Sounds like a minor difference to me. The president can allow hundreds of people to commit crimes with impunity yet you find it absurd that he could pardon himself for just one crime.
Do you get to decide if you committed a crime or does a police officer and prosecutor decide if you committed a crime? The police can let you go. A prosecutor can let you go. You can’t let yourself go. Things would get bad really fast if people could do that.
There is value in others having to make such decisions rather than you deciding for yourself.
Also, if a president told others to commit a crime I assume the president is now guilty of a crime. Even if he/she pardons the person who did it the president is still on the hook (or should be).
And yet Lori Loughlin will be doing time upstate. See where the investigation leads and pursue whatever warrants consequences.
Not relevant. When the president issues a pardon he has decided that a crime was committed. You don’t think the president should be able to pardon himself, other agree and disagree with you, but this can be easily argued both ways and neither side has an advantage. I don’t see that as the kind of case where the courts would interfere, especially based on your opinion that the Constitution is absurd. The president can do far more harm using the pardon power for others than for himself. As it is he can do incredible harm without needing a pardon, that was also built into the Constitution yet the courts are not going to take those powers away.
I suspect Biden will let New York (and any other states) take their run-up on Trump first and see how it goes. Although I suppose NY (or whomever) and the feds could use the threat of a federal prosecution to get Trump to take a state-level deal.
The person I think the feds should prosecute is Bill Barr for obstruction of justice, for doing the same thing Barr himself prosecuted Susan McDougall for 20 years earlier. The man was a disgrace to the office.
Where did I say or imply that?
The Constitution has plain language that does not limit the presidential pardon power in any way yet you say that will lead to absurd results. I’m not saying you are calling the entire Constitution absurd, but you are effectively calling that part absurd.
Also, you’ve made good points, but I don’t think either of us is going to change any minds here. Let’s just agree that you’re wrong and put this aside 
You keep thinking that a president being able to pardon himself (or herself) is a foregone conclusion. You seem to think everyone already knows that he/she can because the constitution is so clear on it.
Well, you are wrong. It is not clear at all that the president can do that and the great deal of debate around this should tell you that this question is in no way considered a simple question with an easy answer.
“When people ask me if a president can pardon himself, my answer is always, ‘Well, he can try,’” said Brian Kalt, a constitutional law professor at Michigan State University. “The Constitution does not provide a clear answer on this.” SOURCE
There appears to be some confusion surrounding the question of whether a president can pardon himself. There are many judgments to be drawn from the familiar forms of legal argument—history, text, structure, prudence, doctrine and ethos—all of which cohere around the conclusion that such a pardon is not constitutionally permissible, a conclusion also reached by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). SOURCE
Can presidents pardon themselves?
The answer, surprisingly enough, is not that clear. But since President Trump just tweeted that he has the “absolute right” to pardon himself, the question is suddenly relevant. SOURCE
Since then, the idea of a presidential self-pardon has floated on the fringes of constitutional dialogue. Scholars are split on whether the president’s constitutionally conferred power “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment,” includes self-pardon. SOURCE
There are just as many sources that disagree. The only consensus you’ll find on this subject is that there is no consensus.
That tells us this is in no way a settled question with an obvious answer so you cannot characterize my view on it as absurd. You personally may feel that way but the legal profession as a whole sees it as an unanswered question.
Your not noticing that I agree with that. We state our opinions, but there is no known answer here. And I’m not characterizing your view as absurd, it was your idea that the language of the Constitution produces an absurd result. I disagree that it is absurd.
To be clear:
No - don’t prosecute Trump himself, but if the NY AG wants to do it…oh what the hell.
But I think prosecuting Trump would be politically problematic. Instead, do something that would be much less politically risky: prosecute the enablers of his grift and graft. Prosecute those around him. There’s almost no way Trump could have lived in that office without committing some form of corruption, and he almost certainly had help. Go after those individuals instead, and send a message to future dictator enablers that this is what happens if you’re just following orders.
?? It says right there, “the Constitution is absurd”, not ‘Whacka-Mole is absurd’. I also think there are parts of the Constitution that are absurd based on the absurd results they may produce. You’re entitled to that opinion and it doesn’t make you absurd for holding it.
This just tells out-going presidents to issue sweeping pardons to everyone.
If prosecuting former presidents who were truly crooks sets a precedent, then i think that is a precedent that is long overdue.
Missed the edit:
Which I think highlights an issue with pre-emptive pardons which I also do not think should be a thing and, AFAIK, also is an unsettled question.
I know it’ll never happen in my liffetime, but giving one man the power of pardons is just a bad idea. The constitution should be changed so that the president can recommend pardons but a final bipartisan commission - a clemency board - considers the merits of a case. Not necessarily whether to issue the pardon but whether the pardon would have merit based on certain criteria. If the case has merit, then the president’s pardon moves forward, if not, it doesn’t.
That’s really the question; if the alleged crimes in question were committed before he was in office, then having four years in office should do absolutely nothing in terms of whether or not he’s actually prosecuted for those crimes, save maybe putting that prosecution on hold during his term of office.
As far as indicting/trying Presidents for crimes committed in office, I’m not so sure. I mean, there’s a really gray line sometimes between legitimate policy decisions and criminal actions in ANY President’s administration, and it’s all totally dependent on where you’re looking at it from. One man’s legitimate airstrike against terrorists is another’s war crime, you know.
But I do think that it would be perfectly acceptable to go after Trump for things like violations of the Hatch Act and for violating stuff like 5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain (if indeed people can be prosecuted for that). Those are cut and dried laws intended to prevent the VERY sort of corruption Trump engaged in continuously throughout his term of office.
Pres and VP are specifically exempted from the Hatch Act.