This is completely backwards. Everyone is presumed innocent, and courts only rule guilty, or not guilty.
Let’s say the president pardons himself for obstruction of justice. How would a legal remedy outside of impeachment play out? Who would have standing to take the president to court over that action?
Every citizen in the country? Accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt, so I think the lawsuits filed by everybody in the country could bankrupt trump in a heartbeat.
Sounds like a good idea you have there, John.
I think the only way it would ever go to court is if the president (during (if possible) or after his term) is charged with a federal crime covered by the pardon. It would then be up to him to file for the case to be dismissed on the ground that he has a pardon that covers the alleged offense. At that point, the judge would have to rule on the validity of the pardon, which would most likely result in an appeal by the losing side.
In the unlikely scenario in which this would happen, there would be facts behind the President’s decision to pardon. Just to be clear, we are suggesting that, say, Timothy McVeigh Jr. bombs the Capitol and the next day or month, Trump pardons him and gives no reason for doing so? Or alternatively, he forbids investigators from investigating or prosecutors from going to a grand jury or U.S Marshals to arrest?
In that case, the Constitution would be amended unanimously in each House and by all 50 states to remove the President’s pardon power or make it subject to some checks.
There would also be a Congressional investigation for the reasons behind the pardon and if there were found to be none, Congress would impeach for abuse of power in the pardon context and/or abuse of discretion in the failure to investigate context. In such an extreme case, I think abuse of power could be presumed (I mean, who condones firebombing the Capitol?).
In real world circumstances, it is an attempt by the legislature to usurp executive power under the guise of “oversight.” Under the Constitution, Congress has no oversight power over. the executive. The three branches are separate and independent.
That is true in theory, but the Constitution made it so that removing the president isn’t an easy thing to do. You have to remove him from office first, and that takes political power and support that you (we) don’t have at the moment.
Some would argue that this is the flaw in the American constitution, which gives enormous power to a single executive that operates independent of the legislative branch. If the US had a parliamentary system, there’s a good chance Trump wouldn’t even be Prime Minister now.
There is no pardon in this scenario.
You’re getting back into weird territory. You take the Constitution to one extreme of prescriptiveness when it comes to the Executive (impossible to obstruct justice) but go to the extreme opposite of literalness when it comes to “abuse of power” being a high crime or misdemeanor.
What the fuck…?
People tend to get confused about the purpose of the Executive’s role in the government.
The President isn’t the leader of the government or the country. He is the person charged with enacting the law. That’s what the executive branch does, it executes the laws that Congress has chosen. They are, in essence, the servants of Congress.*
Breaking the law is not enacting the law. Preventing the law from being executed is not executing the law. Neither of these things makes sense to be protected, given the purpose of the Presidency.
- Though, obviously, there are further elements of the situation that even things out a bit, but they’re ancillary to the topic at hand.
You’re missing the point: let’s say that many people agree that the President uses his power corruptly. Let’s assume further that members in his party simply don’t give a fuck, because they are just as corrupt. Let’s say that the president begins firing people in the department of justice one after another. In normal times, we would expect outrage that would compel even members of his own party, worried about their own political futures, to push back against the president and even demand his resignation. Indeed, that’s what happened with Nixon.
But what if there’s no moral outrage? What if 30-40% of the country views the investigations against Trump as a witch hunt? What if they long ago lost faith in the department of justice, the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence gathering organizations? What if political parties are no longer big tents, with the ability to serve as a counter-weight against the opposition? What if instead, the parties themselves - both parties - are frayed and splintered into factions that can’t decide how to unite and form a resistance movement? That’s what people don’t understand: this is not America in 1974.
This is closer to Germany in 1930.
None of that has anything to do with my post. Nothing.
None of this is really relevant to a situation where you yourself are the one accused of a crime. This is why we don’t expect prosecutors to pursue indictments against themselves, because of course they’re going to say that they “know” they’re innocent, whether they actually are or not.
If you use your personal power to suppress a reasonable and legal investigation of your own dubious-looking acts, then you are obstructing justice, even if you “know you are innocent”.
LOL!
It has EVERYTHING to do with your post!!! Maybe one day you’ll get it.
I’ll assume you are joking. The alternative is to think you don’t understand what the term means and how it works. In the off chance you are not joking, you are certainly free to make an argument. So far, you simply made an assertion. You can start here for reference.. And that’s some real circular reasoning about the admission of guilt. If the pardon is not valid, then you can’t claim that accepting it is an admission of guilt. If you do claim it’s an admission of guilt, then you accept that it’s valid. Which really has nothing to do with the whole idea anyway. No one has ever been charged after being pardoned on the basis that accepting the pardon was an admission of guilt. Such a lawsuit would never see the light of day and would not cost Trump a penny.
Accepting a pardon is admission of guilt. President Ford made very sure Nixon knew that when he pardoned him. He gave specific instructions to the people who informed Nixon of said pardon.
We aren’t talking about people being charged. We are talking about people being sued, in civil court. Completely different things. Ask OJ.
I’m not sure I follow you.
I’ve never murdered anyone. Let’s say I’m put on trial for murder, and found guilty, even though I’ve still never murdered anyone. Let’s also say that — after years of honestly proclaiming that I’m innocent of all charges — I’m eventually offered a full pardon. What do you recommend I do? Remain behind bars, saying that I’m innocent and so must stay in prison because only a guilty man would get to go free? March to the gas chamber, explaining that (a) I’d accept the pardon if I were a murderer; but (b) since I’ve done nothing wrong, I should of course be executed?
Is that, uh, a thing?
I said help prevent, not prevent.
So, you think it is corrupt in some way to reduce the penalties on smaller players in a criminal enterprise in order to get at the people who lead it? Does that apply to organized crime also?
Do you have evidence that Mueller is a political enemy of Trump? Investigating as he was legally chartered to do is not evidence of political enmity. And Mueller got appointed because Trump fired Comey (another Republican) for having the nerve to follow the evidence in investigating possible collusion.
Obstruction of justice is yet another crime. Remember, Nixon himself did not break into the Watergate Hotel. The impeachment activity was largely about the coverup. Articles about that do not preclude additional articles about obstruction.
I proposed only two things: 1. Trump was (and is) an invalid candidate because he’s grossly immoral and grossly dishonest. I would say the same regardless of his party; he doesn’t care about his party anyway. 2. Each individual who voted for him is a moron.
And I said there’s probably a way out of this mess but it might not be easy.
Forget it, Jake; it’s Trumptown.
When I say “take this out of the realm of Trump” and give a hypothetical, and you basically respond with a screed criticizing Republicans of not doing enough to take on Trump, we are NOT talking about the same things.
What’s that phenomenon called in which a person becomes obsessed with a thing, and then sees that thing everywhere, and will bend reality to make themselves see it where it may not exist? That’s what just happened. But I forget the name of it.
Regardless of all this debate, I think we can be certain that Mueller is not going to indict Trump while he is in office. Justice Department policy is, and has been for some time, that a sitting president can’t be indicted. Which I think is a good thing. Let Congress impeach and remove from office, and then we can think about indicting. Or, wait for the president’s term to be up and he is out of office. That’s not going to sit well with a lot of people here, but that’s the way this is going to play out.