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

[ABX]

@AbaraXas
Yet that is exactly what is happening.  Both the NT and the Leftists are clamoring for impeachment.  yet there hasn't even been a crime identified yet.   Same talking points at the same time,  hmmmm

So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

So in your world, the mere discussion of a topic on a private message board, by people with zero legal or legislative authority over the matter, is the same as collusion with leftists to illegally overthrow a president?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Maybe I am misconstruing your argument? Is your argument that if Trump pardons himself, he should be impeached then?

No -- absolutely not. The proper remedy for an invalid pardon would simply be voiding the pardon, not impeachment. To me, that would be...silly.  You would impeach him for the underlying offense that you think he committed -- not for him pardoning himself for that crime.

My point is that the ultimate limitation on a President's power is the power of Congress to impeach, convict, and remove from office.  This argument over whether or not a President has the legal authority to pardon himself has no bearing on that.  It's irrelevant to any substantive debate -- it's relevant only to the legal maneuverings with Mueller.

Also, it is important to note that a sitting President likely cannot be indicted anyway -- Mueller himself already has stated that he doesn't have the power to indict Trump.   You'd have to remove him from office first via impeachment, then prosecute him.  And as I stated above, nothing about the pardon power impacts impeachment.

Would you be ok if Obama pardoned himself? or said this?

Well, what I would upset about if he would have committed a criminal act, not him trying to pardon himself for it.  And I wouldn't care what he said about it -- whether or not such a pardon would be effective ultimately would be up to the Supreme Court.  Either he has the power, or he doesn't.  I personally don't think the Supreme Court would uphold a pardon that was issued by a sitting President, subsequently impeached, that would apply to crimes for which he wasn't even charged until after he was already removed from office.  But if it was a valid exercise of Presidential power under the Constitution, then the pardon would be valid.  The problem would be poorly-drafted Constitutional provision that should be fixed.

So again...I think this is much ado about nothing.  It's just another thing about which some people are going to get their panties in a twist, that ultimately is completely irrelevant.

[Oceander]

No -- absolutely not. The proper remedy for an invalid pardon would simply be voiding the pardon, not impeachment. To me, that would be...silly.

My point is that the ultimate limitation on a President's power is the power of Congress to impeach, convict, and remove from office.  This argument over whether or not a President has the legal authority to pardon himself has no bearing on that.  It's irrelevant. 

Also, it is important to note that a sitting President likely cannot be indicted anyway -- Mueller himself already has stated that he doesn't have the power to indict Trump.   You'd have to remove him from office first via impeachment, then prosecute him.  And as I stated above, nothing about the pardon power impacts impeachment.

I wouldn't care what he said about it -- whether or not such a pardon would be effective ultimately would be up to the Supreme Court.  Either he has the power, or he doesn't.  I personally don't think the Supreme Court would uphold a pardon that was issued by a sitting President, subsequently impeached, that would apply to crimes for which he wasn't even charged until after he was already removed from office.  But if it was a valid exercise of Presidential power under the Constitution, then the pardon would be valid.  The problem would be poorly-drafted Constitutional provision that should be fixed.

So again...I think this is much ado about nothing.  It's just another thing about which some people are going to get their panties in a twist, that ultimately is completely irrelevant.

It’s not completely todo about nothing.  If a pardon is valid, the pardoned person cannot be prosecuted.  Since a pardon can be done prospectively, and since the only punishment flowing from a successful impeachment is removal from office, a hypothetical really evil president could commit heinous criminal acts, pardon himself, and remain scot-free even if he was summarily impeached and removed from office. 

[INVAR]

It’s not completely todo about nothing.  If a pardon is valid, the pardoned person cannot be prosecuted.  Since a pardon can be done prospectively, and since the only punishment flowing from a successful impeachment is removal from office, a hypothetical really evil president could commit heinous criminal acts, pardon himself, and remain scot-free even if he was summarily impeached and removed from office.

Exactly.  Since PRECEDENT is now LAW in this country - if an Executive got away with pardoning himself in advance of any articles of impeachment or criminal charges - and the precedent sticks because of sycophants stacked in congress and on the bench - then the fears of such a portent are more than justified.

Had Obama said what Trump tweeted, there would be nearly unanimous outrage and condemnation.  But now, because it is Trump - we get to enjoy all the justifications why the appearance of evil does not matter over legalistic minutae - as long as it's Trump making asinine and stupid statements like this.

[driftdiver]

So in your world, the mere discussion of a topic on a private message board, by people with zero legal or legislative authority over the matter, is the same as collusion with leftists to illegally overthrow a president?

@AbaraXas

How often does the mere discussion involve accusations of being a dictator?

[the_doc]

It’s not completely todo about nothing.  If a pardon is valid, the pardoned person cannot be prosecuted.  Since a pardon can be done prospectively, and since the only punishment flowing from a successful impeachment is removal from office, a hypothetical really evil president could commit heinous criminal acts, pardon himself, and remain scot-free even if he was summarily impeached and removed from office.

You just framed a perfect, obviously crushing reductio ad absurdum argument against Trump's claim (not to mention the claims of the idiot lawyers he cited).  It's a completely valid argument.  The Courts would take about 30 seconds to reach a unanimous decision against Trump.

I have been trying to support our POTUS.  But now I am reminded as to why I refused to vote in the 2016 WH election.   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I have been trying to support our POTUS.  But now I am reminded as to why I refused to vote in the 2016 WH election.   

Yep. And I want to like him, but I'll never support this kind of stuff.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It’s not completely todo about nothing.

Sure it is.  You guys are getting way ahead of yourselves, and confusing what is actually going on..  All he has done here that has you guys in such a tizzy is make a statement about what the law is.   That is not the same as if he had actually committed some heinous crime, which would be something worthy of getting upset.

If a pardon is valid, the pardoned person cannot be prosecuted.

If such a pardon is valid, then Trump's statement about him having the power to pardon himself is true.  Right?  So why would you be pissed at someone for making a true, accurate statement about what the law is?  It's just stating a fact. 

Since a pardon can be done prospectively, and since the only punishment flowing from a successful impeachment is removal from office, a hypothetical really evil president could commit heinous criminal acts, pardon himself, and remain scot-free even if he was summarily impeached and removed from office.

But again, you're confusing him actually committing a heinous act and pardoning himself, with him saying that he would have the legal right to do that under the Constitution.  Those are two different things.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You just framed a perfect, obviously crushing reductio ad absurdum argument against Trump's claim (not to mention the claims of the idiot lawyers he cited).  It's a completely valid argument.  The Courts would take about 30 seconds to reach a unanimous decision against Trump.

In which case, he and his lawyers (although they are hardly the first to argue this) claiming that he has the power to pardon himself is completely harmless, because if he actually attempted to use it, a court would say his pardon is of no effect.  So his statement itself (as opposed to actually committing something horrible and then trying to get away with it) is a big, fat nothing.

Right?

[ABX]

@AbaraXas

How often does the mere discussion involve accusations of being a dictator?

It holds the same weight - none, just discussion.

But it is very different than directly accusing members here of taking part in a criminal conspiracy (note that you spoke directly to members: "You NTs and liberals..." so it wasn't just a rhetorical statement". )

[the_doc]

In which case, he and his lawyers (although they are hardly the first to argue this) claiming that he has the power to pardon himself is completely harmless, because if he actually attempted to use it, a court would say his pardon is of no effect.  So it's a big, fat nothing.

Right?

Right--except that his moronic claim, struck down so quickly, would support the leftist narrative that he is a dangerous man who believes he is above every law.  Therein consists the really bad news concerning his tweet. 

[aligncare]

@Maj. Bill Martin
Because impeachment and dictator are the talking points of the day.

The crime of Russian collusion was from the beginning, a ruse, an insurance policy. Its purpose was not criminal prosecution but political damage, though finding unrelated crimes were a bonus and ancillary to democrats goal of impeachment. With no underlying crime, their purpose now is to hurt the republicans and President Trump in the midterms through a thousand cuts and so make impeachment more likely should democrats gain a majority.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Right--except that his moronic claim, struck down so quickly, would support the leftist narrative that he is a dangerous man who believes he is above every law.  Therein consists the really bad news concerning his tweet.

Wait a minute.

The only way this would even get in front of the courts in the first place is if 1) Trump committed some criminal act for which he pardoned himself, 2) Trump is then impeached and removed from office, and 3) He is then prosecuted anyway, asserts the pardon as a defense, and the issue then goes into the court system.  At that point -- he's already been impeached and removed -- the "leftist narrative" about him is pretty much irrelevant.

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.

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. 

[bilo]

The USSC has no say in the matter. Read the Constitution. The President right to pardon is unconstrained except for impeachment. The USSC does not rule the county.

 

Thank You!

In this head long rush to "get Trump for something" people aren't recognizing there is a constitutional process. I'm sure a big part of the reason they are ignoring the clearly defined process is because they can't get the results they want if they follow it. Also, the unintended consequences for not following the prescribed constitutional process would be a neutering of the executive office, since a POTUS could be dragged into court for any proceeding and would not have time to fulfill his duties.

[driftdiver]

The crime of Russian collusion was from the beginning, a ruse, an insurance policy. Its purpose was not criminal prosecution but political damage, though finding unrelated crimes were a bonus and ancillary to democrats goal of impeachment. With no underlying crime, their purpose now is to hurt the republicans and President Trump in the midterms through a thousand cuts and so make impeachment more likely should democrats gain a majority.

@aligncare
Rather then use the word impeachment, call it what it is, the overthrow of a duly elected President through lies and conspiracy.   Regardless of Trumps twitter habits or language he used on a bus 20 years ago, forcing the President from office through these methods is very dangerous precedent.  ANYONE who supports that action is in the same category in my view.

[INVAR]

In which case, he and his lawyers (although they are hardly the first to argue this) claiming that he has the power to pardon himself is completely harmless, because if he actually attempted to use it, a court would say his pardon is of no effect.  So his statement itself (as opposed to actually committing something horrible and then trying to get away with it) is a big, fat nothing.

Right?

Not in politics. 

In an atmosphere where 'the seriousness of the charge' is more important than evidence to craft public opinion, the fact Trump cannot avoid the appearance of evil and merely adds gasoline to the flames is beyond stupid on his part.

I'm more intrigued by the double-standard from those who would have gone berserk had Obama said this (and rightfully so) versus all the justifications and Trumpsplaining going on for why this is a big fat nothing burger.

Perception is reality - ESPECIALLY in politics.

Trump and his fanbase are simply sabotaging their own with this 'It's Okay when WE DO IT' crap.  He isn't going to be winning anyone over to his side with the kind of tweets and statements made by Trump and Rudy in the last couple days.  Just the opposite.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The USSC has no say in the matter. Read the Constitution. The President right to pardon is unconstrained except for impeachment. The USSC does not rule the county.

Well....it's not our readings of the Constitution that ultimately will determine how the legal system proceeds.  It's the Supreme Court's rulings that ultimately will matter, whether you believe that should be the case or not.

As it happens, I don't agree with your reading anyway.  I think the question of whether a President can pardon himself is sui generis, and would be viewed that way by the Court.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Not in politics. 

In an atmosphere where 'the seriousness of the charge' is more important than evidence to craft public opinion, the fact Trump cannot avoid the appearance of evil and merely adds gasoline to the flames is beyond stupid on his part.

Look, if you want to argue that it was politically stupid of Trump's lawyers to make that argument, fine.  I think that's a reasonable point.  But there's a lot of discussion here that goes beyond it being a self-inflicted bit of purely political stupidity, to being the prelude to actual dictatorship.  In substance -- as opposed to purely political considerations -- it's a big fat nothing.

I'm more intrigued by the double-standard from those who would have gone berserk had Obama said this (and rightfully so) versus all the justifications and Trumpsplaining going on for why this is a big fat nothing burger.

Well, I assume you'd include me in there, but I think you're misperceiving my point.  My point is that in the event a Presidential self-pardon actually happens, the real
issue is going to be the underlying act that was committed, not the lame attempt to self-pardon.  Also, I'm a lawyer, so I don't get offended by someone's statement of what they think the law is.  I may laugh at them, but I don't get offended by the argument.

Trump and his fanbase are simply sabotaging their own with this 'It's Okay when WE DO IT' crap.  He isn't going to be winning anyone over to his side with the kind of tweets and statements made by Trump and Rudy in the last couple days.  Just the opposite.

It's nice to see you so concerned about what Trump may be doing to his poll numbers!

[INVAR]

@Once-Ler @INVAR
You NTs and leftists are the ones guilty of a conspiracy and of illegally trying to remove a duly elected President.   Talk about collusion.

Rather then use the word impeachment, call it what it is, the overthrow of a duly elected President through lies and conspiracy....ANYONE who supports that action is in the same category in my view.

This is exactly why I consider people like you to be a more direct, clear and present danger to what remains of our liberties than from the Leftists.

Being declared Conspirators and Guilty of treason without so much as a trial or evidence beyond your declarations that our opinions are sedition is far more egregious than the typical crap we get flung flung at us from the monkeys on the Left.

Perhaps your clairvoyance of our motives and intentions will serve you well in the Pre-Crime division of the Thought Police.

[aligncare]

@aligncare
Rather then use the word impeachment, call it what it is, the overthrow of a duly elected President through lies and conspiracy.   Regardless of Trumps twitter habits or language he used on a bus 20 years ago, forcing the President from office through these methods is very dangerous precedent.  ANYONE who supports that action is in the same category in my view.

Agree.

In my opinion republican and conservative NeverTrumpers hate Trump so much that it blinds them to what’s happening or to how they’re being used to gin up general disapproval with every breathless media leak and lie. Fears of a dictatorship is just the latest example of this hysteria.

[edpc]

Trump's tweet wasn't how this story broke -- it was Mueller's office is who leaked it in the first place.

Are you sure about that?  When the Mueller questions were leaked, Trump called it ‘disgraceful’ and everyone blamed the Mueller team.  Turns out, it was from the Trump camp.


The Times reports that Mueller’s questions were leaked by “a person outside Mr. Trump’s legal team.” This doesn’t preclude it being someone close to Trump who is not on that team or that his team may have arranged the leak via someone else.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/05/01/muellers-questions-for-trump-have-leaked-here-are-three-big-takeaways/?utm_term=.01606154b653

[Oceander]

Sure it is.  You guys are getting way ahead of yourselves, and confusing what is actually going on..  All he has done here that has you guys in such a tizzy is make a statement about what the law is.   That is not the same as if he had actually committed some heinous crime, which would be something worthy of getting upset.

If such a pardon is valid, then Trump's statement about him having the power to pardon himself is true.  Right?  So why would you be pissed at someone for making a true, accurate statement about what the law is?  It's just stating a fact. 

But again, you're confusing him actually committing a heinous act and pardoning himself, with him saying that he would have the legal right to do that under the Constitution.  Those are two different things.

Just to be clear, I ain’t that upset.  To me it’s just another non sequitur from Trump, and certainly not that much of a doozy.  It does, however, suggest to me a certain quiet desperation amongst his inner sanctum. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Fears of a dictatorship is just the latest example of this hysteria.

That's been my point in this thread.  The argument raised by his lawyers in that letter to Mueller may be politically tone-deaf, and dumb for that reason.   But you've got people saying that the mere making of that argument in a legal letter is a sign that Trump is trying to create a dictatorship, and that is simply ridiculous.  And the people making that argument are either not thinking it through, or a deliberately trying to push a false narrative to get him removed from office simply for making that statement.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Just to be clear, I ain’t that upset.  To me it’s just another non sequitur from Trump, and certainly not that much of a doozy.  It does, however, suggest to me a certain quiet desperation amongst his inner sanctum.

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.

[INVAR]

But there's a lot of discussion here that goes beyond it being a self-inflicted bit of purely political stupidity, to being the prelude to actual dictatorship.  In substance -- as opposed to purely political considerations -- it's a big fat nothing.

Well since Congress has essentially helped to create a defacto Imperial Executive under Obama and surrender their own constitutional obligations to the Executive during his tenure, I think it is absolutely vital to be concerned about the MINDSET of a person in that office that telegraphs intentions that can be rightfully be perceived as a prelude and portent to rule by decree.  I do not care what party or person sits in that office that makes such statements that will be perceived as such.

My point is that in the event a Presidential self-pardon actually happens, the realissue is going to be the underlying act that was committed, not the lame attempt to self-pardon.

You mean the self-pardon that will come BEFORE any articles are filed or proceedings being attempted?  Again, perception is reality - especially in politics and all Trump has done is hand the Democrats and the Establishment Statists more rope they will use to hang him in the minds of the public.  Unless Trump WANTS this circus to happen for the ratings and all the upheaval it will cause, which is entirely possible since it seems this guy thrives on chaos.

It's nice to see you so concerned about what Trump may be doing to his poll numbers!

I'm not.  I'm simply discussing perceptions being reality in the minds of the vast, vast, vast majority of people who do not care about the legal minutiae of whether or not Trump can legally pardon himself. Already on this board this morning I have read comments of Trump supporters that opine that they are either regretting their vote or abandoning their hopes for Trump as he and his Admin continue to make stupid and asinine statements.