Could and would Trump Sr. pardon Trump Jr.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

If Trump did pro-actively pardon “anyone who at any time did anything illegal with any foreign power to help me win the election”

What percentage of Republican voters would approve? I say 74%.

[Richard_Parker]

@Euphonious_Polemic

If Trump did pro-actively pardon “anyone who at any time did anything illegal with any foreign power to help me win the election”

What percentage of Republican voters would approve? I say 74%.

I think that number is low. Though to be fair, we don’t know what effect Trump’s presidency has had on the number of Republican voters.

[BeepKillBeep]

@Euphonious_Polemic

If Trump did pro-actively pardon “anyone who at any time did anything illegal with any foreign power to help me win the election”

What percentage of Republican voters would approve? I say 74%.

I’d say 74% is probably pretty close. Somewhere between 72% and 88%.

And that’s the problem.

The danger is not Trump. Trump’s an incompetent blowhard that will spend his presidency undoing Obama and enriching himself. The USA can survive that. It isn’t even Bannon. Bannon isn’t incompetent, but the worst of he wants won’t happen because the GOP don’t really want it (I think anyway).

The real danger is what this does to the US’ political system. Right now politicians are beholden to corporate/rich donors. That’s bad enough but at least they are beholden to rich Americans and American corporations. But if working with a foreign power becomes something with no real consequence or worse yet “Meh, no big deal” make no mistake politicians will start seeking such deals because of course they will. Do you have a country anymore if the politicians are answering to foreign powers because they’ll help them win an election?

[John_Mace]

@ElvisL1ves

Yes, the President can issue blanket pardons against federal prosecution for any action at any time up to the present.

And just to further add… Those of us of a certain age remember such a pardon issued by Carter for draft dodgers who went to Canada. Had I been even older than I am, I might have been one of them!

[John_Mace]

@Omar_Little

What’s illegal about meeting with someone who says they have dirt on your opponent in a campaign?

I think the OP is posing an hypothetical that something in the investigation turns up some illegal activity. The meeting itself almost certainly wasn’t a crime. But if, for instance, DTJr lies to the FBI about that meeting, then we’re in illegal territory right there.

[Johnny_Ace]

@John_Mace

The meeting itself almost certainly wasn’t a crime.

Hmm…espionage might be a good place to start. (Nothing has to come of the information involved.)

[John_Mace]

@Johnny_Ace

Hmm…espionage might be a good place to start. (Nothing has to come of the information involved.)

OK, lay out your case, counselor. Cite the statute and the action that applies to the statute.

[Lantern]

If Trump tried to pardon himself and it went to the Supreme Court, what is the ruling likely to be ?

[Johnny_Ace]

I’m not going to write a brief, but here’s one to start with:

18 U.S. Code § 1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

Junior has made a number of false statements that run directly counter to the numerous collusion and election-meddling investigations. (Granted, he didn’t do it for very long, so far as we know, but that was only because he was under pressure by the NYT’s publication of articles.)

Notice that there is no requirement to have been under oath. I’ll leave it to you to count the number of violations.

[Richard_Parker]

@Lantern

If Trump tried to pardon himself and it went to the Supreme Court, what is the ruling likely to be ?

Can: There is no textual limit on the pardon power, therefore he can pardon himself.

Cannot: There are lots of implicit limits which have already been recognized (e.g., cannot pardon future crimes), and the word pardon means something granted to another person.

In short: The decision could go either way because there are reasonable arguments on both sides. Given the current composition of the court, that means they would likely rule that Trump can pardon himself.

[stpauler]

@John_Mace

OK, lay out your case, counselor. Cite the statute and the action that applies to the statute.

Minneapolis 1941?

On June 27, 1941, as part of a campaign to end labor militancy in the defense industry, FBI agents raided the Minneapolis and St. Paul offices of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP),[31] a Trotskyist splinter party that controlled Local 544 of the Teamsters union though it had fewer than two thousand members in 30 U.S. cities. The union had grown steadily in the late 1930s, had organized federal relief workers and led a strike against the Works Progress Administration (WPA), a New Deal agency.[32] In mid-July, a federal grand jury indicted 29 people, either members of the SWP or Local 544 of the Teamsters union, or both.[33]

SWP defendants included James P. Cannon, Carl Skoglund, Farrell Dobbs, Grace Carlson, Harry DeBoer, Max Geldman, Albert Goldman, and twelve other party leaders. Goldman acted as the defendants’ lawyer during the trial. The SWP had been influential in Minneapolis since the Teamsters Strike of 1934. It advocated strikes and the continuation of labor union militancy during World War II under its Proletarian Military Policy. An SWP member edited the Northwest Organizer, the weekly newspaper of the Minneapolis Teamsters, and the local remained militant even as the national union grew more conservative. The CPUSA supported the trial and conviction of Trotskyists under the Smith Act. The defendants were accused of having plotted to overthrow the U.S. government in violation of the unused Sedition Act of 1861 as well as the newly passed Smith Act.

When critics argued that the government should adhere to the doctrine enunciated by Justice Holmes that free speech could only be prosecuted if it presented “a clear and present danger,” Attorney General Biddle replied that Congress had considered both that standard and the international situation when writing the Smith Act’s proscriptions. At trial the judge took Biddle’s view and refused to instruct the jury in the “clear and present danger” standard as the defendants’ attorneys requested.[34] The trial began in Federal District Court in Minneapolis on October 27, 1941. The prosecution presented evidence that the accused had amassed a small arsenal of pistols and rifles and conducted target practices and drills. Some had met with Trotsky in Mexico, and many witnesses testified to their revolutionary rhetoric.

The judge ordered that five of the defendants be acquitted on both counts for lack of evidence. After deliberating for 56 hours, the jury found the other 23 defendants (one had committed suicide during the trial) not guilty of violating the 1861 statute by conspiring to overthrow the government by force. The jury found 18 of the defendants guilty of violating the Smith Act either by distributing written material designed to cause insubordination in the armed forces or by advocating the overthrow of the government by force.[35] The jury recommended leniency.[36] On December 8, 1941, 12 defendants received 16-month sentences and the remaining 11 received 12-months.[37] Time magazine minimized the danger from the SWP, calling it “a nestful of mice.” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and critics on the left worried that the case created a dangerous precedent.[38]

On appeal, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions of the 18. The judges found it unnecessary to consider the “clear and present danger” standard in “situations where the legislative body had outlawed certain utterances.”[39] The Supreme Court declined to review the case. Those convicted began to serve their sentences on December 31, 1943. The last of them were released in February 1945. Biddle, in his memoirs published in 1962, regretted having authorized the prosecution.[40]

[cochrane]

@Euphonious_Polemic

1. Can Trump pro-actively pardon Trump Jr. before a trial? Or indeed before charges are even filed?

When Richard Nixon resigned, Gerald Ford pardoned him after he became President, before any charges were ever filed against Nixon.

[purplehearingaid]

I feel that trump Sr. would think this is all ‘fake news’ and there would be no needs to pardon trump Jr.

[Lantern]

One of the important angles is whether anything is uncovered, e.g. financial crimes, that can be prosecuted under New York state law, outside the scope of Trump’s pardon powers.

[Merneith]

@purplehearingaid

I feel that trump Sr. would think this is all ‘fake news’ and there would be no needs to pardon trump Jr.

I think the gens Trump believe that the whole Russia investigation will close down if Senior pardons Junior.

[marshmallow]

Anyone who accepts a pardon or other immunity deal waives their fifth amendment rights and can be compelled to testify, right?

[joebuck20]

@marshmallow

Anyone who accepts a pardon or other immunity deal waives their fifth amendment rights and can be compelled to testify, right?

Howabout if Trump Jr. was charged with contempt of court for refusing to testify. Could he be pardoned for that?

[DinoR]

@Johnny_Ace

I’m not going to write a brief, but here’s one to start with:

How do you legally see Jr falling “within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States?” Without that the rest of the law you cited is irrelevant to his case.

[The_Devil_s_Grandmother]

@Euphonious_Polemic

…I wonder a couple of things though…

1. Can Trump pro-actively pardon Trump Jr. before a trial? Or indeed before charges are even filed?
2. Can Trump now issue a blanket pardon to “anyone who at any time did anything illegal with any foreign power to help me win the election”

I think so, Bush the Elder pardoned a bunch of people for crimes related to the Iran-Contra scandal on Christmas Eve. IIRC, some of them had not been charged yet.

[BobLibDem]

@The_Devil_s_Grandmother

I think so, Bush the Elder pardoned a bunch of people for crimes related to the Iran-Contra scandal on Christmas Eve. IIRC, some of them had not been charged yet.

Not to mention Ford pardon Nixon before he could be charged.