Based on this story.
Now, I know the chances of Trafficant being elected president are roughly the same as the Pope converting to Judaism, but nonethess, in a hypothetical, what-if, bizzaro-world spirit:
If Trafficant, while imprisoned, were elected, could he pardon and free himself, since he was convicted of a federal offense and is serving time in a federal prison?
Zev Steinhardt
Possibly, but he’d be motivated not to.
Gerald Ford, whose greatest historical distinction is that he pardoned Nixon, is often asked how he justified doing such a thing. He always answers that in accepting a pardon, Nixon (and anyone else who has accepted a pardon) tacitly admitted culpability for the acts for which he was pardoned. (Ford actually carries a photocopy of the relevant statute folded up in his wallet; did I mention he gets asked this a lot?)
In addition to the day-to-day concerns we lesser mortals shoulder, Presidents–actual and would-be–have one you and I don’t have: They worry about how history will remember them. Trafficant has never admitted culpability, and it’s not in his makeup to admit it tomorrow. Admission of culpability is part of the whole pardon deal. This is why Clinton seemed so disinterested in a pardon as he was leaving office: His odds in a court of law are better than in the eyes of history.
exactly, it would be impossible to find 12 people who would find him guilty. As far as pardons, I thought a president could pardon anyone for anything, including himself. I dont know of any restrictions in the Constitution on presidential pardons.
An imprisoned President would almost assuredly be an impeached one as well, so I think it would be highly unlikely that such a situation would arise.
There was an episode of LEXX where the President was captured by a miltia who wanted to put him on trial. When he was told that, he said “By the power vested in me as the President of the United States, I pardon myself for all my crimes” and tried to leave. Didn’t work, but it was funny.
The only thing impeachment does is remove you from office. It is not a criminal conviction. Thus, a President might be able to pardon his own criminal conduct, but can not prevent his own impeachment through the pardon power.
Impeachment does not mean removal from office. Impeachment plus conviction does.
As evidenced by the fact that Clinton finished out his term in office.
Impeachment and conviction by the senate equals removal from office. I thought that the poster was using “conviction” in the criminal sense. I should have been more clear, a conviction in an impeachment proceeding results only in removal from office. A seperate criminal trial, and convicition, would be required before the President could go to jail.
Isn’t removal from office just ONE OF SEVERAL possible punishments for an impeached president?
Art. II, Sec. 4:
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
So I think all they can do if they impeach you is throw you out of office. Everything else is a matter for the criminal law, which I think you can pardon yourself for (as long as you do it before they throw yo ass out).
I have heard that one of the other penalties associated with impeachment, conviction, & removal from office is loss of the rather cushy presidential pension.
Not based on anything in the Constitution, but on some provision in the public pension law that says if you are removed from office for malfeasance, you are not entitled to receive your pension.
Anybody know if this is accurate?
Personally, I’ve always thought that was why Nixon resigned rather than waiting to be thrown out of office – he could still get his pension if he resigned.
" His odds in a court of law are better than in the eyes of history."
Is there any reason Clinton couldn’t have placed an each-way bet ? I’m thinking that on his last day in office he signs a pardon for himself and Hillary for any and all crimes committed prior to this date, and gets it witnessed. If anyone does go after him over perjury or whatever,he says he’ll happily stand trial on these spurious charges. If the jury acquits the pardon never gets mentioned, if he’s convicted he produces it as a literal get-out-of-jail-free card.Think of it as taking his chance in the eyes of history but with an insurance policy.
In respect of the OP, my impression from the reporting of the Clinton imbroglios was that the pardon power was more or less absolute, with the impeachment exception noted. So both the Trafficant and my Clinton precautionary pardon would likely be unchallengeable.
On the contrary. If Trafficant were elected, he could pardon himself immediately. Congress probably couldn’t even bring up the matter of impeachment until he was actually President. So Trafficant could take the oath of office and immediately sign the official pardon document.
Zev Steinhardt
Convicted felons are not allowed the right to be elected, just as they aren’t allowed to vote. Being able to express yourself IS a basic right but the purpose of prison is to remove rights as a form of punishment
Yes they are. Some states remove the right to vote from felons and ex-felons, but to be elected president, the only requirements are that you be a natural born American at least 35 years old who has not previously served at least one and a half terms as president before.
In addition to Trafficant running, another felon who perrenially runs for office is Lyndon LaRouche.
Captain Amazing, you left out one requirement; said president has to have lived in the US for at least 14 years.
“Impossible”?
No, all they can do if they impeach you is put you on trial. If you are convicted at the trial, then you can be thrown out. The language of the Article does not say “shall be removed and suffer no further penalty”. Instead, it provides a means whereby they can be removed. Further penalties are for the courts to determine once the impediment of office is gone.