Since when has Trump been held back by logical inconsistency? He’ll pardon himself while proclaiming he doesn’t need a pardon.
I have my doubts on that. One, Trump doesn’t trust other people; he’ll worry that Pence will renege on the deal. Two, Trump wouldn’t like having to depend on somebody else; he’d rather give himself the pardon than receive it from Pence.
Couldn’t he do both?
That would be interesting. Trump could pardon himself, resign, and then have Pence give him a second pardon. That would make any arguments over the legality of a self-pardon moot. With the question being moot, we wouldn’t see a court ruling, which would leave Trump’s self-pardon in effect (as it was first) and that would establish a precedent.
The downside to Trump would be that such a chain of events would imply that Trump’s pardon wasn’t perfect. Plus he’d have to quit being President before his time ran out.
Absolutely. He’s a full-on whacked-out nut-job conspiracy theorist and believes the Deep State are already stealing the election. There is no way he will accept that and when he loses, he will do whatever he can to mitigate consequences to himself.
This, because as BeepKillBeep points out, this way he gets to have his cake and eat it too. Admitting he’s wrong? Never, protecting himself from the deep state’s illegal, immoral, dastardly tactics? Just good sense.
I think Trump would be thrilled to quit being president, if it didn’t instantly open him up to massive amounts of criminal prosecution.
That’s not how (legal) precedents work. You don’t get one without a court ruling.
Agreed.
“I hereby pardon myself for any and all crimes of which I may be accused.” (That is, crimes trumped up by my political enemies, whoever they may be or whenever they show up.)
(Also it will be “understood” that there is no implied admission of guilt.)
I’m not sure about the question in the OP, but one thing I think they should do in the next Congress: pass an Amendment that explicitly forbids self-pardon by the President. And while they’re at it, place some other restrictions on the presidential pardon power. For example, pardons only for crimes for which the person has been indicted or otherwise prosecuted. No nebulous Get-out-of-jail-free pardons for any and all crimes. And perhaps other restrictions on who can be pardoned such as none for close relatives of the President or for the VP.
I think this has a decent shot at getting approval from the several states. I can’t see any real partisan issues with it. Yes it might seem to be targeting Trump, but he’ll be (I assume) out of office and it won’t really apply to him at that point.
I completely agree, and would go further. I think there are lots of changes we need to make with respect to the powers of the Presidency. It has become abundantly clear that before the current occupant took office, presidents have only been curtailed from bad behavior by custom and tradition. The only other remedy we have for bad behavior is impeachment, and that turned out to be a complete bust. I hope they set up a high-level commission to look at this.
If this actually happens, it will be the only good thing that Trump has ever been responsible for in his whole miserable life.
The founders never intended the President to be a king, but that’s exactly what we have ended up with.
Unless this is an argument about terminology, I disagree.
If a official act is taken and is allowed to have effect without being challenged, that will certainly be cited as a precedent in theoretical future cases where the same official act is taken.
Let’s say, for example, that Trump resigns and Pence issues him a general pardon. Some people might argue that a President can’t give a general pardon for unspecified crimes. Trump’s lawyers would immediately cite Ford’s pardon of Nixon as a precedent that such a pardon is legal.
I voted no. Preemptively pardoning himself even in the face of the “Derp state” makes it look like he thinks he can’t win, which makes him look weak. He’s never in his life suffered any consequences for his actions so he will probably assume that this will continue to hold true. After all, he spent his tenure filling the courts with “his” judges, which means in his mind they will do his bidding. Also there is a good chance that the optics of prosecuting the leader of the opposition may look a little too authoritarian even if the prosecutions are legitimate. So in the end he probably has better than even odds of getting away scot free.
Do you believe that Trump would ever be willing to declare bankruptcy?
In Trump’s warped mind, that IS a win.
Lawyers can cite it all they want in their arguments, and the court may deign to consider it, but it won’t be legally binding in the way that an adjudicated decision is.
All he has to do is say it’s to stop the witch hunt by the radical left.
Either that or he’ll outright deny he was actually pardoned.
It looks like he may not have to.
I originally voted no. Now, I don’t see anyway that he doesn’t at least try.
It seems to me that he will have to word any self “pardon” very carefully. His pardon will have to take the shape of immunity from any “phonied up” charges from an ensuing administration and not mention any specific crimes he may have committed. How does one even defend that going forward?