“I hereby pardon myself for any crimes which may or may not have been committed, may or may not be charged, and may or may not have taken place at any time while I was President or before.”
As long as that gets signed before the impeachment bill, I believe it’s more or less legal.
That was VERY interesting.
Well, if he belches during a speech, I suppose he could.
If he farts, he could conceivably blame the White House dog.
But it wouldn’t be relevant. He could still be impeached for whatever reason the House chose to make up and the Senate decided to convict upon. Should the President (and a sizable number of allies) decide to resist such an action, well…we have a Constitutional crisis, and it’ll come down to whoever is most afraid of the other side’s guns.
Sure you could impeach him- but he’s already pardoned at that point.
The poster you were responding to didn’t state he couldn’t be impeached. Only that he could avoid any kind of prosecution for any crime he commited. Also, it would be relevant if the majority of the house had no intent to impeach him for whatever crime he’s about to be arrested for.
Generally speaking, prosecuting the head of the executive as a regular Citizen would be (as opposed to impeachment or similar actions) is a big issue. To begin with, as mentioned, in most cases, the people who are supposed to do the arrest are ultimately answering to him. Second, a prosecutor could use this as a tool in a political crusade. And finally, a judge could impose a variety of limitations (jailing him, forbidding him to leave the territory, forbiding contacts with a variety of people, etc..) that would result, if actually implemented, in seriously limiting him or completely preventing him from actually doing his job even though the court wouldn’t have technically the authority to remove him from office. This certainly might be considered as an unnacceptable breach of the principle of separation of powers. On the other hand, making the head of the executive immune to arrest, prosecution, etc..regardless of what he did might not seem satisfactory, either.
Ultimately, it’s best to rely on the various branches to act according to democratic expectations (the head of the executive not murdering people, the legislative branch not basing indictments/impeachments solely on politicial grounds, the judiciary not misusing its powers…) which fortunately is what generally happens.
Okay, I’ll bite: why? Surely impeachment and removal from office would breach the presumption of innocence of the President? Would not rather the 25th (?) Amendment be invoked?
Constitutionally, isn’t there a difference between committing a crime and going through the judicial process and committing a crime as charged by the House and tried by the Senate?
A trial of impeachment would be prejudicial if there were a later criminal trial. So, not admissible as evidence.
What about a more obvious and egregious crime than something like bribery or misuse of power? Suppose Obama’s successor has a fit of rage and deliberately shoves someone off a balcony, killing them. Would the President be immune to normal law enforcement and legal action until impeached?
The only punishment for impeachment is removal from office. There are no criminal penalties associated with impeachment. It’s not a criminal process; it’s a political one.
The Constitution specifically provides that
That clearly removes any sort of “double jeopardy” claim against an ordinary criminal trial (for treason or bribery or reckless driving) after having been impeached and removed from office for some “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. I don’t know if they would have any double jeopardy claim to exclude evidence from their criminal trial on the grounds that it had already come up in the impeachment process. I wouldn’t think so, but I am not a lawyer.
If the POTUS just straight up murdered someone–let’s say on national TV, so there’s no doubt–I imagine the Vice President and Cabinet would meet to apply the 25th Amendment and find that the POTUS “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” pretty fast. At that point, the POTUS can no longer order the armed forces to invade Canada or anything wacky like that. The impeachment process could then proceed at a more leisurely pace, but in such an extreme case as that, it probably wouldn’t take too long either. Then, on to the Trial of the Century!
Suppose the VP pushes the President down a flight of stairs? Where does that leave us?
Glued to our television sets.
Spiro Agnew?
I was thinking of Hillary Clinton. 
You’re right. Double jeopardy does not exist. That claim was specifically dismissed by the District Court when Alcee Hastings brought it up. Read Section III paragraph 2. And with Nixon v United States ruling impeachment is a political activity I think it is pretty safe to say that nothing that happens in one case should affect the other.
Or suppose the VP shoots somebody in the face with a shotgun…naw, forget it…we all know that could never happen.Silly, unrealisitic scenerio.
MODERATOR NOTE
Let’s not let this get too far afield. Try to keep politics to a minimum here.
samclem, moderator
I think a little context of OLC memos are in order. I doubt anyone could point to an OLC memo that ever concluded, “Gee, the powers and immunities of the President are much less than some people think.” The OLC is basically the Executive Branch position that is in charge of making sure the President has the broadest imaginable reach of power that can be claimed without making other people laugh.
To remind people, the OLC is the same office that produced the memo that statutes against torture were not applicable to certain infamous actions, and repeated OLC memos throughout the years conclude the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional impingement on the right of the Commander in Chief to use military force in the national interest.
Now, the OLC memo does take on additional weight because it is the authoritative version of law for the Executive Branch, meaning that whether it is objectively right or wrong, it is what it is, and it is the version of law that the Department of Justice would act under. But still, one shouldn’t read that and think it is coming from an impartial, disinterested source.