How does a pardon prevent someone from testifying? Oh, you mean the prosecutors cannot put the screws to them and demand that they tell the “truth” in exchange for a lighter sentence? That is a corrupt practice that should be outlawed, not used against a President by his political enemies.
If it was shown that Nixon pardoned Halderman to keep him quiet about a crime that Nixon committed, then impeach Nixon for the crime he committed.
We The People look into crimes by electing a President:
I don’t know how that can be more plain. Note it doesn’t say the Justice Department or the FBI or the special counsel. It says “a President.” Your argument seems to be that since you don’t like Trump and think he is a shitty president we should write this out of the Constitution and take away executive power from future “good” presidents by extra-judicial means.
If Trump has no authority to order the Justice Department to stop a particular investigation, is the Justice Department superior in the chain of command? Who then polices the Justice Department? What if you don’t like the AG?
Well, I’m divided on the question of whether a president can pardon himself for federal crimes, but neither answer defeats my position. If a president can pardon himself for federal crimes then indeed every president from Washington to Trump could have murdered people in D.C. and pardoned themselves prior to impeachment and removal. None of my arguments change that.
What is just about arresting and indicting an innocent person? That’s absurd. Of course, I hesitated to use the example because of prosecutorial recusal, but there is no such doctrine for the President. There is no way, even if he wanted to, to hand over power to other individual for a singular purpose.
I guess he could declare himself temporarily unable to exercise all of his powers under the 25th amendment, but then we would have a situation where political enemies could get rid of presidents by making unfounded allegations.
I’ve been trying to untie this knot all day. Article II, sec. 2 says the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Does that mean a president can’t pardon himself for impeachable federal offenses? Or does it mean that an impeached president can’t pardon himself and thus forgo the senate trial and possible removal from office? Or does it mean he can pardon himself for criminal charges but can’t pardon his way out of the impeachment process?
And since he can only pardon himself for federal offenses, couldn’t state charges theoretically lead to impeachment?
It means that he can’t stop the impeachment process or reverse it’s decision or consequence. It’s easier to think about that as it applies to other people. If Congress decides to impeach John Roberts and remove him from office, Trump can’t reverse that.
The impeachment and removal from office power is vested in the Legislative Branch exclusively.
In the campaign, sure, but I was just a bit flippantly pointing out that, if it is a crime that occurs in federal jurisdiction, then he can pardon it.
I hate to even mention it, but, as an example, if someone were to assassinate a political opponent or roadblock or investigator in a place where federal jurisdiction can be claimed, and he pardoned them, that would certainly send a message to both his allies and opponents.
That could certainly be some serious justice obstruction, but the penalty for it is still only political.
Don’t blame me. I didn’t make it up. The drafters of the Constitution did.
I’ll have to check my research again, but I think that “except in Cases of Impeachment” is universally agreed that it was meant to give Congress the sole power of impeaching and removing officials (including the President). So, say, John Roberts is impeached and charged with the high crime of mopery, even if Trump likes Roberts and thinks he is innocent, he cannot stop the House and Senate from impeaching and removing him from office, respectively. Nor could he stop his own impeachment and removal from office by his pardon power.
The debate over whether a President can pardon himself is interesting. On one hand, the text of the clause is absolute (i.e. “Offenses against the United States” which contains no qualification and therefore would include ones the President committed) and is not subject to other forms of judicial reasoning.
On the other hand, there is an ancient common law maxim which predates and was not meant to be supplanted by the Constitution that “no man may be the judge in his own case.” It would be unthinkable if Trump were to say, firebomb the Capitol building, killing hundreds or thousands, that he would be able to pardon himself and, although removed from office, be free to go about his business.
And this second argument does not contradict what I have argued in this thread. Congress could find evidence of Trump wrongdoing, impeach and remove him from office, and then Trump’s successor could file criminal charges if warranted. I don’t see how in any universe this is corruption or being “above the law” or how it reduces the United States to a banana republic, which is why I am inclined to support the idea that a president may not pardon himself.
But Trump could have Pence firebomb the Capitol building and then pardon him. Not seeing a significant difference if he can pardon himself.
If we were at the point where either of them actually did something like that, it would be revolution time and we’d be throwing the constitution out the window anyway. IOW, I don’t think that hypothetical is useful in determining how we should operate in non-revolutionary times.
If Trump directed Pence to firebomb the Capitol, that would make Trump an accessory before the fact to the crime and just as guilty as Pence.
I suppose that immediately after bombing the Capitol, Trump could pardon Pence, Trump resigns, Pence becomes President and then pardons Trump.
Then I guess the maxim that “no man can be the judge in his own case” would extend to not being a judge of your criminal confederates.
Such a thing would certainly be a terrible thing for the country, but I don’t know about revolutionary. If they both could get away with such a thing, it might be. That’s why I’m coming around to the idea that a president cannot pardon himself or others involved in the same criminal activity.
The constitution of the US is inadequate to its purpose in this instance, because (whether through a kind of forgivable arrogance or simply inability to foresee such a situation) those who wrote it did not provide for the case in which their “we the people” willingly and knowingly elect a grossly immoral and grossly dishonest president. The “we the people” who voted for Trump have objectively failed in their duty as citizens. I’m sure there’s a workable way out, but perhaps not a simple or easy one.
Trump’s lesson to history: P.T. Barnum was right, the framers of the US constitution were wrong, The People are that stupid.
It would certainly be a horrendous move and universally reviled. However, assuming that Trump had no role in it, he would be doing what the people granted him the power to do. If someone abused that power to such an extent, I’m sure that there would be a quick amendment to the Constitution to stop that power.
But I think it is substantively different than a situation where Trump pardons himself. The system, as currently set up, would have “worked” in the sense that the one person clothed with the power to grant pardons granted a pardon to another individual when his own skin wasn’t on the line.
What “innocent person?” There is no such thing until a court says so. If there is sufficient evidence that a grand jury hands down an indictment, then it is in the courts hands, not the prosecutors. Since the President isn’t a prosecutor, the whole mental exercise is meaningless.
Maybe only the right kind of people get to vote moving forward? Perhaps literacy tests?
I’m not trying to be flippant, but your argument seems to be that because your candidate lost the last election, we need a revolution so that your type of candidate wins the next time. I understand the hatred for Trump, but what you propose is far worse than anything Trump could ever do.
Now who is being obtuse? If I am in a position where I know that a person is factually innocent, in what universe should I require them to be handcuffed, printed, mug shot taken, bail posted (if available), and then ruin himself and his family financially by having hire an attorney? He may likely then lose his job because of the accusation causing further harm to himself and his family. Even if he was later vindicated, people in the community would still think he was guilty and got off because of a “technicality” or a “slick lawyer.” An arrest literally ruins a person’s life.
If the law requires that when the person making the charging decision knows of the defendant’s innocence the person must ruin the defendant’s life anyways, then the law is an ass. And no the President is not a prosecutor, he is the boss of all of the federal prosecutors. He has greater power than a prosecutor and is not subject to recusal.
Your assertion seems to be that prosecutors (and their bosses) cannot use discretion, that everything has to go to a grand jury and let the judicial process play out.
Prosecutors can decline to present charges for any number of reasons. Remember when Buzz Aldrin punched that moon conspiracy fucker for accusing him of lying? The DA refuse to press battery charges, even though if we dust off our criminal law hornbooks from law school, what Buzz did was certainly a battery without any legal justification. A prosecutor declining to file charges is part and parcel of the judicial process not an obstruction of it.
Not remotely. No Constitutional expert interprets the constitution that way. It is YOUR interpretation or one you got from people who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
But you, as a prosecutor, don’t know shit about someone’s innocence. Until you make it a point of legal fact (ie deposition/sworn statement, etc.) then that person is just another mook. Declining to prosecute because you don’t think you have a winnable case (or declining to prosecute because you have been bought off (Guiliani, Clark, many others) is something else.
“Boss of prosecutors” isn’t a prosecutor. He is totally subject to the law just like everybody else.
Discretion is one thing. Dodging legal charges because of your political position is a completely different thing, especially since the trump crime family have openly admitted to committing multiple major felonies. When the prosecutor is at the center of the crime racket, they should remove themselves from the procedure completely. Sessions did just that, since he was involved in the crimes that are being investigated. Every single thing trump says about any of this is Obstruction of Justice, as he is seeking to influence the investigation.
Perhaps you could substantively respond to my post instead of just declaring how stupid it is? Specifically how the Constitution is clear that executive power lies in a President, not the DOJ, FBI, or any other agency which is subordinate to the President. Of course, maybe it is “goddamn stupid” to put such extraordinary power in one man.
Perhaps that blame should lay at the feet of the Supreme Court or Congress for allowing the federal government to grow into such a monstrosity. Or perhaps the framers are to blame, however, they did consider a three man committee to head the executive, but decided on one.
It is such a simple straight-forward provision that I would really like to debate instead of simply being told I’m wrong.
The Capitol is firebombed, and there’s reason to believe that Person B is responsible, who happens to be a close associate of President A.
President A orders the FBI not to investigate. Further, to the extent that any evidence is obtained by Federal law enforcement agencies, President A orders the evidence to be destroyed. To the extent that any witnesses to the President’s actions are to be questioned by any other authorities, the President carries out a campaign of intimidation (threatening firing, tax audits, etc.).
As a general matter, the President has the power to do a whole lot of things as Chief Executive. So can it be said that the President did not obstruct justice in any way?
According to the OP’s line of thinking, so long as the action is within the Presidents power, it appears to be impossible to use the power corruptly. So how can the law apply to him if he has such extraordinary (but not unlimited) power to frustrate the law at his whim?