"I have the absolute right to pardon myself" - Trump

[Starlight]

Today Trump tweeted:

As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!

Obviously we can note that it is not true at all that numerous legal scholars have said the president can pardon himself. Legal experts seem to range from "you've got to be kidding me" to "it's never been tested in court, but I doubt it would work".

But we seem to be getting to the stage where Trump's ready to try something extreme like this. Do you guys support self-pardoning?

[KingsGambit]

Do you guys support self-pardoning?

No.

[Yttrium]

I think it would be fun to see a test case.

However, the president can't issue a pardon for an impeachment, so there's that.

[KingsGambit]

Stating this is not a good look for Trump. It comes across as sounding like he's expecting to be charged with something, although I really think he's just considering it as a hypothetical.

Then again, nothing he says ever seems to hurt him

[Terraceth]

Well, the only explicit prohibition the Constitution puts on pardoning is the case of impeachment. So while the pardon can't save you from getting tossed out by congress, it's ambiguous as to whether you can exempt yourself (criminally) from whatever led to impeachment, i.e. you can get kicked out, but wouldn't face legal issues as a result.

Although if it were possible to self-pardon for criminal acts, one is left wondering why Nixon didn't bother to do that before resigning. He only got saved because Ford decided to pardon him after taking office himself.

I still think we need to put more restrictions on the pardon ability so it isn't as unilateral as it is, like maybe requiring the Speaker of the House to agree or something like that.

[psstein]

I'm not sure I support it or whether it would hold up. Then again, it's one of the executive's least restricted powers, so I suppose it's hypothetically possible.

As for impeachment, impeachment is more of a political tool than anything else.

[Starlight]

Presumably Mueller's team is just going to bring charges via the states rather than the federal system, so Trump's pardon power won't be applicable?

Let's assume for a moment that Mueller wants to bring charges against Trump and his associates. What do people think should happen?

1. Nobody is above the law, so Mueller's team takes it to court, and Trump and his family and lawyer and associates defend themselves and get found innocent or guilty like normal. Presumably impeachment proceedings begin if Trump is found guilty in court.

2. Trump himself can't be indicted because he's president, but Mueller can prosecute his family and lawyer and associates for their own criminal actions.
(a) And Mueller should take a page from James Comey's speech on the bad actions of Hillary Clinton, and give a "Trump has been a bad man, naughty" speech.
(b) And Congress should consider impeachment proceedings and be handed the evidence by Mueller.

3. Trump is President so he pardons everyone.

4. The Mueller investigation is fatally flawed in and of itself. It should be disbanded, all evidence it has collected should be shredded and burned without being read by anyone. Nobody should be allowed to know all the list of Trump's wrongdoings that Mueller has compiled. Mueller should be prosecuted for some reason or another. Nobody should ever speak of Dictator Trump's wrongdoings again on pain of prosecution themselves.

I still think we need to put more restrictions on the pardon ability so it isn't as unilateral as it is, like maybe requiring the Speaker of the House to agree or something like that.

Personally I would remove entirely the presidential pardon power. It seems to get abused rather than used.

[Mountain Man]

Stating this is not a good look for Trump. It comes across as sounding like he's expecting to be charged with something, although I really think he's just considering it as a hypothetical.

"I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?"

Yes, he's exploring it as a hypothetical.

[KingsGambit]

Personally I would remove entirely the presidential pardon power. It seems to get abused rather than used.

It has its place. The Matthew Charles case would be an apt use.

[Starlight]

It has its place. The Matthew Charles case would be an apt use.

I don't mind there being channels for the granting of leniency, e.g. parole boards, judges, etc. But US history seems to me to show that giving Presidents that power just makes it all too political. I think any leniency process needs to be bureaucratic rather than politicized.

[KingsGambit]

I don't mind there being channels for the granting of leniency, e.g. parole boards, judges, etc. But US history seems to me to show that giving Presidents that power just makes it all too political. I think any leniency process needs to be bureaucratic rather than politicized.

How do you feel about this on, say, a state level? In capital punishment cases, when all legal options are exhausted, occasionally a governor will commute a sentence shortly before execution. As somebody who would rather risk letting the guilty go free than risking incarcerating the innocent, I'm willing to live with the risk of bad pardons (Bill Clinton of Marc Rich, or any of the non-Jack Johnson pardons Trump is talking about in the last week) to provide an avenue of relief when the court system fails to deliver justice.

[Cow Poke]

Today Trump tweeted:

As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!

Obviously we can note that it is not true at all that numerous legal scholars have said the president can pardon himself. Legal experts seem to range from "you've got to be kidding me" to "it's never been tested in court, but I doubt it would work".

But we seem to be getting to the stage where Trump's ready to try something extreme like this. Do you guys support self-pardoning?

I think it's nutty, but the only exception to presidential pardon is in the case of impeachment - that's the remedy for presidential misconduct.

[Starlight]

How do you feel about this on, say, a state level?

I don't feel I know enough about how it typically works on a state level to have strong opinions.

In capital punishment cases, when all legal options are exhausted, occasionally a governor will commute a sentence shortly before execution.

I am against capital punishment except for extreme crimes of the sort that get tried in the International Criminal Court (genocide, mass slavery, etc). So while I approve of the goal of preventing executions, I don't like the idea that it's up to the whims / politics of the governor involved.

As somebody who would rather risk letting the guilty go free than risking incarcerating the innocent

Hmm, but taken simplistically that principle would amount to "pardon everyone, punish no one". The better idea would seem to be to aim to have a justice system that works as well as possible. Trying to 'correct' the justice system by having politicians randomly pardoning people based on political pressure doesn't seem a good idea at all... it's like adding a dice roll to the sentencing process, and it makes for random justice not better justice. I am fine with cases being able to be submitted for review by an independent board of legal experts etc and them able to correct injustices being part of the legal system though. But that is a matter of making the system itself as good as possible.

[NorrinRadd]

Turley identifies himself as one of those "many" scholars who believe POTUS can self-pardon, but believes it would be foolish. He also believes POTUS *can* be indicted while in office -- a point on which another "many" scholars strongly disagree with him.

Dersh disagrees strongly. On the matter of indictment while in office, he agrees with "most" experts that the answer is "No." On the matter of self-pardon, he says that no one knows, no one CAN know, and implies that anyone who claims any degree of certainty one way or the other is dishonest or a fool.

Something I haven't been able to pin down: Did that provocative Trump-tweet come out of nowhere, or did it follow some sort of talking-head speculation or witness-leading interview?

[KingsGambit]

Something I haven't been able to pin down: Did that provocative Trump-tweet come out of nowhere, or did it follow some sort of talking-head speculation or witness-leading interview?

Giuliani said the other day that the president has that right and people threw a fit.