Trump exploring options to pardon his family and himself.

[Breccia]

just remember, looking into legal options is not an admission of guilt

Which is odd, because
1) WH lawyers denied it happened
and within 24 hours
2) Trump suddenly appears to think he's an expert on the subject. Yes, in a tweet, where else.

Let's run down those options.
1+2 both true: Trump, somehow, knew all about pardoning and did not need to ask his legal team. For someone who avoids doing his job, has no legal or governing experience, and actively avoids learning about things, this seems highly unlikely. There would have to be a reason Trump is so specifically studied up on pardoning.
1 true, 2 false: Makes sense, Trump being ill-advised on a subject yet tweeting about it as if it was fact because he says so is totally in character.
1 false, 2 true: The leaked story is correct.
1+2 both false: The leaked story is correct, but just as bad, Trump failed to learn anything from it. This, also, is totally in character. See also 42% unemployment and $12 health care.

At the very minimum, three of the four options involve Trump at least attempting to find out if he can pardon himself. In theory, this would involve Trump learning it would require admitting guilt if he did pardon himself. Or, his team admitting guilt if he pardoned them. Perhaps he or his legal team now realize how crippling that would be. And, yes, just learning this is not an admission of guilt. However, learning this and then refusing to rule self-pardons out as an option -- and thereby admitting that an admission of guilt is possible -- is getting a lot closer.

"Will Trump pardon himself, and therefore, admit guilt?"
"Maybe."
"So...he's not going to flat-out declare he's 100% innocent, then? He's going to officially state that him being guilty is a viable option?"
"You'll have to ask his lawyer."
"But...his lawyer says he didn't discuss that with Trump. Why would we ask him?"
"Covfefe."

The remaining option is Trump simply not knowing something and yet tweeting about it as if it is fact. That is not a redeeming character trait.

[GennGreymane]

Which is odd, because
1) WH lawyers denied it happened
and within 24 hours
2) Trump suddenly appears to think he's an expert on the subject. Yes, in a tweet, where else.

Let's run down those options.
1+2 both true: Trump, somehow, knew all about pardoning and did not need to ask his legal team. For someone who avoids doing his job, has no legal or governing experience, and actively avoids learning about things, this seems highly unlikely. There would have to be a reason Trump is so specifically studied up on pardoning.
1 true, 2 false: Makes sense, Trump being ill-advised on a subject yet tweeting about it as if it was fact because he says so is totally in character.
1 false, 2 true: The leaked story is correct.
1+2 both false: The leaked story is correct, but just as bad, Trump failed to learn anything from it. This, also, is totally in character. See also 42% unemployment and $12 health care.

At the very minimum, three of the four options involve Trump at least attempting to find out if he can pardon himself. In theory, this would involve Trump learning it would require admitting guilt if he did pardon himself. Or, his team admitting guilt if he pardoned them. Perhaps he or his legal team now realize how crippling that would be. And, yes, just learning this is not an admission of guilt. However, learning this and then refusing to rule self-pardons out as an option -- and thereby admitting that an admission of guilt is possible -- is getting a lot closer.

"Will Trump pardon himself, and therefore, admit guilt?"
"Maybe."
"So...he's not going to flat-out declare he's 100% innocent, then? He's going to officially state that him being guilty is a viable option?"
"You'll have to ask his lawyer."
"But...his lawyer says he didn't discuss that with Trump. Why would we ask him?"
"Covfefe."

The remaining option is Trump simply not knowing something and yet tweeting about it as if it is fact. That is not a redeeming character trait.

not at all redeeming for him. Its bad, and it looks bad, but its not enough to say guilt on its own. It may be enough at a lower threshold, but we are looking at potentially criminal charges in the future coming up.

Can I look up how to hide a dead body on the internet? Does this make me guilty of a murder? Even if I am a suspect? Its not enough and would depend on numerous other circumstances, but its certainly is damning. It in now way helps and along with other evidence will help greatly. On its own, it simply is not enough.

Now if he actually pardons himself....... that is an admission of guilt because... well.... you pardon people who well... you know...

[Breccia]

Can I look up how to hide a dead body on the internet?

We're dancing around semantics here. Simply put, there is no way anything about this looks good for Team Trump. The best possible option is that he's refusing to say he's 100% innocent and that he's spouting off about something he doesn't know, assuming his word won't be challenged. That's the best result: he's ill-informed, choosing not to become better informed, and making the PR worse by refusing to proclaim his innocence. That's how bad it is when that's the best case.

[GennGreymane]

We're dancing around semantics here. Simply put, there is no way anything about this looks good for Team Trump. The best possible option is that he's refusing to say he's 100% innocent and that he's spouting off about something he doesn't know, assuming his word won't be challenged. That's the best result: he's ill-informed, choosing not to become better informed, and making the PR worse by refusing to proclaim his innocence. That's how bad it is when that's the best case.

Not saying it looks good. Everything looks bad for him. I am just taking the legal route here.

[jdbond592]

I guess he was mad because he couldn't do real work on Saturday, you know, travel to NJ for much needed R and R.

[Shadowferal]

Pardoning himself = admission guilt
And that's all that's need for removal of office.

[Matchles]

Not saying it looks good. Everything looks bad for him. I am just taking the legal route here.

I think the majority of the outrage is the destruction of norms. Just looking into this as a legal option communicates that Trump believes the presidency is not for serving the country and only exists in his mind for his own person gain.

[Breccia]

I think the majority of the outrage is the destruction of norms.

I'm still fairly sure that the outrage is that he's so blatantly ill-informed, blatantly unqualified, increasingly obviously corrupt, and now, potentially blatantly criminal.

Maybe that's also a destruction of norms within American politics, but I think most people are more concerned about the act, rather than if the act is non-standard.

Trump pardoning himself -- should that come to pass -- would be a breaking of the norm, yes, that's never happened. But it would also be an admission of guilt that he intentionally colluded with Putin. I think it's the second part that's the problem.

[GennGreymane]

I.... I just am tired of all of this. I just want something to happen to put an end to this

[Breccia]

Just looking into this as a legal option communicates that Trump believes the presidency is not for serving the country and only exists in his mind for his own person gain.

This article is exactly what you're saying.

[Belize]

I.... I just am tired of all of this. I just want something to happen to put an end to this

Buckle up buckeroo.

That's what they want, you to get tired and go home.

[Auxora]

As bad as it looks for Trump, he's very safe from impeachment so it won't ever come to needing a pardon. The impeachment process needs a 2/3 vote from a judiciary committee, the House, and the Senate. And each of those has a fairly decent Republican majority. So a lot of Republicans in all three phases of the process would have to cross-party lines and vote with Democrats to evict a sitting Republican President. That will never happen. Even if a videotape smoking gun of collusion was produced of Trump talking with Putin telling him if he hacks the election Trump will ease sanctions, etc., I still don't think it would get enough votes to pass. We're practically to that point already, and any new piece of evidence that is found is written off as just hard campaigning and nothing different than happens in typical elections. Not really true, but it's enough to keep him safe in terms of votes.

The laws are written to make impeachment very difficult so it isn't just used politically as a backdoor way for a losing party to replace a sitting President for political reasons. Impeachment is a waste of time to even discuss at least until after the 2018 elections. Even then it would be a major longshot for enough seats to change sides for that to be realistic.

All that said, I'm not convinced Trump would/will run for re-election in 2020. He could cite age, fatigue from the work of being President, spending time with family/golf, etc. and slip out the back door without facing either possible defeat in 2020 or any impeachment talk after the 2020 elections if the congressional majority shifts then.

[Breccia]

Even if a videotape smoking gun of collusion was produced of Trump talking with Putin telling him if he hacks the election Trump will ease sanctions, etc., I still don't think it would get enough votes to pass.

I disagree with that part. The GOP knows full well what will happen to their votes if they intentionally, willingly, side with Putin. There is a line that can be crossed.

Other than that, yes, the public information isn't nearly enough to demand such a vote. However, the public information is easily good enough to erode his support. See also: sanctions.

[Xeones]

As bad as it looks for Trump, he's very safe from impeachment so it won't ever come to needing a pardon. The impeachment process needs a 2/3 vote from a judiciary committee, the House, and the Senate. And each of those has a fairly decent Republican majority. So a lot of Republicans in all three phases of the process would have to cross-party lines and vote with Democrats to evict a sitting Republican President. That will never happen. Even if a videotape smoking gun of collusion was produced of Trump talking with Putin telling him if he hacks the election Trump will ease sanctions, etc., I still don't think it would get enough votes to pass. We're practically to that point already, and any new piece of evidence that is found is written off as just hard campaigning and nothing different than happens in typical elections. Not really true, but it's enough to keep him safe in terms of votes.

The laws are written to make impeachment very difficult so it isn't just used politically as a backdoor way for a losing party to replace a sitting President for political reasons. Impeachment is a waste of time to even discuss at least until after the 2018 elections. Even then it would be a major longshot for enough seats to change sides for that to be realistic.

All that said, I'm not convinced Trump would/will run for re-election in 2020. He could cite age, fatigue from the work of being President, spending time with family/golf, etc. and slip out the back door without facing either possible defeat in 2020 or any impeachment talk after the 2020 elections if the congressional majority shifts then.

You are ignoring the fact that a republican who sides with a criminal in refusing to impeach could face a very fierce primary challenge. Simply being in a safe state or district won't allow them to keep power if they make the wrong decision, even if their party ultimately maintains control.

[Bullettime]

As bad as it looks for Trump, he's very safe from impeachment so it won't ever come to needing a pardon. The impeachment process needs a 2/3 vote from a judiciary committee, the House, and the Senate. And each of those has a fairly decent Republican majority. So a lot of Republicans in all three phases of the process would have to cross-party lines and vote with Democrats to evict a sitting Republican President. That will never happen. Even if a videotape smoking gun of collusion was produced of Trump talking with Putin telling him if he hacks the election Trump will ease sanctions, etc., I still don't think it would get enough votes to pass. We're practically to that point already, and any new piece of evidence that is found is written off as just hard campaigning and nothing different than happens in typical elections. Not really true, but it's enough to keep him safe in terms of votes.

The laws are written to make impeachment very difficult so it isn't just used politically as a backdoor way for a losing party to replace a sitting President for political reasons. Impeachment is a waste of time to even discuss at least until after the 2018 elections. Even then it would be a major longshot for enough seats to change sides for that to be realistic.

All that said, I'm not convinced Trump would/will run for re-election in 2020. He could cite age, fatigue from the work of being President, spending time with family/golf, etc. and slip out the back door without facing either possible defeat in 2020 or any impeachment talk after the 2020 elections if the congressional majority shifts then.

Candidates can still be primaried in their home "safe" districts. If the evidence is extremely damning and goes viral, they could very well be primaried for not taking action.

Regardless, even if Trump's presidency beats the clock and he survives impeachment, he's still not safe from Schneiderman's RICO case.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ssible-mueller



I wish I could say that Trump no longer surprises me, but this is unbelievably disturbing.

He should just shout "Whatever is done to me should be done to Hillary!" over and over again. That would raise his defense, but earn him many black marks, but, most importantly, it would be funny.

[cubby]

I thought he was supposed to be impeached on January 21st. Or was that January 20th? It really is hard to recall since so many people were calling for him to be impeached before he even went into office.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58...b014e7c72edc95

I guess Trump looking into pardoning himself isn't any sign that something wrong happened, eh? You Trumpers endlessly handwaving horrific behavior continues to crack me up. Grats on getting your clown into office - looks like he doesn't have much more time left - according to himself.

- - - Updated - - -

The Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on this issue, even the Nixon pardoning never made it up. If he does start pardoning people left and right, clearly trying to muddle an investigation or prevent one from continuing, I can see it going all the way up.

It will take years, and the fucking of this country by the Trump people will continue.

(does anyone else feel like they are just waiting to wake up from a nightmare?)

[Breccia]

The Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on this issue, even the Nixon pardoning never made it up. If he does start pardoning people left and right, clearly trying to muddle an investigation or prevent one from continuing, I can see it going all the way up.

I take blame here, I was either the one, or one of the first, who started this.

As has been pointed out since, a pardon requires a confession. And you cannot be pardoned to block an impeachment. Therefore, if he pardons pre-emptively, he will immediately admit he was wrong (something Trump will never do) and force the GOP to impeach him, since he'll have admitted he and/or his team colluded. As the current Senate and House bills are showing, there is only one response to Russian aggression. The only way out would be to resign in disgrace worse than Nixon.

[cubby]

I take blame here, I was either the one, or one of the first, who started this.

As has been pointed out since, a pardon requires a confession. And you cannot be pardoned to block an impeachment. Therefore, if he pardons pre-emptively, he will immediately admit he was wrong (something Trump will never do) and force the GOP to impeach him, since he'll have admitted he and/or his team colluded. As the current Senate and House bills are showing, there is only one response to Russian aggression. The only way out would be to resign in disgrace worse than Nixon.

I didn't see any reference to a confession being required before a pardon can be issued. The information I'm seeing is that a pardon can be granted before any conviction and I don't see any information about an actual confession being required.

I do see Burdick v. United States, in which a pardoned person must personally introduce the pardon into the court - is that the confession?

Edit: I see, introducing it to the court IS considered the confession of the crime. Bingo.

[Shadowferal]

‘No, Trump can’t pardon himself’
Eisen, along with Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe and Richard Painter who was chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush, wrote in an op-ed that Trump cannot pardon himself citing the “fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case.”
“But there is one thing we know that Trump cannot do — without being a first in all of human history. He cannot pardon himself,” they said.
“The Constitution specifically bars the president from using the pardon power to prevent his own impeachment and removal,” they wrote. “It adds that any official removed through impeachment remains fully subject to criminal prosecution. That provision would make no sense if the president could pardon himself.”