Trump Says He Can Pardon Himself

[jem]

You claimed dershowitz' position that no one knows... is absurd. it seems you have moderated your stance.

2. I see no basis for believing Congress would impeach simply because a President issued a self pardon. Did the republican congress impeach Obama for his ultra vires acts?

Congress would likely only move against a president if he were being prosecuted for a heavy crime. Or they would remove him for office for political b.s. like "collusion". A non crime is not something a self pardon would remedy.

Therefore in most if not all relevant cases the issue would be the underlying crime not the questionably "ultra vires" pardon.

If there were a real crime and the President were to be prosecuted after his time in office, the courts would get to rule on whether the pardon was a valid excuse or defense.

But again, that is unlikely to ever be ruled upon because the President could just resign a day early and most likely negotiate a deal with his V.P.

That's precisely the kind of thing I had in mind. Very perceptive.

In a trivial sense, someone like Dershowitz, or you, are correct when you say "no one knows". But only in the trivial sense. Because what you and Dershowitz are falling back on, which we ought not to do, is the assumption that the Congress might behave in a ridiculous manner, not recognize that the President is not above the law, and therefore not impeach and convict the President immediately if he were to attempt to pardon himself..

If you read my exact wording carefully you will see that I am not arguing this as a legal point. I am simple pointing out how we got here, in baby steps, by Presidents taking action when the Congress was hamstrung into inaction, i.e., effectively moribund, even though those Presidents' acted ultra vires.

 

[piezoe]

You claimed dershowitz' position that no one knows... is absurd.

I stand by that. It is absurd for the reason I stated. It is a trivial opinion because it assumes the Congress might act in a ridiculous manner and not immediately impeach any President who attempted to Pardon him or herself, and that prosecutors would not challenge any such pardon. No one should ever proffer a legal opinion that assumes something ridiculous.

Dershowitz did better when he said the President can't "necessarily" pardon himself. But even that statement is bizarre. It allows that the president might be able to pardon himself. And as I said, my view is that if the Congress allows the President to remain in office even after attempting to pardon himself, then they are being riduculous so long as they claim to be held by the Constitution and one falls back on originalism in interpreting the Constitution. There is simply no question that the Founders ruled out, quite explicitly, any possibility of the President being held above the law!

It is not a matter of me agreeing or disagreeing with Dershowitz. It's simply a recognition of the reality that Dershowitz can not possibly be right UNLESS the Congress were to act in a ridiculous manner and deny that the President is placing himself above the law when he pardons himself.

The defect in Dershowitz's thinking stems from his apparently having forgot what the impeachment process is all about. It is not about convicting and punishing someone for a specific crime. It is a purely political exercise to assure that the President, even one duly elected, will serve always at the pleasure of the Congress. This is abundantly clear from the reading of the Constitution. The Constitution states that the only result of conviction in an impeachment trial is removal from office. There is no other penalty regardless of what the President may have done to deserve impeachment.

Consequently, impeachment is a process independent of indictment, prosecution and sentencing. This is why, in a nutshell, all those who say a sitting President can not be indicted are wrong.. Indictment is not legally linked in any way to impeachment. They are separate processes, consistent with the intentions of the Founders, as careful reading of the Constitution makes clear.

The fabricated arguments as to why a sitting President can not be indicted are totally lacking in constitutional support. These arguments are typically based on the idea that, if indicted, a President, the head of an entire branch of government, would not be able to fulfill their Constitutional duties, and thus a conflict would be created. This is a completely specious argument. The Constitution provides abundant guidance as to what shall occur whenever the President is not able to fulfill his/her duties. To put it simply, the arguments of those who insist a sitting President may not be indicted constitute legal tripe. And as a matter of fact, these absurd arguments have all been put fourth by lawyers who owed their employment to the President -- the most infamous being Bork. The one correct opinion, an opinion that runs counter to all the others, is that of Rotunda's. Rotunda did not owe his employment to the President. (We actually have an example of a Vice President finishing the entirety of their term, including presiding over an impeachment trial of a Supreme Court Justice, while under indictment for murder. Was there any concern at the time, that the Vice President would not be able to fulfill his Constitutional duties? Apparently not much. )

Every one of the arguments holding that a sitting president should be immune from prosecution is opinion; not fact. Several have cited J. Story in Commentaries on the Constitution. Storey held that the President has incidental powers that need to be performed without obstruction and “the President cannot, therefore, be liable to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of the duties of his office.” This is obviously complete nonsense because we've had a number of presidents assassinated, others who died, one that resigned, and several that became physically or mentally incapacitated. The country rolled along fine without them.

Indictment and impeachment are separate, independent processes, so either or both could occur and in either order. The question of whether a sitting President is immune from indictment has never been adjudicated. All we have are several absurd opinions and one correct one. Eventually the question may come before the Court. The Court could very well throw reason out the window and conclude that a sitting President can't be indicted. It wouldn't be the first time the Court made a terrible decision.

 

[jem]

Just Because Fallacy


Description: Refusing to respond to give reasons or evidence for a claim by stating yourself as the ultimate authority on the matter. This is usually indicated by the phrases, “just trust me”, “because I said so”, “you’ll see”, or “just because”. The just because fallacy is not conducive to the goal of argumentation -- that is coming to a mutually agreeable solution. Nor is it helpful in helping the other person understand why you are firm on your position. “Just because” is not a reason that speaks to the question itself; it is simply a deflection to authority (legitimate or not).

you are off the rails here piezoe you ae conflating multiple topics.
you seem to understand there no law on the subject yet you insist you are correct. yet you are not even an attorney... and you give no law to support you beliefs.

but when a harvard law prof and famous appellate lawyer tells you no one knows because the courts have not examined the issue..

you say its absurd to say no one knows.

2. and with respect to indictment... the DOJ thinks otherwise.
My position is we don't know til the court rules.

 

[piezoe]

Just Because Fallacy


Description: Refusing to respond to give reasons or evidence for a claim by stating yourself as the ultimate authority on the matter. This is usually indicated by the phrases, “just trust me”, “because I said so”, “you’ll see”, or “just because”. The just because fallacy is not conducive to the goal of argumentation -- that is coming to a mutually agreeable solution. Nor is it helpful in helping the other person understand why you are firm on your position. “Just because” is not a reason that speaks to the question itself; it is simply a deflection to authority (legitimate or not).

you are off the rails here piezoe you ae conflating multiple topics.
you seem to understand there no law on the subject yet you insist you are correct. yet you are not even an attorney... and you give no law to support you beliefs.

but when a harvard law prof and famous appellate lawyer tells you no one knows because the courts have not examined the issue..

you say its absurd to say no one knows.

2. and with respect to indictment... the DOJ thinks otherwise.
My position is we don't know til the court rules.

Oh, you finally figured it out. There is more than one topic. One is whether the President can pardon himself (He can't). Its absurd to say that "no one knows." I have given my argument why it is absurd to say that. If you want to respond, then offer a reasonable criticism of my argument, which you of course never read, so you can't respond intelligently. The question of whether the President can pardon himself is not controversial. He can't, he won't (Well Trump is stupid enough to try.)

I am not writing for you here, I am writing for those who can follow the arguments I have given.

The other topic is indictment vs. impeachment. Indictment and impeachment are separate and independent of one another.

"and with respect to indictment... the DOJ thinks otherwise."​

NO THEY DON'T!
Only fools would say he can't be indicted. Rosenstein is no fool. He did not say the President can not be indicted. Nor did he say what the bogus headline on your you tube video says. As a matter of fact he said exactly what I said about this matter. Maybe you should read what I said, and then you would know what Rosenstein said. I just went much further and offered a somewhat detailed a criticism of the prior opinions and said, in effect, "of course he can be indicted." Rosenstein did not go that far. But he certainly didn't close the door on indictment. (I seriously doubt that incorrect headline originated with NPR. That's disinformation courtesy of whoever altered it and posted it. )

By the way, were I Attorney General I would say exactly what Rosenstein said. He is one smart cookie!

When you learn to read and not make false accusations, I will carry the conversation further with you. In the meantime I am writing for others who may be able to offer valid criticisms. .

 

[jem]

1. Piezoe you are off the rails with your Just Because you say so fallacy.

note there are other opinions at this link.. but here are 3 from your team...
that I though were very interesting. This should show you... there is no definitive answer as I have been saying....

the ACLU, John Brennan and a lawyer for Boies law firm... you know the guy who argued for Gore and represents democrats....

---
2. Note that Rosenstein said when the matter was considered in the past the opinon was a sitting President can not be indicted. Not sure how you did not comprehend that... but that is what I told you.


and Muellers team told Trumps team that was the situation as well ...

"Most legal experts have assumed Mueller would follow the Justice Department’s guidelines that bar such a prosecution. The two opinions, written in 1974 and in 2000, argue that a president must be immune from criminal prosecution from his executive branch while in office. If a president had to consider the possibility of criminal jeopardy, the opinions argue, he might be dangerously constrained in making decisions that are critical to his role as commander in chief.
The opinions were written by the department’s Office of Legal Counsel amid investigations into President Richard M. Nixon and President Bill Clinton.

The Constitution provides another remedy for wrongdoing, the opinions conclude: Congress can hold a president accountable with impeachment proceedings, if necessary."



https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2becb4d6067_story.html?utm_term=.5eb64743fd56
----


back to 1.


Harvey Silverglate, Civil Liberties Attorney at the law firm of Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein and co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
"Since the question of presidential self-pardons turns on a constitutional provision – the president's pardon power – where there is no judicial precedent that answers the question, I think it is wise to simply take the text of the Constitution at face value," Silverglate told CNBC in an email. "The president is given the unequivocal power to pardon. ("[He] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" – Article II, Section 2.) There is no expressed limitation governing whom the president may or may not pardon. Therefore it seems quite clear to me that the President may pardon himself."

John Brennan, former director of the CIA
"The constitutional powers granted to the president for pardon are quite broad," Brennan said Monday on "MSNBC Live with Hallie Jackson." He added: "It doesn't exclude explicitly the president's pardoning of himself."

Nicholas Gravante, Jr., partner at the law firm of Boies Schiller Flexner
"I'm not sure that there's a definitive answer," Gravante told CNBC. "The notion of somebody taking office and then being able to pardon themselves for things they have done while in office would give any president the freedom to act lawlessly and then simply be allowed to pardon themselves from the consequences of such actions prior to leaving office. In effect, the president would be not subject to the rules of law. and this is a country that is governed by the rule of law."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/her...ether-president-trump-can-pardon-himself.html

Oh, you finally figured it out. There is more than one topic. One is whether the President can pardon himself (He can't). Its absurd to say that "no one knows." I have given my argument why it is absurd to say that. If you want to respond, then offer a reasonable criticism of my argument, which you of course never read, so you can't respond intelligently. The question of whether the President can pardon himself is not controversial. He can't, he won't (Well Trump is stupid enough to try.)

I am not writing for you here, I am writing for those who can follow the arguments I have given.

The other topic is indictment vs. impeachment. Indictment and impeachment are separate and independent of one another.

"and with respect to indictment... the DOJ thinks otherwise."​

NO THEY DON'T!
Only fools would say he can't be indicted. Rosenstein is no fool. He did not say the President can not be indicted. Nor did he say what the bogus headline on your you tube video says. As a matter of fact he said exactly what I said about this matter. Maybe you should read what I said, and then you would know what Rosenstein said. I just went much further and offered a somewhat detailed a criticism of the prior opinions and said, in effect, "of course he can be indicted." Rosenstein did not go that far. But he certainly didn't close the door on indictment. (I seriously doubt that incorrect headline originated with NPR. That's disinformation courtesy of whoever altered it and posted it. )

By the way, were I Attorney General I would say exactly what Rosenstein said. He is one smart cookie!

When you learn to read and not make false accusations, I will carry the conversation further with you. In the meantime I am writing for others who may be able to offer valid criticisms. .

 

[jem]

actually I read that too quickly Sliverglate is a Civil Liberties Attorney who is a member of the ACLU but it was probably incorrect to say he was an ACLU attorney.

 

[piezoe]

1. Piezoe you are off the rails with your Just Because you say so fallacy.

note there are other opinions at this link.. but here are 3 from your team...
that I though were very interesting. This should show you... there is no definitive answer as I have been saying....

the ACLU, John Brennan and a lawyer for Boies law firm... you know the guy who argued for Gore and represents democrats....

---
2. Note that Rosenstein said when the matter was considered in the past the opinon was a sitting President can not be indicted. Not sure how you did not comprehend that... but that is what I told you.


and Muellers team told Trumps team that was the situation as well ...

"Most legal experts have assumed Mueller would follow the Justice Department’s guidelines that bar such a prosecution. The two opinions, written in 1974 and in 2000, argue that a president must be immune from criminal prosecution from his executive branch while in office. If a president had to consider the possibility of criminal jeopardy, the opinions argue, he might be dangerously constrained in making decisions that are critical to his role as commander in chief.
The opinions were written by the department’s Office of Legal Counsel amid investigations into President Richard M. Nixon and President Bill Clinton.

The Constitution provides another remedy for wrongdoing, the opinions conclude: Congress can hold a president accountable with impeachment proceedings, if necessary."



https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2becb4d6067_story.html?utm_term=.5eb64743fd56
----


back to 1.


Harvey Silverglate, Civil Liberties Attorney at the law firm of Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein and co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
"Since the question of presidential self-pardons turns on a constitutional provision – the president's pardon power – where there is no judicial precedent that answers the question, I think it is wise to simply take the text of the Constitution at face value," Silverglate told CNBC in an email. "The president is given the unequivocal power to pardon. ("[He] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" – Article II, Section 2.) There is no expressed limitation governing whom the president may or may not pardon. Therefore it seems quite clear to me that the President may pardon himself."

John Brennan, former director of the CIA
"The constitutional powers granted to the president for pardon are quite broad," Brennan said Monday on "MSNBC Live with Hallie Jackson." He added: "It doesn't exclude explicitly the president's pardoning of himself."

Nicholas Gravante, Jr., partner at the law firm of Boies Schiller Flexner
"I'm not sure that there's a definitive answer," Gravante told CNBC. "The notion of somebody taking office and then being able to pardon themselves for things they have done while in office would give any president the freedom to act lawlessly and then simply be allowed to pardon themselves from the consequences of such actions prior to leaving office. In effect, the president would be not subject to the rules of law. and this is a country that is governed by the rule of law."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/her...ether-president-trump-can-pardon-himself.html

There doesn't need to be any judicial precedent for the President pardoning himself, because there is already constitutional law based on the premise that the President, not being a monarch, is not above the law. That settles it. But I don't dismiss the fact that there are idiots in this world, and some of them are lawyers -- I'll only mention two, but I could mention at least three. One is Rudy Juli-Annie the other is Michael Cohen.

If you want to intelligently discuss law then stop quoting opinions and start using arguments based on settled law, the constitution, the Federalist papers, and if you must resort to case law, so be it. But stop this incessant quoting of hairbrain opinion by DOJ lawyers working for Nixon 40 + years ago rattling of something from the top of their head while trying to get out of the office early on a Wednesday. Those opinions are crap, and I have detailed why. That's what I admire about Rosenstein. he knows these opinions are not law and he's very smart. He has not ruled out the possibility of indicting Trump, but I don't think that is the Route Mueller and Rosenstein want to take. .

 

[jem]

that is some twisted logic... quintessential lefty argumentation.

you just said DOJ opinion means crap because there is no case law or settled law.

yet...you don't admit you own opinion is crap because there is no settled law or case law.

I am trying to bring your brain to knowledge and logic... but you are just refusing to let it get there...

There doesn't need to be any judicial precedent for the President pardoning himself, because there is already constitutional law based on the premise that the President, not being a monarch, is not above the law. That settles it. But I don't dismiss the fact that there are idiots in this world, and some of them are lawyers -- I'll only mention two, but I could mention at least three. One is Rudy Juli-Annie the other is Michael Cohen.

If you want to intelligently discuss law then stop quoting opinions and start using arguments based on settled law, the constitution, the Federalist papers, and if you must resort to case law, so be it. But stop this incessant quoting of hairbrain opinion by DOJ lawyers working for Nixon 40 + years ago rattling of something from the top of their head while trying to get out of the office early on a Wednesday. Those opinions are crap, and I have detailed why. That's what I admire about Rosenstein. he knows these opinions are not law and he's very smart. He has not ruled out the possibility of indicting Trump, but I don't think that is the Route Mueller and Rosenstein want to take. .

 

[piezoe]

The Constitution provides another remedy for wrongdoing, the opinions conclude: Congress can hold a president accountable with impeachment proceedings, if necessary."

The "remedy" in the constitution merely removes from office a government officer who Congress determines has acted in inappropriately. Impeachment is constitutionally limited to removal from office! After that, or even before that, if there is sufficient evidence of a crime having been committed the removed officer can be indicted and tried. As I pointed out these two processes are not linked and as such they can occur in either order. It is technically possible for a President to go on serving as President while under indictment, at least for State Crimes, perhaps not for Federal, if the Congress should permit. I gave an example where the Vice President under indictment for Murder in New Jersey continued to serve to the end of his term. The Constitution states precisely what shall happen whenever a President is unable to fulfill there constitutional duties.

 

[piezoe]

that is some twisted logic... quintessential lefty argumentation.

you just said DOJ opinion means crap because there is no case law or settled law.

yet...you don't admit you own opinion is crap because there is no settled law or case law.

I am trying to bring your brain to knowledge and logic... but you are just refusing to let it get there...

If you want to proffer your own opinion then do so, but please give us a logical argument to back it up. If you want to comment on my opinion then please demonstrate that you have read it by offering a logical criticism of my argument, which was relatively detailed. And forget the "lefty" stuff, it makes you look like a halfwit.