No, you’re right and I should read my own cites a little more closely.
When I read your post, I remembered seeing an article on Reuters awhile back referring to the California decision (couldn’t find that article) and the NPR article reminded me of the earlier ruling from Texas, also blocking Trump from using military funds for his wall.
I’d forgotten about the lifting of the injunction by SCOTUS in July while the case is under review by the 9th Circuit. Mighty nice of them. Usually such a ruling would follow precedent – which would obviously be to leave the injunction in place, since there are already well established prohibitions against the executive branch overriding congressionally-approved funding allocations.
So at this point $3.6 billion is blocked (until further appeal, I guess?) and $2.5 billion is available while the 9th circuit reviews?
With seemingly every decision this administration makes ending up in the courts, it is impossible for me to keep straight where things are. Thanks for helping to clarify for me.
My take as well. He can’t pardon away an impeachment nor could he pardon anyone who is impeached and convicted. I believe there is no clear consensus on whether he could pardon himself of any crimes that are tried in the courts.
I think things stand as you have stated. And obviously, we’re all confused trying to keep track of everything and all the various court decisions. It is a very lot to keep straight.
That’s my understanding, too. Trump can’t pardon away his own impeachment, but he can pardon other people who’ve been indicted on federal charges–but not people who’ve been impeached by the House, or people indicted under state statutes. (“Indicted” rather than just “convicted,” because apparently the presidential pardon power can stop judicial proceedings that are still underway.)
It certainly is a very handy power to have when there are so many people who could tell tales about Trump’s own doings, were they so inclined.
While it is the sentence between the two highlighted that states a direct commentary on the pardon power, that direct statement fails to clearly state an answer to the matter in question.
However, the sentences which I did highlight make clear what type of eventuality they are protecting against by including the impeachment exception.
To translate to a more modern English:
Let’s say that the governor of New York decides to throw a coup against the state. Under her power of pardon, she can’t pardon an individual for treason or murder, but she is not limited if it’s a domestic-only action like a coup and she is not prevented from interfering in a case against herself. When the coup is discovered, she could pardon her accomplices such that they can flaunt the law with impunity, having complete protection from all possible punishment. […] If a person had such freedom of pardon, you are left in a situation where you are bizarrely encouraging them towards this sort of abuse of power as there is no negative ramifications from any such nefarious activity and the chance of achieving whatever power grab aimed for should you succeed.
And so…we added the “except regarding impeachment” modifier.
Missed the edit window but I should have written “accomplices and adherents” instead of just “accomplices”, and I should have emphasized those words.
It’s hard to write with feather pen and even just in general, you don’t add extras about accomplices and adherents getting away with transgressions, to a legalistic document, for shits and giggles.
I guess there are factual answers to the following questions but, since its impeachment-related, I figured I post here. If mods disagree go ahead and move it.
Who makes redactions, on what basis do they do so and are there any provision for reviewing the decisions? Can embarassing (or criminal) things simply be redacted just because and they are buried forever? Assuming no leaks.
It looks like he’s a large problem child with access to real historic banking information.
It sounds like, if he actually has such information, he would have handed it over to NYT a year ago. If we’re only now hearing about it then either it’s not real or his documentation is not persuasive without further corroboration.
For the moment, I’d classify it in the same realm as all the other random one-offs that make it seem like we’re finally seeing a chink in the armor. Either they’re fake, they’re speculative, or they’re the Feds asking the media to tell a story that would get someone to pick up a phone and call someone else and talk about a crime.
Are you confused by the plethora of lawsuits flying all around, trying to get Trump’s tax returns, business records, and all that? This article gives a fairly detailed plain-English summary of all the cases that are heading for the Supreme Court, the relevant parties in each case, their histories in the lower courts, and their predictions as to what the Supreme Court will do with them, and a comparison of the issues and questions before the courts in each case.
Do you think he is going to say something damning? Would anyone that the Dems want to have testify say anything that is going to shift the needle any in the Senate?
I’m not sure that this is something to celebrate if you want Trump convicted in the Senate.