Mark Levin: If Elected, Trump Can Pardon Himself from State Charges, Too

[mystery-ak]

Mark Levin: If Elected, Trump Can Pardon Himself from State Charges, Too

Joel B. Pollak 16 Aug 2023

Conservative radio host and litigator Mark Levin argued this week that former President Donald Trump can pardon himself from state charges if he wins the presidency, under existing Department of Justice policy and the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

Levin has outlined his argument several times on the Mark Levin Show. Conventional wisdom holds that the president’s pardon power does not extend to the state level. But Levin argues that unique circumstances allow a president to pardon himself.

https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1691561003765367053

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/16/mark-levin-if-elected-trump-can-pardon-himself-from-state-charges-too/

[mystery-ak]

 

Trump Faces ‘Pardon-proof’ Majority in Georgia

President Donald Trump cannot easily obtain a pardon in Georgia if he is convicted on one or more of the 13 counts unveiled against him in Fulton County on Monday, because the state’s governor does not have the power to grant pardons, as elsewhere.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/16/trump-faces-pardon-proof-majority-in-georgia-case/

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

LOL yeah... I dunno about that...

Imagine if it was a Democrat saying these sort of things.

Constitutional crisis waiting to happen IMO.

[Kamaji]

Levin is smoking something whacky.  The President's pardon power is granted by - and thus limited by - the Constitution, which provides  “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

Ergo, no power over offenses against a State.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Trump Faces ‘Pardon-proof’ Majority in Georgia

President Donald Trump cannot easily obtain a pardon in Georgia if he is convicted on one or more of the 13 counts unveiled against him in Fulton County on Monday, because the state’s governor does not have the power to grant pardons, as elsewhere.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/16/trump-faces-pardon-proof-majority-in-georgia-case/

Do we have a majority or even better a supermajority in Georgia?

[kevindavis007]

Levin is smoking something whacky.  The President's pardon power is granted by - and thus limited by - the Constitution, which provides  “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

Ergo, no power over offenses against a State.

Mr. Constittuion should know better.

[Kamaji]

Mr. Constittuion should know better.

That's what 28 USC §1442 - the removal statute - is for; to take criminal as well as civil cases out of local state courts so that a federal court can review and determine if the state prosecution is being used for improper purposes.

But as far as the power to pardon for state criminal offenses - that power doesn't exist.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Levin is smoking something whacky.  The President's pardon power is granted by - and thus limited by - the Constitution, which provides  “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

Ergo, no power over offenses against a State.

 

It's a terrible argument.

[corbe]

Mark Levin REFUTES Jonathan Turley over a president being able to pardon himself from state convictions

AUG. 16, 2023 6:37 PM BY THE RIGHT SCOOP


Mark Levin argues that a president can pardon himself from state convictions because of the Constitution’s supremacy clause. He’ll explain it more in his refutation, so I’ll let you read it there.

But in Newsweek’s article about it, Turley disagreed with Levin:

His comments come in opposition to the view of other legal scholars like Jonathan Turley, who say presidential pardoning powers do not extend to state convictions.

“This novel argument runs against the federalism grain of the Constitution,” Turley told Newsweek about Levin’s argument, noting that “The text and history of the pardon clause strongly militate against such interpretation extending the federal authority to state crimes.”

Although he disagreed with Levin’s view of pardoning powers, Turley added that there could be other “countervailing constitutional considerations” that could be weighed by federal courts.

Levin responded to this on Twitter, explaining in detail why he takes this position.

<..snip..>

https://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-refutes-jonathan-turley-over-a-president-being-able-to-pardon-himself-from-state-convictions/

[Kamaji]

This is nothing more than a Roe v. Wade type emanations and penumbra argument, but even worse because it flies in the teeth of the actual words of the Constitution.

The Constitution expressly grants the president the power to pardon for federal offenses.  That shows that the Founders were actively considering the extent to which the president should have the power to pardon, and the necessary implication from the language that was adopted and ratified is that the president does not have power to pardon for state offenses, because the Founders omitted that power.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Levin responded to this on Twitter, explaining in detail why he takes this position.

Because he's a mindless Trump screamer, that's why.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Emanations and penumbras is exactly how Levin is trying to change be the plain language of the Constitution, except the emanations and penumbra's don't come from the Constitution itself, but rather from a DOJ policy. 

First, he says:

The DOJ has taken the position under both parties that you cannot indict a sitting president because it would cripple the executive branch and make his ability to defend himself effectively impossible.

That's the emanation, and...

3. Given the DOJ's position, and the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, I would argue strongly that the idea that a president cannot be indicted at the federal level because it would cripple the executive branch, but can be indicted by local DAs, would have exactly the same effect as a federal indictment, except there are thousands of local and state prosecutors making the crippling of a president even more likely.

...There's the penumbra.  I'd point out that even if Levine's argument is correct, it certainly would not require the president to have the unilateral decision to prevent his own indictment. Rather, the courts could adjudicate that limited issue of presidential immunity while in office.

His reasoning then gets even worse:

4. FURTHERMORE, if indicted and even convicted, the idea that a president cannot pardon himself from state charges is absurd, again, not only because of the Supremacy Clause, but the same considerations that apply to a federal conviction would obviously apply to a state conviction.

What Levine is missing is that the problem he identifies - the President being unable to perform his duties if convicted - can be solved by simply having the courts stay the prosecution until he is out of office.  That's almost certainly the route they would take, and makes far more a sense than the lunacy of the president having unfettered power under the Constitution to pardon himself for any crimes he might commit in office.

If you take Levine's argument at face value, the president could rape and murder women with impunity because he could immediately pardon himself.

[corbe]

   Only in the Trump Era can we be discussing whether a President can pardon himself or not.  What a $hit show this has become.

[Kamaji]

   Only in the Trump Era can we be discussing whether a President can pardon himself or not.  What a $hit show this has become.

Yup.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Emanations and penumbras is exactly how Levin is trying to change be the plain language of the Constitution, except the emanations and penumbra's don't come from the Constitution itself, but rather from a DOJ policy. 

First, he says:

That's the emanation, and...

...There's the penumbra.  I'd point out that even if Levine's argument is correct, it certainly would not require the president to have the unilateral decision to prevent his own indictment. Rather, the courts could adjudicate that limited issue of presidential immunity while in office.

His reasoning then gets even worse:

What Levine is missing is that the problem he identifies - the President being unable to perform his duties if convicted - can be solved by simply having the courts stay the prosecution until he is out of office.  That's almost certainly the route they would take, and makes far more a sense than the lunacy of the president having unfettered power under the Constitution to pardon himself for any crimes he might commit in office.

If you take Levine's argument at face value, the president could rape and murder women with impunity because he could immediately pardon himself.

Doesn't matter anyway, the USSC will never go for it. What Levin thinks is irrelevant.

But what happens if Trump is elected and then convicted at the state level? That's a constitutional crisis right there.

[cato potatoe]

Do we have a majority or even better a supermajority in Georgia?

A slim majority.  The GOP held 2/3 of the General Assembly when Trump came down the escalator.  Also 12 of the 16 congressional seats, including both US senators.
Kemp and Raffensperger had semi-comfortable wins, but pretty much every politician within commuting distance of Atlanta wants Trump to disappear.

[DefiantMassRINO]

That remains to be debated.

A President that can pardon himself from state convictions is a monarch.  The Founders would not be cool with that.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Doesn't matter anyway, the USSC will never go for it. What Levin thinks is irrelevant.

But what happens if Trump is elected and then convicted at the state level? That's a constitutional crisis right there.

I think that if that were to happen, the state would not be permitted to enforce the conviction until after he left office.   Federal courts would take care of that.

That has to be the result, otherwise it would wipe out the Constitutional principle that the president can only be removed from office via impeachment.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That remains to be debated.

A President that can pardon himself from state convictions is a monarch.  The Founders would not be cool with that.

The funny thing is that I'd guess a common law deep dive would lead to the conclusion that even a King cannot pardon himself.