced an impeachment by both houses and the supreme court and the idiot still needed to be forced out.

[Hoodat]

It sounds like there is already an intent to pardon himself and that the supreme court will have to decide. Why else would he say the supreme court will decide?

If a case like this actually made it to the Supreme Court, I would bet the farm that they would rule 9-0 against it.