He could be referring to two statements made this weekend on the subject. Giuliani and Christy both said, on some talk show or other, that a self-pardon would result in impeachment. I’m not sure if they meant removal from office or not. Or, he could be just reflecting his own views.
They’re misguidedly comparing Trump’s situation to historical precedent, without considering the nature of today’s Congressional Republican leadership.
Yeah, I don’t know on what basis they made those statements. I would not be anywhere near as sanguine as they were on the subject. So, just to be clear, I was only reporting on what they said,not agreeing with them. In fact, I was surprised to hear them say that, since I would have expected them to agree with Trump on the issue.
Doesn’t accepting a pardon mean you admit guilt of the pardoned crime? So even if he couldn’t be sent to prison for XY&Z, by pardoning himself, wouldn’t that mean he admitted he actually did XY&Z? There would be no question of “if” any more.
Now granted, it would probably still take some political fortitude for certain members of Congress to move forward with impeachment and removal, but with the right messaging, it might be harder for a Congresscritter to ignore the fact that the President admitted to have laundered money with Russians in connection with the 2016 election, ferinstance, than it would be to impeach/remove.
If the House is taken by Dems, and they vote to impeach, it seems every Senator would be faced with the question: “The president admitted to XY&Z; how do you not remove him from office?”
Not saying it would be anywhere near a slam dunk, cuz obviously we have some real assholes who will defend almost anything in Congress right now, but it would definitely have the potential to move the needle, I would think. Or at the very least, give Trump’s 2020 opponent(s) a huge weapon with which to pummel the shit out of him.
The damage that ‘emasculated dotard’ has done to the U.S. role in the world in the past 16.5 months makes Dubya look like a piker, and Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for simply not being Dubya. Think on that.
Yeah, Pence is loathsome, but (a) I’d expect his foreign policy to return to something reasonably close to pre-Trump GOP normal, (b) if the Dems take one or both houses of Congress in November, they’ll be able to do a lot to keep Pence in check domestically, and (c) it’s hard to imagine that Pence will have anything like the public support that Trump has. Pence was losing bright-red Indiana before Trump put him on his ticket.
I don’t like Pence much at all, mainly because of his religious nuttery. But I’d rather see him as president than Trump. And I’d rank Cheney above Pence in the contest for most loathsome VP.
Trump could give himself (or Pence could give him) the sort of broad, vague pardon that Ford gave Nixon:
One could accept a pardon modeled after that without admitting guilt to any specific crime.
One Senator might disagree:
“The pardon power was not seen as suspension or dispensation. The pardon power carries a scope specifically limited to crimes already committed. The pardon may not apply to acts that have not yet been committed, because it would function as a personal waiver, the impermissible dispensation of the laws.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, “The Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Lawlessness”, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
Yeah, and of course Trump wasn’t all that happy that that’s the case. Or has everyone forgotten what he said about US citizen Muslims during the campaign?
Not so unprecedented anymore (as if I expect him to actually note that)…
And SCOTUS dodged the question in Clinton v Jones, allowing the civil case to proceed while noting “our decision rejecting the immunity claim and allowing the case to proceed does not require us to confront the question whether a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place.”
And oddly the current debate about Trump and possible court proceedings has not had much reflection on Justice Breyer’s concurrence in Clinton v Jones which was packed full of discussion distinguishing civil and criminal proceedings. A quick reading shows that Jefferson, Adams, and others robustly debated the very issue of whether a sitting president had any form of immunity to criminal trial.
Breyer’s concurrence seems to point at a perhaps unpalatable option of any criminal proceeding having to wait until the accused is no longer president, whether by impeachment and removal or end of elected term of service. This even though a civil proceeding may indeed proceed with a sitting president as a defendant.
Well, well, well: looks like Trump may have repeatedly perjured himself, on the tax returns for his charitable foundation.
Bolding mine.
As most of us remember, this was the offense that the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over.
I’m sure they’ll be just as eager to impeach Trump on perjury grounds as they were with Clinton. Rule of law!
Maybe they will, but I think we need a blue cocktail dress with political activity all over it first.
I [del]wasted[/del] spent some chasing down the Maddow allegations. They seem to be saying that the Trump charitable foundation did an event in Iowa during the primary season. Did you have a cite of a case where that was found to violate the law?
Seems a little thin, even for Maddow.
Regards,
Shodan
The evidence that Clinton committed perjury included a DNA sample of semen and his denial under oath that he had sexual relations, defined as “engaging in or causing contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person.”
The evidence of perjury you’ve mentioned here seems a tad less substantial than a DNA test.
Rule of law.
So, the difference is merely the quality of the evidence?
Hope you’re not gonna put too much weight on that weak reed, counselor. The returns are just starting to come in from that quarter.
If the strong evidence is that Trump committed perjury in office, or near-term, I would certainly support his impeachment.
Trump repeatedly asserted, under penalty of perjury, in the foundation’s tax filings for multiple years, that he and his businesses didn’t benefit from the foundation.
So ISTM that we have equally strong assertions by Clinton and Trump, equally subject to charges of perjury if false. So the difference between the two - so far - is the quality of the evidence that contradicts their statements.
Agree, or not?
Nope.
Clinton’s and Trump’s statement are not equally strong. Clinton made his statement in person, under oath delivered by a live person in front of him, after being warned about the specifics of his declaration.
Trump signed a form that offers a similar warning.
Clinton was testifying about event of which he had personal knowledge, and which no other person apart from Lewinsky had any knowledge, and which he knew were material to the subject of his examination.
Trump’s signature was in reliance of the representations of actions by other people.
Put another way: it was virtually impossible for Clinton to not know he was offering up deceptive testimony, since he was the only person who ejaculated on to the dress. In no way could Clinton’s lie be anything other than a statement he knew, personally, to be deceptive.
But Trump’s signature attests to merely his best understanding of what other people did. It would be impossible for someone other than Clinton to have ejaculated on the dress; it would be very possible for someone other than Trump to engaged in political activity as a representative of the foundation.
That doesn’t immunize Trump’s declaration, but it shows they are not on the same ground. To show Clinton’s perjury, it was enough to show the DNA test results. The facts didn’t allow for any innocent explanation.
Here, a legally innocent explanation is possible, so the evidence showing Trump’s perjury would not only have to show falsity, but also eliminate any reasonable doubt as to what he knew when he signed the form.
Wow, “under penalty of perjury” doesn’t mean much if you have people working for you.
Dayum, it’s nice to be rich.
While not disputing your assertions in re Clinton, Trump doesn’t get a pass merely because he’s not the only person in the foundation. CEOs have been held liable for similar shenanigans, and the burden of proof (if not in a strict legal sense) is on Trump to make a reasonable case as what he may not have known when he signed the form.
It’s his name on the door. Only One Captain to A Ship. The Buck Stops Here. And other cliches as necessary.