Can Trump or a Sitting President pardon themselves?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Can Trump or a Sitting President pardon themselves?

[Wyrt]

We don't know because no president has been dumb enough to try.

I don't think it really matters though. If he gives himself a pardon then he's admitting he's guilty and that's immediate grounds for impeachment. So, while he'd avoid prison time on federal charges he'd still be removed from office.

And he can't pardon state charges so he'll go to prison in New York.

[Doctor Amadeus]

We don't know because no president has been dumb enough to try.

I don't think it really matters though. If he gives himself a pardon then he's admitting he's guilty and that's immediate grounds for impeachment. So, while he'd avoid prison time on federal charges he'd still be removed from office.

And he can't pardon state charges so he'll go to prison in New York.

Ohh state charges I hadn't thought of that, but doesn't a federal pardon supercede a state charge?

[Wyrt]

Ohh state charges I hadn't thought of that, but doesn't a federal pardon supercede a state charge?

President can't pardon state charges. So whatever New York state has on him is untouchable by him.

[Doctor Amadeus]

President can't pardon state charges. So whatever New York state has on him is untouchable by him.

Hmm sound solid. But honestly yours in the one angle I’d not considered and me and some friends have been debating this. Nixon had his VP do it.

[FeedsOnDevTears]

Accepting a pardon includes acknowledging guilt. So, pardoning himself is confessing to High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and should immediately result in impeachment. (If he can do it at all.) Not that the criminal organization known as the Republican Party would.

[Dsonsion]

I hope he can't, but I voted yes but that's because that's what I understood about that power.

[Boricha]

The Pardon Clause: the President, "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...aries;_Pardons


Pardoning implicates guilt, which in the president's case implicates impeachment, which would nullify his pardoning power via the clause. So I guess not? Unless he does it and Congress just sits on their hands, which would cause out-roar like we've never seen.

[Adam Jensen]

I like how our resident Russian said "yes."

No. You can't pardon yourself. No one can be the judge and jury of their own trial, which would be in effect what pardoning is. Donald Trump cannot pardon himself on the basis of "how basic law works."

[Thekri]

Probably not, but on a technicality. Presidents cannot be indicted while in office, and thus cannot be held legally culpable for their crimes while in office. Without being charged with a crime, a Pardon becomes a bit tricky. Now he could technically give himself a Nixon style pardon for all he crimes he may have committed, but the odds of that working are incredibly low. About as low as attempting an on-side kick in a baseball game.

[Adam Jensen]

Probably not, but on a technicality. Presidents cannot be indicted while in office, and thus cannot be held legally culpable for their crimes while in office. Without being charged with a crime, a Pardon becomes a bit tricky. Now he could technically give himself a Nixon style pardon for all he crimes he may have committed, but the odds of that working are incredibly low. About as low as attempting an on-side kick in a baseball game.

From what I understood, there is no actual law against indicting a sitting president; it's just something the DoJ prefers to not do.

It's never been tested.

[Thekri]

From what I understood, there is no actual law against indicting a sitting president; it's just something the DoJ prefers to not do.

It's never been tested.

True, but there is precedent from several DoJ statements during the Nixon administration that make it very likely to hold up in court. Impeachment is the process the constitution gave us to do that.

[-Nurot]

Probably not, but on a technicality. Presidents cannot be indicted while in office, and thus cannot be held legally culpable for their crimes while in office. Without being charged with a crime, a Pardon becomes a bit tricky. Now he could technically give himself a Nixon style pardon for all he crimes he may have committed, but the odds of that working are incredibly low. About as low as attempting an on-side kick in a baseball game.

The President can grant prospective pardons before someone is convicted, or even before they've been accused. Like how Ford did with Nixon. Once Trump is out of office he could be convicted, unless he was pardoned.

Hmm sound solid. But honestly yours in the one angle I’d not considered and me and some friends have been debating this. Nixon had his VP do it.

I'm sure this is the route Trump would take if he was ever removed from office or resigned. The man is an idiot, but I'm sure he's got at least a couple advisers who have informed him that it be best to just let Pence pardon him if anything ever happened.

Also, there's an untested floating theory that the President could invoke the 25th, and then Pence as acting President could pardon him, then afterwards Trump could resume the role of President.

Hopefully we never get to see misuse of the 25th or self pardoning actually get tested in our lifetimes.

[Masark]

True, but there is precedent from several DoJ statements during the Nixon administration that make it very likely to hold up in court. Impeachment is the process the constitution gave us to do that.

Yeah, statements made by Nixon appointees. The impartiality of said statements is slightly suspect.

[Shadowferal]

Ohh state charges I hadn't thought of that, but doesn't a federal pardon supercede a state charge?

As others have already said...state charges would be different. (He'd at least dodge the federal penalty for treason)
However, he would need the governor of the state for a state pardon. (Which won't happen)

[Edge-]

Worth noting: There's a SCOTUS case regarding double jeopardy (whether or not state and federal charges for the same crime fall under that rule, which they currently don't) that could result in presidential pardons for federal crimes also pardoning state crimes by causing those to fall under the double jeopardy rule.

[Doctor Amadeus]

As others have already said...state charges would be different. (He'd at least dodge the federal penalty for treason)
However, he would need the governor of the state for a state pardon. (Which won't happen)

Yeah when me some friends were having Pizza and Drinks we debated this but the start charges angle never came up. I think right now he is only looking at Federal at the moment.

But yeah It for sure is something I had not considered, because Federal charges supercede state, so if he pardoned himself along those lines, wouldn't it be unconstitutional to charge him twice?

- - - Updated - - -

Worth noting: There's a SCOTUS case regarding double jeopardy (whether or not state and federal charges for the same crime fall under that rule, which they currently don't) that could result in presidential pardons for federal crimes also pardoning state crimes by causing those to fall under the double jeopardy rule.

Yeah thinking about it now, I realize it might not rise to the burdens of premeditated murder or otherwise, I am not sure state charges would have any teeth, if federally they weren't recognized.

I often think in terms of the abortion debate, where some states seek to ban it, in their borders, but can't prosecute it should it happen out of state or at least I don't think they can.

The same goes with marijuana laws.

[Shadowferal]

Worth noting: There's a SCOTUS case regarding double jeopardy (whether or not state and federal charges for the same crime fall under that rule, which they currently don't) that could result in presidential pardons for federal crimes also pardoning state crimes by causing those to fall under the double jeopardy rule.

Of interest: Last month, Supreme Court’s Double Jeopardy Case May Have Implications for Trump Associates[/url]

Should he pardon them for federal crimes, a Supreme Court ruling that alters the definition of double jeopardy could complicate efforts by state prosecutors to pursue parallel charges.

But the justices gave no indications on Thursday that they were focused on such issues. Instead, they debated the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by things decided.”

Stare decisis, Justice Elena Kagan said, “is a kind of doctrine of humility where we say we are really uncomfortable throwing over 170-year-old rules that 30 justices have approved just because we think we can kind of do it better.”

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh appeared to agree. “The question is,” he said, “when are we going to upset that stability, when are we going to depart from the humility of respecting precedent and overrule it?”

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch warned against rushing to overrule decisions. “It took until last year for this court to overrule Korematsu,” he said, referring to a passage in the court’s decision in June upholding President Trump’s travel ban. The court disavowed Korematsu v. United States, the 1944 decision that endorsed the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer said respect for precedent must have exceptions. “If it always holds, we wouldn’t have Brown v. Board,” he said, referring to the 1954 decision that barred segregation in public schools. That decision overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 decision that said “separate but equal” facilities were constitutional.

There have been signs that at least some justices are uneasy with that line of cases. In 2016, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, called for a fresh look at whether the exception makes sense. “The matter warrants attention in a future case in which a defendant faces successive prosecutions by parts of the whole U.S.A.,” she wrote.

As that alliance suggested, the issue does not divide the justices across the usual ideological lines. At Thursday’s argument, there appeared to be both liberal and conservative justices inclined to support each side of the debate.

-----------------------

No decision yet....

[Skroe]

I like how our resident Russian said "yes."

No. You can't pardon yourself. No one can be the judge and jury of their own trial, which would be in effect what pardoning is. Donald Trump cannot pardon himself on the basis of "how basic law works."

I love it too. Of course the resident Putinista would.

But correct. The principle of "No man shall be his own judge" is so fundamental to Western jurisprudence that it would overturn pretty much a millennial of precedent to be allowable.

[Zaktar]

Can he? Quite possibly. Can it stick? Highly unlikely.

I love it too. Of course the resident Putinista would.

But correct. The principle of "No man shall be his own judge" is so fundamental to Western jurisprudence that it would overturn pretty much a millennial of precedent to be allowable.

Yes exactly.