I liked the rap version better.
*Commit the crime, you do the time
But every now and then
You have to wonder when
The wheels of justice grind
A little too hard, so we make them pause
For the guy behind bars
And let the man go free
Back into society.
Now it’s only the prez
He’s the one who says
Where justice was denied
And where amnesty is applied.
Now I have to take a dump
'Cause we didn’t foresee Trump!*
This very point was raised and debated at the Constitutional Convention of 1787; the debate was won by the delegates who urged that pardons be permitted before conviction, and the language of Article II, section 2 reflects the unlimited nature of the pardon power. See, e.g., Macgill, H. C.: 1974, “Nixon Pardon: Limits on the Benign Prerogative,” Connecticut Law Review, VII, 56.
Ah, more “swamp draining” of course.
I’m sure you are aware that there is a process that has been set up to recommend pardons, which Trump has not followed.
And we all know why Trump is pardoning people left and right, don’t we?
Would you agree that pardoning one of the people who might be giving evidence against him is obstruction of justice? And should be an impeachable offense?
Let’s get to the heart of the matter here, which is not Jack Johnson.
There is a process that recent Presidents have followed but that process is not mandated by the Constitution. He’s not required to follow their process. It doesn’t matter why he is doing it. It is certainly not obstruction of justice which is a specific crime that he is not guilty of doing in relation to the pardons. Impeachable is whatever Congress says it is. I doubt any Congress ever would think that this would fit.
What he is doing now is not directly obstruction of justice. If he is signaling to those thinking about cooperating with the investigation not to because he will pardon them if they get charged then it is approaching obstruction. If he does pardon them it very likely is.
Nixon brought up a pardon to H R Halderman, something unknown during the Watergate investigation. Halderman knew it would be obstruction. One of the people in the investigation said that if they had know this would have merited an additional article of indictment.
Of course whether the current lot of Republicans would impeach Trump even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue is another matter.
On its own, the pardon of Double-Duh would not be impeachable, but if it’s one piece of a pattern of obstruction, then yes it should be considered.
As hajario points out, there is no legal or Constitutional reason that the President has to follow that process. So the answer is Yes, I’m aware of that - so what?
I assume it isn’t because he is afraid Dinesh D’Souza or Joe Arpaio or Jack Johnson is going to give evidence against him.
No.
That would be an interesting court case. There are no limits on the power of the President to grant pardons, and no definition of the high crimes and misdemeanors that justify impeachment. Does Congress have the power to define a President’s Constitutional powers as a high crime?
I would say No - too much like an attempt to amend the Constitution without ratifying an amendment. They would need to come up with something more plausible.
Regards,
Shodan
Obstruction of justice is a statute. The president’s authority to pardon is explicitly there in the Constitution, with the only restraint being no pardons for impeachments. Congress cannot pass a statute that overrides a part of the Constitution.
If you want to claim that it’s abuse of power and impeachable, that’s one thing. But it is not a violation of a statute. It can’t be.
According to the Supreme Court in Nixon v. United States (not that Nixon), it wouldn’t be a court case at all.
This is interesting. Trump got something right. Will he follow through with the commutation?
WADR I don’t think the case you mention covers whether or not a President can be impeached for exercising his Constitutional power of pardon.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides, I believe, over the Senate hearings. Maybe he would rule right at the beginning of the Senate trial that the grounds for the impeachment were un-Constitutional. Because it certainly can be seen as an attempt by Congress to make an end run around the Constitution.
Like I said, Congress would need to come up with some other grounds for impeachment besides “he pardoned someone”.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think the CJ has the authority to do that, and if he tried to, I would expect the Senate to ignore him. But talk about your constitutional crisis!! On that note alone, I would hope the CJ would be wise enough not to precepitate one.
What, if anything, did Rehnquist do during the Clinton trial?
I would expect, if Congress impeached a President for using his pardon power, we have a Constitutional crisis already.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know. Is there something you wanted to point out?
It’s not “using his pardon power”, but “using his pardon power in a corrupt manner”. Remember, high crimes and misdemeanors don’t have to be actual crimes. If Congress thinks the president is abusing the authority given to him, they can impeach him and remove him from office.
It depends on how it is used. E.g., if someone paid Trump$10M for a pardon, that would be a crime. Note that Clinton was accused of doing this in the last days of his Presidency and Certain People wanted him prosecuted for it.
Plausible-ish scenario. One of Trump’s campaign people is given immunity to prosecution in order to force testimony. The person refuses and is charged. Trump pardons. Again asked to testify, refused. Repeat. That would be viewed as obstruction to many people.
He showed off those spiffy Iolanthe stripes on his robe sleeves.
It covers whether or not the courts have a role in the impeachment process. They don’t. The House has the “sole Power of Impeachment” and the Senate has the “sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
You said you didn’t think the Chief Justice could rule the proceedings out of order. The Chief Justice presides over Senate trials to remove a President. What does “preside” mean in that context? Does he rule on anything?
You are correct that it doesn’t have to be a crime. Can it be something he is Constitutionally empowered to do? I think it is an open question, as well as a Constitutional question.
If “in a corrupt manner” means “in a way Congress doesn’t like even if it doesn’t break any statute” then that strikes me as an end run around the Constitution.
That’s why I think it would be a Constitutional crisis no matter what, and long before it got to a Senate trial.
Regards,
Shodan
OK, I probably was too absolute in that statement. We would be in uncharted territory, so we don’t know whether he could do that or not. But I think the key part is that it would precipitate a real constitutional crisis and I would hope a CJ wold avoid that at all cost. Because:
The constitution specifically contains a phrase that was known to mean “abuse of office”. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that one can abuse the office while following the rules. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one.