Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

laripu

What is the pardon power?

Recommended Posts

According to Article 2 of the Constitution, the president "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment". (My emphasis, of course.)

 

He can pardon himself for any federal crime, except when it is for impeachment. But our fearless Cheeto has no power to grant a pardon for any state crime. New York State tax offenses? Dirty money laundered through foreign banks to avoid paying NY state tax? Nope, nope, nope, and nuh-uh. State laws in any state where there is a Trump-owned property are laws for which he can be indicted and convicted and can't pardon himself.

 

Precedent: Paula Jones was able to sue President Clinton. If a private individual can bring a case against a sitting president, so can a State prosecuter.

 

As an appetizer, (😉😊) here are NY state money laundering laws:

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article470.htm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in Canada and we are governed via a Parliamentary Democracy. Americans always bragged about their 'democracy' and some mocked us in Canada because the Queen is the titular head of state represented by the Governor General. That being said it is important to note that neither the Queen no the Governor General has any powers allocated to them by the Constitution. All power and authority rests with the House of Commons.

Trump has shown the world that the USA is not a Democracy any longer and probably never was. You live in a Republic where the President is all powerful. Trump has reduced the Congress and Senate to what they really are - nothing. Trump passes laws, starts wars, cancels laws....does what he wants and there is nothing Americans can do to stop him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yukon said:

Trump has shown the world that the USA is not a Democracy any longer and probably never was. You live in a Republic where the President is all powerful. Trump has reduced the Congress and Senate to what they really are - nothing

 

Trump is a Republican with a majority Republican Senate, House of Representatives and Supreme Court.  Since Trump is such a dominant personality, he might appear to be leading them around by the nose.  What is going on is that the executive branch is mostly in accord with the legislative branch and the Supreme court. 

 

Wait until the mid-term congressional elections.  There is a likelihood that the House of Representatives will flip majority Democrat.  If that happens, look to see some real resistance the the Trump agenda.

 

4 hours ago, Yukon said:

starts wars

 

This is a different situation.   The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.  The president is given the position of Commander-In-Chief.  But sadly, Congress has all but abdicated their war power to the president.  This has happened largely because senators and representatives don't want to risk losing voter support by voting for war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, laripu said:

According to Article 2 of the Constitution, the president "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment"

 

Rudy Giuliani is claiming king-like powers for Trump, claiming that because of his position, Trump can get away with nearly anything.  The other day he said Trump would be within the law if he murdered James Comey, the former FBI head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bludog said:

 

Rudy Giuliani is claiming king-like powers for Trump, claiming that because of his position, Trump can get away with nearly anything.  The other day he said Trump would be within the law if he murdered James Comey, the former FBI head.

 

Actually he said that Trump could pardon himself for that, but that's false. Murder is also a state crime. NY state could then indict and try Trump, presumably in absentia. I say that because: who would be able to arrest him? There'd be a standoff between the state police and Trump's secret service. Of course the state could find a way to seize his property within the state to try to force compliance. I'm sure there's a way for them to do that, and there are probably precedents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, laripu said:

 

Actually he said that Trump could pardon himself for that, but that's false. Murder is also a state crime. NY state could then indict and try Trump, presumably in absentia. I say that because: who would be able to arrest him? There'd be a standoff between the state police and Trump's secret service. Of course the state could find a way to seize his property within the state to try to force compliance. I'm sure there's a way for them to do that, and there are probably precedents.

 

What an ignominious, spectacle it would be if that happened.  The whole world would be watching with shock and amusement.  It's the kind of scenario previously associated with third world nations only.  Then again, we've slid so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 7:34 PM, bludog said:

It's the kind of scenario previously associated with third world nations only.

 

Maybe Italy, under Silvio "bunga bunga" Berlusconi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, laripu said:

Maybe Italy, under Silvio "bunga bunga" Berlusconi.

 

Yes.  It is amazing how reminiscent Berlusconi's behavior is to Trump's.  And Italy is considered a First World country, to boot.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8400591/Silvio-Berlusconi-and-the-bunga-bunga-parties-in-pictures.html

Silvio Berlusconi and the 'bunga bunga' parties in pictures

Barbara Guerra pictured during one of the infamous bunga bunga parties
 
 
 

This "policewoman" is among the first photographs to emerge from Silvio Berlusconi's infamous "bunga bunga" parties. The television showgirl Barbara Guerra, 32, is pictured wearing a tight-fitting police uniform, provocatively dangling a pair of handcuffs.

 
 
 
       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coincidentally - Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's, yet you'd think they're a lot larger when they have a toy president of the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 7:46 PM, laripu said:

According to Article 2 of the Constitution, the president "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment". (My emphasis, of course.)

 

He can pardon himself for any federal crime, except when it is for impeachment. 

😉😊

 

 

 

Nonsense.   No one in their right mind would argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the President to be able to commit any federal crime with impunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DemoMan said:

 

Nonsense.   No one in their right mind would argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the President to be able to commit any federal crime with impunity.

 

Of course they didn't, which is why they made provision for impeachment. The President can pardon anyone, including himself, for a federal crime, but can still be impeached for that crime, and can't pardon himself for that.

 

All that says is that the president is effectively immune from federal prosecution except for impeachment. And they did that because they didn't want frivolous prosecutions to become a political tool. And they knew exactly what they were doing because they also made impeachment the only way a president could be removed from office.

 

Now consider: if the president could be convicted of a federal offense, and was not impeached (by an ultra-friendly ultra-political Congress), you might have a sitting president in prison. I contend that this isn't what they intended.

 

They intended that the only way to get rid of a sitting president is to impeach in the House and convict in the Senate. Not through the federal court system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, laripu said:

 

Of course they didn't, which is why they made provision for impeachment. The President can pardon anyone, including himself, for a federal crime,

 

Non sequitur. There is no way the framers intended to give the President the power to pardon HIMSELF.  It not being specifically spelled out that way does not prove that he has that right.

 

It's about the INTENT of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DemoMan said:

 

Non sequitur. There is no way the framers intended to give the President the power to pardon HIMSELF.  It not being specifically spelled out that way does not prove that he has that right.

 

It's about the INTENT of the Constitution.

 

I don't understand what you're saying. Where's the non sequitur? Pardoning himself for a federal crime doesn't mean he can't be impeached/convicted for that crime. The Congress isn't bound, with respect to impeachment, by his pardon of himself.

 

The Constitution is a collection of words and isn't a human or animal, so it's incapable of having intent. The framers are dead so we can't ascertain their intent. We can guess about it, but in the ends the words are clear: he "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment". It doesn't say who he can or can't pardon. It says what kinds of offenses he can pardon.

 

Take, for example, the Logan Act. It "criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States".

Since Trump had not yet been elected, he was a private citizen. You could say that Trump Jr is guilty of that for getting into a meeting about Senator Clinton's emails, or about changing the adoption rules in exchange for revoking the Magnitsky Act. Either way, it's a violation. If Trump Sr was in on the affair, he'd also be guilty of violating the Logan Act, as a private citizen at that time.

 

You don't unseat a sitting president in federal court because of a crime. You can only remove him from office if he's been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. The language is pretty clear and the intent is invisible.

 

Once removed from office, an ex-president no longer has the power to pardon. I wonder whether an ex-president's corrupt pardon of himself while in office gives him immunity after being removed from office. I suspect in a case like that new precedent might have to be made by the courts, and I believe that the pardon made cannot be revoked.

 

But look, suppose Trump pardoned himself for a crime or set of crimes, then was impeached and convicted. Don't you think they'd find a whole host of unrelated crimes for which he had not issued himself a pardon? As dirty as he is, and as incompetent, I'm certain he can't keep track of all the wrong-doing. And even if he issued a blanket pardon, after he's out of office he'll certainly do something new not covered by the pardon - as corrupt as he is. As an example consider Martin Shkreli. If you're bad enough, they'll find a way to get you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, laripu said:

 

I don't understand what you're saying. Where's the non sequitur?

 

 

 

 

 

The non sequitur is your position that because it isn't specifically DENIED in the Constitution, that somehow that means that it is specifically ALLOWED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DemoMan said:

 

The non sequitur is your position that because it isn't specifically DENIED in the Constitution, that somehow that means that it is specifically ALLOWED.

 

Well, the power IS specifically allowed - so the fact that it isn't denied to use on himself is relevant.

 

This is why it seems to me and it seems a lot of legal analysts also say that there is a case he has the power, even though it wasn't intended - but that it's not entirely clear either. Two things that do seem clear are that there's enough gray area for trump to jump at the chance to try, and that the Supreme Court would ultimately decide.

 

It seems likely that whether he can or not, the issue would play a role in the choice to impeach and remove him. But it might by him some protection from prosecution for crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump has been having sexual intercourse daughter on a regular basis for at least 11years. Mueller is going to charge him with infanticide. Trump cannot pardon himself because no one can judge themselves. Unless of course Trump is above the law which would make him a king.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Yukon said:

Trump cannot pardon himself because no one can judge themselves. Unless of course Trump is above the law which would make him a king.  

 

He IS 'above the law' in the sense that the pardon power undoes the law for federal crimes at least against others. And he is accountable to the impeachment power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

 

He IS 'above the law' in the sense that the pardon power undoes the law for federal crimes at least against others. And he is accountable to the impeachment power.

What the fcuk are you talking about ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DemoMan said:

 

The non sequitur is your position that because it isn't specifically DENIED in the Constitution, that somehow that means that it is specifically ALLOWED.

 

The constitution is specific on what isn't allowed: only federal crimes, not others, and not on impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yukon said:

You are a sad, stupid, ignorant, and pathetic people. Fools ! War ;loving yet cowardly fools. You relish the thought of war, it is like sexual arousal to you,  yet your pathetic country only attacks women and children.  Your military is manned by Negros and is commanded by lesbian women. Defeated by peasant gooks in Vietnam and ultimately driven form the "gook" country like the yellow cowardly dogs you have become. Sad. This once great and powerful nation that was the USA is nothing but a shell of its former self. The yellow race, China, has overtaken your pathetic, wretched country. Your day is done oh once great USA you are but the excrement of a dying dog.  

 

The use of this kind charged invective, complete with false, bigoted claims, in the Liberal's Only Room is entirely misplaced.  Every regular in this room opposes the  atrocious waging of war against the weak and helpless that the US has been engaged in since WWII.  We are all in favor of universal healthcare.  Everyone here deplores the plutocratic takeover of government and its accompanying income inequality of the last 35 years.  There is no one in this room who is sexist, racist or bigoted.

 

Not one person in this room approves of Trump, his gang of miscreants or his backward policies.  In fact virtually all the people who regularly post in this room look forward to a time when war is replaced with domestic improvement, free education, healthcare and a strong social safety net. 

 

Your rant, such as it is, would have been far more appropriate, directed at some of the more extreme reactionaries in NHB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yukon said:

You are a sad, stupid, ignorant, and pathetic people. Fools ! War ;loving yet cowardly fools. You relish the thought of war, it is like sexual arousal to you,  yet your pathetic country only attacks women and children.  Your military is manned by Negros and is commanded by lesbian women. Defeated by peasant gooks in Vietnam and ultimately driven form the "gook" country like the yellow cowardly dogs you have become. Sad. This once great and powerful nation that was the USA is nothing but a shell of its former self. The yellow race, China, has overtaken your pathetic, wretched country. Your day is done oh once great USA you are but the excrement of a dying dog.  

 

You say that Americans are "stupid, ignorant". Does that include the Nobel Prize winners in the sciences? What about Pulitzer Prize winners? And what about immigrants to the US? Do they lose their natural intelligence on gaining citizenship?

 

Or are you making a stupid and prejydiced generalization?

 

Why do you dislike Negros and lesbians as soldiers? Do you think they're incapable of pressing a button to fire a missile or operating an infrared sensor to see an enemy?

 

Is the excrement if a dying dog somehow worse than a regular healthy dog poop? I'm asking because that metaphor is ... mmm... how to say it? mmm.... Literarily inept? ... Nah ... Stupid.

 

Yukon, have you been eating to much yellow snow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If and when Trump pardons himself, he will, in effect, have impeached himself, since a pardon requires an admission of guilt.  Congress would have no choice but to impeach him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, bludog said:

If and when Trump pardons himself, he will, in effect, have impeached himself, since a pardon requires an admission of guilt.  Congress would have no choice but to impeach him.

 

Sadly, this is not correct.

 

Congress CAN impeach a president for 'high crimes and misdemeanors', whatever they decide that means, but it does not mean they are required to.

 

The only thing that would be in the way of their just saying they choose not to (and whatever lies about justifying it) is the voter pressure politically.

And they've already shown their willingness to screw the constitutional duties and spit in the face of voters for their political benefit such as with not voting on Merrick Garland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Craig234 said:

Congress CAN impeach a president for 'high crimes and misdemeanors', whatever they decide that means, but it does not mean they are required to.

 

I agree with this.

 

1 hour ago, Craig234 said:

And they've already shown their willingness to screw the constitutional duties and spit in the face of voters for their political benefit such as with not voting on Merrick Garland.

 

That was the Senate, and impeachment is done in the House, but your point is still valid. Nunez would piss on the constitution if it helped his golden god evade justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, laripu said:

That was the Senate, and impeachment is done in the House, but your point is still valid. Nunez would piss on the constitution if it helped his golden god evade justice.

 

Ya, but they're largely the same in their behavior on this; and the Senate is required to remove the president once the house impeaches him, 2/3 in fact, a very high bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...