Can Trump or a Sitting President pardon themselves?

[Fugus]

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.

If this happened the Senate and the Supreme Court let it stick. I would be supremely disappointed with the United States and lost all respect for it if Trump, Pence and a few Republicans WEREN'T assassinated for doing so as that would be an insult and a disgrace to everything this nation stands for and to call it treasonous would be an understatement.


If they attempted that, the Republican party and the Supreme Court better stand up and show some damn back bone. Screwing this nation and allowing them to do that and the precedent it would set and allowed to stand, this nation would basically be in collapse as anything worth having at that point as Democracy is officially dead and any even semi-intelligent dictator wannabe already has everything in place he needs to take over entirely.

[Masark]

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.

Current Republicans don't seem to have much respect for any jurisprudence established after the concept of divine right was ended.

[MoanaLisa]

Voted no because while he might be able to pardon himself from Federal charges there's nothing he can do if the state of New York charges him with real estate fraud or money laundering.

[Halicia]

Current Republicans don't seem to have much respect for any jurisprudence established after the concept of divine right was ended.

Current Republicans believe divine right has ended ?

- - - Updated - - -

Voted no because while he might be able to pardon himself from Federal charges there's nothing he can do if the state of New York charges him with real estate fraud or money laundering.

I voted no because the President as an office is not the same as Donald Trump the man. While I am certainly no legal scholar in constitutional law, there are remedies for when the MAN is unable to fulfill the duties of the office, so I see little conflict with the man being held responsible for his crimes.

If there's on thing Trump's good at though, its muddying the waters. He could start by finding a past transgression that would otherwise be under the purview of his pardons (I dunno, a speeding ticket in DC or something ?), and establish the precedent that he *can* pardon himself, because the Republicans would rush to his defense of "Oh, the democrats want to impeach the president over some silly traffic violation ?", so that when Trump starts walking around killing people in the street they have the precedent of self-pardons.

[Dendrek]

Current Republicans believe divine right has ended ?

- - - Updated - - -



I voted no because the President as an office is not the same as Donald Trump the man. While I am certainly no legal scholar in constitutional law, there are remedies for when the MAN is unable to fulfill the duties of the office, so I see little conflict with the man being held responsible for his crimes.

If there's on thing Trump's good at though, its muddying the waters. He could start by finding a past transgression that would otherwise be under the purview of his pardons (I dunno, a speeding ticket in DC or something ?), and establish the precedent that he *can* pardon himself, because the Republicans would rush to his defense of "Oh, the democrats want to impeach the president over some silly traffic violation ?", so that when Trump starts walking around killing people in the street they have the precedent of self-pardons.

Don't make the mistake of assuming Trump will ever look into legal precedent or verifiable facts to justify anything he does. His lawyers might attempt that, incompetent as they are. And they would likely fail. He is only successful by sheer bumbling ineptitude and self promoting aggrandizement. The only thing he's ever been really good at is selling himself like a primped up whore with gaudy fashion sense to anyone stupid enough to think gold-plated bricks of shit are actually worth money.

[Thekri]

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

Of course, and the impartially of the Trump appointees and advisors even more so. I highly dislike the principle of incitement of a sitting president, because it represents a shift in power, ironically in favor of the executive. Here is why:

#1. The DoJ is a function of the executive branch, as such, it is impossible to protect it fully from interference from the President. In both Trump's case and Nixon's, they were unable to fully control the DoJ to kill investigations, but we cannot assume this will be the case in the future.


#2 By it nature, the US Congress is a very risk averse organization politically. If indictment is possible, then it will be nearly impossible to get impeachment processes started WITHOUT an indictment before hand. Congress will wait until they have a DoJ indictment before they act to minimize political risk to themselves, and if the President can actually control his DoJ, that will never happen.


Congress is responsible for holding the Executive Branch accountable, not the DoJ. You can't ask the Executive branch to police itself, that is how you lose the republic. Trump should not be indicted until after he is no longer president. Then he is fair game.

[Fugus]

Trump should not be indicted until after he is no longer president. Then he is fair game.

Better idea, the moment he is found guilty of a felony, he is automatically removed from office.

No one should be above the law and no office should be a shield. If anything, the higher your office, the more scrutiny and the harsher the punishments you should receive due to your position in government and your place in crafting those very laws.

[Thekri]

Better idea, the moment he is found guilty of a felony, he is automatically removed from office.

No one should be above the law and no office should be a shield. If anything, the higher your office, the more scrutiny and the harsher the punishments you should receive due to your position in government and your place in crafting those very laws.

Yes, but impeachment is the method we have to do that. We do not want a situation where it is easy to remove a president who becomes politically unpopular for trivial crimes. Impeachment is fine, we have all the tools we need to get rid of someone like Trump, although a more courageous Congress would be nice.

[Fugus]

Yes, but impeachment is the method we have to do that. We do not want a situation where it is easy to remove a president who becomes politically unpopular for trivial crimes. Impeachment is fine, we have all the tools we need to get rid of someone like Trump, although a more courageous Congress would be nice.

Imprisonment works just as well. Impeachment only works when those below him actually do their job, which the political parties prevent from doing that as has been shown the past 2 years.

Who said anything about trivial crimes. I was talking felonies. If found guilty for felony charges that result in prison time or parole or any of that, it should be enough.

[Thekri]

Imprisonment works just as well. Impeachment only works when those below him actually do their job, which the political parties prevent from doing that as has been shown the past 2 years.

Who said anything about trivial crimes. I was talking felonies. If found guilty for felony charges that result in prison time or parole or any of that, it should be enough.

That is a permanent cost for a temporary problem. It is supposed to be hard, do you really think Republicans would have done that to Obama if it was possible? You thought the endless investigations into Benghazi was bad, try raising the stakes to that level and see what happens.

The fact that elected leaders suck does not mean we should give that power over to non-elected people. Granted they are better now, but when you start stacking that kind of responsibility on them they are going to get coopted and corrupted just as bad or worse. If Congress sucks, fix congress, don't gut it.

[Fugus]

That is a permanent cost for a temporary problem. It is supposed to be hard, do you really think Republicans would have done that to Obama if it was possible? You thought the endless investigations into Benghazi was bad, try raising the stakes to that level and see what happens.

The fact that elected leaders suck does not mean we should give that power over to non-elected people. Granted they are better now, but when you start stacking that kind of responsibility on them they are going to get coopted and corrupted just as bad or worse. If Congress sucks, fix congress, don't gut it.

It is someone paying the cost of their actions.

If I did something that would lock me up for years, I don't get a free ride and get out of it "Just because I am president" that isn't how it is supposed to work.

And they couldn't have done it under Obama either. Even if they tried, Obama committed no crime. If Obama had committed felony offenses worthy of potential prison time, then I would tell them to go for it.


We don't even have an elected leader now as he lost the election but that is besides the fact entirely. If they do something worthy of arrest, then should be arrested and the 2nd in charge should take over.

[Halicia]

Don't make the mistake of assuming Trump will ever look into legal precedent or verifiable facts to justify anything he does.

He doesn't need to be versed in legal precedent to "test the waters". While many times he apparently acts purely out of emotion or bruteforce, there's other times where he puts his toe in the water and then withdraws unless pushed. It appears he's done exactly that with the pardoning of others so far.

I also don't think he'd be concerned about establishing legal precedent for himself, so much as political precedent.