Presidential Pardons? (Page 1/7)
blackrams JAN 17, 11:14 AM
As President Trumps term comes to closure, he is considering pardoning many people convicted of different crimes. Some appear to have been political, some financial and some violent and many other felonies based on what I'm seeing. That's my perspective. Regardless, every President has gone through this and I didn't agree with many of the decisions some Presidents made, some I whole heartedly agreed with.

My question is based on the current threats of some, does the President have the authority to pardon himself from any potential charges he may face in the future and if so, should he?
Obviously, I have my own opinions on this but, thought I'd ask yours.

Rams

------------------
Rams
Intelligent people speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something.
Consider that before telling anyone what's on your mind.


My wife told me to grow up. I told her to get out of my fort!

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-17-2021).]

rinselberg JAN 17, 12:06 PM
The "talking heads" that I see every day say that he cannot use his pardon power to shield himself from any charges that could be lodged against him by state AGs or prosecutors for any local jurisdiction within a state.

Some say that it is just patently absurd to interpret the words of the Constitution as granting a President the power to pardon himself.

If he did grant himself any pardon(s) I just saw where a lawyer with expertise in the subject has said that he could do this without even disclosing it publicly, and it would not have to be revealed publicly until he tried to submit his self-pardon to a judge in order to immunize himself against an actual indictment.

If he were to be indicted on federal charge(s) and were granted immunity by a judge on the grounds that he is pardoned, then it opens the possibility of him being compelled to testify about the matter(s) in question and possibly disclose or attest to self-incriminating or other embarrassing information, under the threat of prosecution for perjury if his testimony is ruled to be demonstrably false.

I think that could be even more of a "revoltin' development" for him than being hit with federal indictments and the need (or desirability) of litigating the charges against him as a defendant in federal court.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-17-2021).]

RWDPLZ JAN 17, 12:07 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

My question is...does the President have the authority to pardon himself from any potential charges he may face in the future and if so, should he?



No, and it would be unprecedented to charge an ex president with ANY crime, basically because of the threat they could take EVERYONE down with them. Nixon got off because of cronyism, Ford refused to bring charges.
maryjane JAN 17, 12:38 PM
In regards to constitutional based authority, most of that document states what CANNOT be done.

It would probably be up to SCOTUS to determine whether a self-pardon is constitutional or not.

I have no idea really and not much opinion either way. (that may be one of the very few times I say that)
blackrams JAN 17, 01:34 PM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

In regards to constitutional based authority, most of that document states what CANNOT be done.

It would probably be up to SCOTUS to determine whether a self-pardon is constitutional or not.

I have no idea really and not much opinion either way. (that may be one of the very few times I say that)



Agreed

Rams
sourmash JAN 17, 04:05 PM
Seems that if the Constitutional language doesn't prohibit it then he's allowed to.

The only say the SCOTUS should have is whether the language prohibits it.

But preemptive pardons without yet having charges?

Well, Lincoln signed an edict that there would be no future war crimes charges/prosecutions from point of declaring it so that his troops would be free to commit any acts in order to win the war against the South. People aren't taught the tyranny Lincoln committed. He got it back, and deservedly so.
hnthomps JAN 17, 08:09 PM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:

Seems that if the Constitutional language doesn't prohibit it then he's allowed to.

The only say the SCOTUS should have is whether the language prohibits it.

But preemptive pardons without yet having charges?

Well, Lincoln signed an edict that there would be no future war crimes charges/prosecutions from point of declaring it so that his troops would be free to commit any acts in order to win the war against the South. People aren't taught the tyranny Lincoln committed. He got it back, and deservedly so.




Well, Sheriff Joe from Arizona was pardoned prior to him ever being convicted IIRC and it may not even have gone to trial. That might be a decent example of being pardoned ahead of time but have no idea if it would set any sort of precedent.

Nelson
rinselberg JAN 17, 09:01 PM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:

Seems that if the Constitutional language doesn't prohibit it then he's allowed to.

The only say the SCOTUS should have is whether the language prohibits it.

But preemptive pardons without yet having charges?

Well, Lincoln signed an edict that there would be no future war crimes charges/prosecutions from point of declaring it so that his troops would be free to commit any acts in order to win the war against the South. People aren't taught the tyranny Lincoln committed. He got it back, and deservedly so.





Stoned Mountain
sourmash JAN 17, 09:24 PM
Sheriff Joe was charged though. Can a person blanket pardon anyone prior to charges?
williegoat JAN 17, 09:25 PM
The problem is that if Trump pardons himself, the left will proclaim that as an admission of guilt. They will never leave him be, even long after he has shuffled off this mortal coil.

He came so close to dismantling their dastardly dominion, and still may. They cannot allow that to happen.

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 01-17-2021).]