I believe Trump did not pardon Roger Stone, but commuted his sentence, so that he (Roger Stone) can still refuse to testify against Trump (5th ammendment? Something along those lines, I hazily remember, IANAL). So what if he does not pardon himself, but just commutes all future sentences against himself? What is the constitutional difference? Why may (or may not, as the case may be) he pardon his own crimes but not commute his sentences?
And as I am at it, what if Biden pardons Stone, so that he can no longer refuse testifying against Trump or goes to jail if he insists? Is that too macchiavelian for US politics?
I’m not worried that prosecuting a former President would be a bad precedent.
I tend to think that the bad precedent was electing a criminal as President in the first place.
I think that is correct.
A commutation allows Stone to claim the 5th as regards this issue. A pardon he could not do so.
So what happens if Biden now pardons him? Do the Democrats go crazy? It is not right to pardon him, that much is clear, but he is already out of jail, only if pardoned he can no longer refuse to testify. Or he goes to jail. So a pardon for Stone puts either Trump or Stone himself in jail.
It would be an interesting move on Biden’s part.
If they think Stone has the goods on Trump it could work. Stone either gives up the dirt on Trump or Stone goes to jail. Either would be fine with me.
EDIT to add: Actually, I think it is possible to refuse a pardon. So Stone would likely just do that.
With me too.
ETA: Oh, I did not know you can refuse a pardon. IANAL… shucks!
Yup…you can refuse a pardon:
United States v. Wilson , 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 150 (1833), was a case in the United States in which the defendant, George Wilson, was convicted of robbing the US Mail, and putting the life of the carrier in danger, in Pennsylvania and sentenced to death.[1] Due to his friends’ influence, Wilson was pardoned by Andrew Jackson. Wilson, however, refused the pardon. The Supreme Court was thus asked to rule on the case.[1]
The decision was that if the prisoner does not accept the pardon, it is not in effect: “A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it is rejected, we have discovered no power in this court to force it upon him.”[2] SOURCE
I agree with this. A criminal — and worse than that, someone who talks like a dictator.
Trump trying to get his election opponent, and predecessor, jailed, was a terrible precedent.
If Biden tried to get his election opponent and predecessor jailed, that would be another terrible precedent.
So long as Biden fulfills his hands-off pledge — and I am confident he will — any prosecution decision regarding DJT will be no more of a precedent than the prosecution of one of those Illinois governors.
Now, if Biden breaks his hands-off pledge, there is a good chance that the next GOP administration will jail himself or Harris. And he would deserve it. There isn’t much worse, of a political crime, than using the legal system to jail your once, and perhaps future, opponent.
There are two reasons any federal prosecution of Donald Trump will be completely led and handled by civil service prosecutors. One is that Biden, and his AG, won’t want to die in prison. The other is that Joe isn’t, by nature, a dictator.
This presumes that Biden would be jailing Trump just cuz. No reason other than Biden is a tinpot dictator and wants his former rival off the board.
What you are ignoring is the AG already has, in hand, right now, sufficient evidence of criminal activity to bring Trump to trial after he is president. It’s not even a matter of opinion. Mueller pointed out that all of the elements of a crime were met. If the AG had that same info on you I would bet absolutely everything I own you’d be arrested and have to defend yourself in court.
Letting Trump off the hook is the real crime.
How about using the legal system to cast doubt upon a fair election and try to steal it?
He probably hasn’t done anything yet. But if I were one of the judges he’s going to meet in the next few weeks, I would say right up front, “Mr Trump, if you bring a frivolous suit before my court, I will hold you in contempt.”
Wouldn’t a pardon be an admission of guilt though? I know it means he can’t be prosecuted but he clearly done wrong.
It would probably come with a signing statement denying that.
Trump might claim there are people, who do not like him, planning to charge him with crimes he did not do. He’d say his self-pardon is to stop that.
He’ll probably also claim that charging state crimes, for alleged acts that are also federal crimes, would be a blatant attempt to evade his constitutional right to self-pardon.
Would five Supreme Court justices buy any of that? Wait and we may see.
Trump has already threatened to jail Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton if he is elected to another term:
Given that vile threat against all who have run against him, should Trump regain the presidency in the 2024 elections, I recommend that Biden pardon Clinton and self-pardon himself. It wouldn’t be any admission of guilt.
We may have reached a point where presidential self-pardon becomes the norm. Thanks, Trump!
Do you have a legal justification for that? The argument that “the consequences are too awful to consider” is an example of a logical fallacy argumentum ad consequentiam which isn’t something that would stand up in court.
History has seen a few Governers pardon themselves for state level crimes, and a few Mayors pardon themselves for violating city ordinances. Is there any reason why a President couldn’t do the same?
I think, however, that he could still face charges for sexual assault at a state level, and can’t pardon himself for those. And he should be prosecuted for those.
Sure:
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
A court has not ruled one way or another but the legal argument against it is certainly out there.
I don’t see how this would work. The 5th applies when a witness is in jeopardy of prosecution. If someone has already been convicted and served a sentence, there is no jeopardy attached.
If there are fresh charges that could be brought, then he could be granted immunity, after which he can be compelled to testify. He can’t plead 5th when he has immunity. This is not unusual.
IANAL.
I do not understand it either. When I looked that was the only “reason” I found other than Trump is kind of a dick even when he helps someone.
When the New York DA has rested his case, I’d like Biden to say the word “pardon” a few times, followed by “oops, I forgot… state’s rights.”
Let’s say on January 21, the AG of NY files charges on Trump for crimes committed in the state of NY. After leaving office in January, Trump promptly takes up residence in his newly adopted state, Florida. Would NY have to go through extradition with FL if Trump refused to go to NY to stand trial? If so, couldn’t some official in Florida (say Gov. DeSantis) or even the courts simply refuse to extradite?