You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trump Says He Can Pardon Himself
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
You're inadvertently admitting here that you respond without ever reading my posts.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.
By the way this opinion you posted from Gravante illustrates that not all Lawyers are idiots. There are clearly exceptions. Thanks for posting something logical.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."
1. to even comprehend what I and Dershowitz and others are telling you, you need to understand you are uneducated in matters of Jurisprudence. Like the Dunning Kruger effect exhibited by slarti yesteraday on another thread you seem to be exhibiting it here.
To start you need to understand what law is and how constitutional matters are weighed and decided by the Supreme Court.
Just to begin your education you need to understand what sources of law are. Here is an primer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_law
I can assure the very last place the US Supreme court would look for guidance is you and your opinion. (they would never look to you.) They would never say oh Piezoe says it would be absurd to allow a president to pardon himself. Surely, you understand that... Your opinion means nothing. You need to present case law or sources of law.
2. next you ask...Do the sources of law comment?
you have 2 possible answers. No.
or yes... and in this case the only source of law which speaks on this subject is the Constitution.
It is possible the Court would say since the Constitution speaks to the matter and it gives the President very broad authority to pardon people. He can pardon himself.
Now... political reality...
The more heinous the crime or activity the more likely the court would say the President can not pardon himself.
If the court saw a witch hunt they might come up with a limited ruling stating in some matters a President could pardon himself and deal with the consequences later.
Or they could skip the issue and say since the President can not be indicted for a matter like ___________ while in office... the issue is moot. Go back and try the President after his term in office is over.
They might even say the president could pardon himself for some types of crimes but not others.
Conclusion...
you have no legal basis to rule out the possibility the Court would not rule for the president. This is especially true since the Constitution speaks on the matter of pardons and he is given broad authority.. The constitution did no say he can't pardon himself. As uncomfortable as that is for you its possible. By the way it would not have been a big deal when the Constitution was written because there were very few Federal Laws... and I believe the Framers would turn in the graves if they say how our Federal Govt has made laws in some many areas outside of the areas they were granted jurisdiction.
Hence, Dershowitz (and many others) is correct when he said no on knows for sure. Which is what I have been telling you.
To start you need to understand what law is and how constitutional matters are weighed and decided by the Supreme Court.
Just to begin your education you need to understand what sources of law are. Here is an primer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_law
I can assure the very last place the US Supreme court would look for guidance is you and your opinion. (they would never look to you.) They would never say oh Piezoe says it would be absurd to allow a president to pardon himself. Surely, you understand that... Your opinion means nothing. You need to present case law or sources of law.
2. next you ask...Do the sources of law comment?
you have 2 possible answers. No.
or yes... and in this case the only source of law which speaks on this subject is the Constitution.
It is possible the Court would say since the Constitution speaks to the matter and it gives the President very broad authority to pardon people. He can pardon himself.
Now... political reality...
The more heinous the crime or activity the more likely the court would say the President can not pardon himself.
If the court saw a witch hunt they might come up with a limited ruling stating in some matters a President could pardon himself and deal with the consequences later.
Or they could skip the issue and say since the President can not be indicted for a matter like ___________ while in office... the issue is moot. Go back and try the President after his term in office is over.
They might even say the president could pardon himself for some types of crimes but not others.
Conclusion...
you have no legal basis to rule out the possibility the Court would not rule for the president. This is especially true since the Constitution speaks on the matter of pardons and he is given broad authority.. The constitution did no say he can't pardon himself. As uncomfortable as that is for you its possible. By the way it would not have been a big deal when the Constitution was written because there were very few Federal Laws... and I believe the Framers would turn in the graves if they say how our Federal Govt has made laws in some many areas outside of the areas they were granted jurisdiction.
Hence, Dershowitz (and many others) is correct when he said no on knows for sure. Which is what I have been telling you.
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.
Last edited:
Its so odd to me, that so many lefties exhibit inferiority complexes (routinely) in their writing. its like you guys get off on pretending you are in the vanguard of intellectual thought and few others understand the way you understand. Part of leftist writing seems to be to show cute ways to exhibit massive narcissism.
Dude, you are not more qualified to write on these subjects than any attorney who passed a bar exam in a tough state like CA, NY or Florida. If you took those exams and saw the passage rates you would realize what a clown you sound like when you try and put down wide swaths of lawyers.
I tell you, I appreciate your writing style. you are clearly a smart guy. But, you are not smarter than the vast majority of attorneys who passed bar exams in tough states when it comes to jurisprudence. You make significant mistakes about the law on almost every legal thread. Which I accept because you are a layman. But, you are far out of you depth. Realize it. a man has to know his limitations.
Dude, you are not more qualified to write on these subjects than any attorney who passed a bar exam in a tough state like CA, NY or Florida. If you took those exams and saw the passage rates you would realize what a clown you sound like when you try and put down wide swaths of lawyers.
I tell you, I appreciate your writing style. you are clearly a smart guy. But, you are not smarter than the vast majority of attorneys who passed bar exams in tough states when it comes to jurisprudence. You make significant mistakes about the law on almost every legal thread. Which I accept because you are a layman. But, you are far out of you depth. Realize it. a man has to know his limitations.
By the way this opinion you posted from Gravante illustrates that not all Lawyers are idiots. There are clearly exceptions. Thanks for posting something logical.
Last edited:
wrong.
You're inadvertently admitting here that you respond without ever reading my posts.
Bullshit! Don't be ridiculous. Now you are getting defensive. Just argue the facts and drop the bullshit. Dershowitz could counter with what seems like a plausible argument. Where's yours.you need to understand you are uneducated in matters of Jurisprudence.
You don't practice law any more, do you? Thank god! There is an ability spectrum among lawyers, as among other professions. In the case of Law, Cohen and Julie-Annie are at one end, and Ginsberg is at the other. I hesitate to say which end you are at, so I will be polite as usual, and not say.
Last edited:
the funny thing about your argument... is that it is my argument.
you don't have law, you don't have sources of law...the court has not yet ruled and yet you act like you know how the court will rule and do not leave open the option you could be wrong.
Is that narcissism or Dunning Kruger or ignorance or a mix? or just a a troll on your part.
the constitutions says...
the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
You can see the founders contemplated at least one circumstance when the President could not pardon himself. So they made a list. A Court could easily surmise that list is exhaustive.
you have given us nothing relevant to say that as a matter of law a president can not self pardon and therefore the matter is settled.
Other than because you like to use the cliche "no man is above the law".. and by the way a President is not if he is impeached first... you have nothing.
The only sound argument is to say the matter is not settled.
you don't have law, you don't have sources of law...the court has not yet ruled and yet you act like you know how the court will rule and do not leave open the option you could be wrong.
Is that narcissism or Dunning Kruger or ignorance or a mix? or just a a troll on your part.
the constitutions says...
the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
You can see the founders contemplated at least one circumstance when the President could not pardon himself. So they made a list. A Court could easily surmise that list is exhaustive.
you have given us nothing relevant to say that as a matter of law a president can not self pardon and therefore the matter is settled.
Other than because you like to use the cliche "no man is above the law".. and by the way a President is not if he is impeached first... you have nothing.
The only sound argument is to say the matter is not settled.
Bullshit! Don't be ridiculous. Now you are getting defensive. just argue the facts and drop the bullshit. Dershowitz could at least counter with what at least what seems like a plausible argument. Where's yours.
You don't practice law any more, do you? Thank god!
Last edited:
Ha ha ha, now you're trying to take credit for my argument, even though you have little understanding of it. . . Why not do your own thinking and not depend on me to articulate the case for why the President can not pardon himself? To suggest that, because the Constitution nor any court has ever said the President may not pardon himself, we will never know whether he can or cannot, is, of course, an absurdity; an absurdity akin to saying we will never know whether the Earth is flat or round because no court has ever adjudicated the issue.* Let me repeat, "there are some issues that don't require adjudication." Even the aging and mentally deteriorating Alan Dershowitz**, who delights in arguing cherry pie is better than apple pie, is slowly coming around to realize the utter absurdity of his former statements, and is now peddling furiously backwards.
There is a reason of course why the burning question of the hour of whether the President can pardon himself will never be adjudicated beyond the lowest court, if that. But i shan't go into it yet again. The reason has been thoroughly explained and I shall now, thankfully, lay it to rest. (For those interested further, see my voluminous posts, especially the earlier ones, this forum.)
______________________
* On this point I may be hopelessly wrong. It seems the Christian Church may have adjudicated this issue long ago; it's been determined the Earth is flat.
** Dershowitz is a near equivalent of my brother in law, a former San Francisco Assistant D.A., now deceased, so I feel as though I know well of whom I speak. Either would delight in arguing any topic seemingly, at least to any sane person, not arguable .
There is a reason of course why the burning question of the hour of whether the President can pardon himself will never be adjudicated beyond the lowest court, if that. But i shan't go into it yet again. The reason has been thoroughly explained and I shall now, thankfully, lay it to rest. (For those interested further, see my voluminous posts, especially the earlier ones, this forum.)
______________________
* On this point I may be hopelessly wrong. It seems the Christian Church may have adjudicated this issue long ago; it's been determined the Earth is flat.
** Dershowitz is a near equivalent of my brother in law, a former San Francisco Assistant D.A., now deceased, so I feel as though I know well of whom I speak. Either would delight in arguing any topic seemingly, at least to any sane person, not arguable .
Last edited:
I would never take credit for your argument. If I argued the law the way you are... not only would I not self pardon I would self indict.
here is another list of 15 legals experts from vox... easily more than half say its an unsettled question or that the president can pardon himself. A few more duck the question. Some say he can do it but it would not be good.
How many more law professors and experts do you need to read to understand that it is possible the court could allow a president to self pardon before you accept the fact its an open question?
Vox is a leftist rag is it not?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...dent-pardon-himself-limits-power-constitution
here is another list of 15 legals experts from vox... easily more than half say its an unsettled question or that the president can pardon himself. A few more duck the question. Some say he can do it but it would not be good.
How many more law professors and experts do you need to read to understand that it is possible the court could allow a president to self pardon before you accept the fact its an open question?
Vox is a leftist rag is it not?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...dent-pardon-himself-limits-power-constitution
Last edited: