I have the absolute right to PARDON myself

[timosman]

1003616210922147841

[spudea]

I remember when the media told us Hillary Clinton could pardon herself if she was president.

[CaptUSA]

I'd maintain that every person has the right to pardon themselves unless they violate the rights of another person. In that case, only the other person can pardon them. Regardless of what the edicts say.

That being said, even if you assume the worst - that Russia worked with Trump to influence the American voters - how does this violate anyone's liberty? Are we so stupid that we can be manipulated by advertising to the point that we have no free will?? (don't answer that.)

If that premise is accurate though, then isn't all forms of political advertising an attempt to control the populace? Regardless of whether the perpetrator is foreign or domestic?

[thoughtomator]

Dirty Mueller has no real crime, so all he can conjure are process crimes.

This is Trump telling him that if he creates a fake crime - Mueller's clear intention at this point - it will be summarily dismissed.

[timosman]

I'd maintain that every person has the right to pardon themselves unless they violate the rights of another person. In that case, only the other person can pardon them. Regardless of what the edicts say.

That being said, even if you assume the worst - that Russia worked with Trump to influence the American voters - how does this violate anyone's liberty? Are we so stupid that we can be manipulated by advertising to the point that we have no free will?? (don't answer that.)

If that premise is accurate though, then isn't all forms of political advertising an attempt to control the populace? Regardless of whether the perpetrator is foreign or domestic?

US Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Gov't "News" to Americans - https://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?421419-US-Repeals-Propaganda-Ban-Spreads-Gov-t-quot-News-quot-to-Americans

[Zippyjuan]

https://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i-w600/i-am-not-above-the-law-i-am-the-law.jpg

[angelatc]

https://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i-w600/i-am-not-above-the-law-i-am-the-law.jpg

Just stop already.

[shakey1]

I have the absolute right to PARDON myself

That would come in handy in the political realm, now wouldn't it?:cool:

[H_H]

The President absolutely is the enforcement branch of the federal government. He chooses whom to prosecute and whom to not prosecute. No question. 100% Constitutionally correct.

[timosman]

I remember when the media told us Hillary Clinton could pardon herself if she was president.

@4:30


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpeCaABoiDg

[Swordsmyth]

@4:30


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpeCaABoiDg

Notice Judge Swamp playing wingman for hitlery in that clip.

[timosman]

Notice Judge Swamp playing wingman for hitlery in that clip.

He also says POTUS controls DOJ.:D

[TheTexan]

Pardon for what? Being too awesome?

[Swordsmyth]

He also says POTUS controls DOJ.:D

When he thought Hitlery would be potus.

[rpfocus]

Who didn't see this coming? "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." And no, of course he can't pardon himself.

"James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that no person “is allowed to be a judge in his own case.”" - Apparently common sense doesn't exist in the land of Trumpism.

http://208.77.22.54/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/LUVjbXX.png

[spudea]

Who didn't see this coming? "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." And no, of course he can't pardon himself.

"James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that no person “is allowed to be a judge in his own case.”"



Madison is clearly referring to the JUDICIARY branch. In Trumps case the judge is congress. The only check to a criminal president is impeachment. Trump can pardon himself to prevent prosecution after impeachment.

[oyarde]

I'd maintain that every person has the right to pardon themselves unless they violate the rights of another person. In that case, only the other person can pardon them. Regardless of what the edicts say.

That being said, even if you assume the worst - that Russia worked with Trump to influence the American voters - how does this violate anyone's liberty? Are we so stupid that we can be manipulated by advertising to the point that we have no free will?? (don't answer that.)

If that premise is accurate though, then isn't all forms of political advertising an attempt to control the populace? Regardless of whether the perpetrator is foreign or domestic?

I do not feel influenced by russians .

[oyarde]

He also says POTUS controls DOJ.:D

I see no real case made to not just eliminate DOJ.

[timosman]

I do not feel influenced by russians .

That's a lie. You would have liked Hillary if it wasn't for them. :cool:

[oyarde]

That's a lie. You would have liked Hillary if it wasn't for them. :cool:

LOL , ya that is a ridiculous argument .

[oyarde]

For whatever it is worth too , I would not pay too much attention to that Madison guy anyway . Not really as smart as he looked it appears . If he was he would have held off on the whole War of 1812 thing .

[enhanced_deficit]

Have not confirmed yet if this is fakenews or not but per this HuffPo report, widely resspected legal scholar Giuliani made this claim also:


06/03/2018

Giuliani: Trump Could Have Shot Comey And Still Couldn’t Be Indicted For It

Congress would have to impeach Trump first before any criminal prosecution could move forward, the president’s lawyer says.

By S.V. Date

WASHINGTON ― Candidate Donald Trump (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/donald-trump) bragged that he could shoot someone on New York’s Fifth Avenue and not lose any support, and now President Donald Trump’s lawyer says Trump could shoot the FBI director in the Oval Office and still not be prosecuted for it.

“In no case can he be subpoenaed or indicted,” Rudy Giuliani (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/rudy-giuliani) told HuffPost Sunday, claiming a president’s constitutional powers are that broad. “I don’t know how you can indict while he’s in office. No matter what it is.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-shoot-comey_us_5b145897e4b02143b7cd633e

[rpfocus]

Have not confirmed yet if this is fakenews or not but per this HuffPo report, widely resspected legal scholar Giuliani made this claim also:

[/URL]

Widely respected legal scholar? LOL he's Trump's lawyer and biggest **********. Of course it's not "fake news" that he said that. Whether he's right or not is another story.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/here-is-what-9-experts-say-about-whether-president-trump-can-pardon-himself.html

The fact that so many Trumpers here are so quick to justify Trump pardoning himself makes me wonder if this is still RPF lol. Switch Trump out for Hillary if she had been elected and you'd see nothing but foaming mouths saying she couldn't pardon herself.

[CCTelander]

Have not confirmed yet if this is fakenews or not but per this HuffPo report, widely resspected legal scholar Giuliani made this claim also:


06/03/2018

Giuliani: Trump Could Have Shot Comey And Still Couldn’t Be Indicted For It

Congress would have to impeach Trump first before any criminal prosecution could move forward, the president’s lawyer says.

By S.V. Date

WASHINGTON ― Candidate Donald Trump (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/donald-trump) bragged that he could shoot someone on New York’s Fifth Avenue and not lose any support, and now President Donald Trump’s lawyer says Trump could shoot the FBI director in the Oval Office and still not be prosecuted for it.

“In no case can he be subpoenaed or indicted,” Rudy Giuliani (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/rudy-giuliani) told HuffPost Sunday, claiming a president’s constitutional powers are that broad. “I don’t know how you can indict while he’s in office. No matter what it is.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-shoot-comey_us_5b145897e4b02143b7cd633e


Well, that's an Imperial Presidency for you.

[timosman]

LOL , ya that is a ridiculous argument .

Maybe it is, but could I get an indictment out of this?

[oyarde]

Maybe it is, but could I get an indictment out of this?

Not from me .

[timosman]

Not from me .

You win?:cool:

[oyarde]

Widely respected legal scholar? LOL he's Trump's lawyer and biggest **********. Of course it's not "fake news" that he said that. Whether he's right or not is another story.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/here-is-what-9-experts-say-about-whether-president-trump-can-pardon-himself.html

The fact that so many Trumpers here are so quick to justify Trump pardoning himself makes me wonder if this is still RPF lol. Switch Trump out for Hillary if she had been elected and you'd see nothing but foaming mouths saying she couldn't pardon herself.
I figured that was one of her top reasons for running , to pardon herself of decades of crime .

[Swordsmyth]

In 1974, the Justice Department crafted a memorandum that argued that a president does not possess such a power. (This was issued just before the resignation of President Richard Nixon.) Mary Lawton, who was an acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel at the time, wrote, “Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.”


But Mark Osler, a former federal prosecutor who is now with the University of St. Louis, disagreed, stating, “He can issue himself a pardon warrant. There is nothing to stop him from doing so.”


Indeed, if one reads the Constitution itself, the presidential power to issue pardons in federal cases appears complete. Article II, Section 2 says of the president, “[He] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”


The last five words, however, provide the real check on a president who deserves to be removed from office. The president cannot block Congress from impeaching and removing from office any federal officeholder, including himself.


As Osler added, “The question [after a president pardoned himself] is what happens next. It could be that it could not be challenged until a prosecutor presented a charge against him, and he relied on the pardon as a defense.” If a president were to be indicted, and he then issued himself a pardon, it would almost certainly provoke an effort to impeach the president.


At this point, all the special counsel’s evidence would then be turned over to the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives — the Judiciary Committee. The committee would then examine the evidence and consider if the president had committed any one of four offenses listed in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment: treason, bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors (serious misbehavior). Treason is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution, because the Founders, aware of their history, knew full well that treason was a convenient charge of tyrants to quash dissent. “Treason,” the Constitution states, “shall consist only in levying war against them [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”


Only a rabid partisan Democrat would even attempt to argue that Trump has made “war” against America. It would be difficult to prove that he had given aid and comfort to any enemies of America. After all, the charge (so far lacking evidence) is that the Russians helped Trump, not the other way around. No one has even hinted that multimillionaire Trump has taken a bribe, and if he has committed a “high crime,” no one has presented any actual evidence of such. While Trump has certainly tweeted a string of insults at political enemies since he has been president, and he has behaved differently from most other presidents, it would be hard to make the case that any “misbehavior” by Trump is “serious” enough to warrant impeachment.


But then, the Congress is the sole judge of what is “serious misbehavior,” since it is not defined. So, if the House enemies of Trump could muster a majority vote against him, he would be impeached, and if two-thirds of the Senate voted to convict him, he would be removed from office. But Congress is forbidden by the Constitution from issuing a bill of attainder — congressmen have no power to imprison someone on their own. Their power of impeachment is limited to removal from office, denying the officer the opportunity to ever serve in federal office again, and stripping the removed officer of any pensions.


The Constitution does say, however, that once a person is convicted of an impeachment charge, and removed from office, he would “nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. But, of course, were the president to have already given himself a pardon, “the law” would not permit such punishment.


The question is not whether we think this is fair or just, but rather is it in accordance with the Constitution? After all, it is “the supreme law” of the land in the United States, not some memorandum prepared by a member of the Department of Justice.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/29208-could-president-trump-pardon-himself

[Jamesiv1]

Trump is awesome and deserves to be pardoned for any and all misdeeds that *may* have been committed.

[timosman]

Why does the president need the power to pardon anybody?

[Swordsmyth]

Why does the president need the power to pardon anybody?

As a check and balance against the other branches of government.

[timosman]

As a check and balance against the other branches of government.

Are you serious? Did you look at how it is used?:confused:

[Swordsmyth]

Are you serious? Did you look at how it is used?:confused:

Every government power has been abused, only anarchists would say that that alone is enough to do away with them.

[timosman]

Every government power has been abused, only anarchists would say that that alone is enough to do away with them.

Please provide one example where the pardon power was used for the intended purpose.

[Swordsmyth]

Please provide one example where the pardon power was used for the intended purpose.

Trump pardons former Navy sailor imprisoned for taking photos on nuclear submarine, (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?520180-Trump-pardons-former-Navy-sailor-imprisoned-for-taking-photos-on-nuclear-submarine-White-Hous&highlight=pardon)

[timosman]

As a check and balance against the other branches of government.


Trump pardons former Navy sailor imprisoned for taking photos on nuclear submarine, (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?520180-Trump-pardons-former-Navy-sailor-imprisoned-for-taking-photos-on-nuclear-submarine-White-Hous&highlight=pardon)

He wasn't imprisoned by the "other branches" of the government.

[Swordsmyth]

He wasn't imprisoned by the "other branches" of the government.

The judicial isn't a separate branch?

[timosman]

The judicial isn't a separate branch?

It seems the prosecution was initiated by the executive branch during the previous administration.

[Swordsmyth]

It seems the prosecution was initiated by the executive branch during the previous administration.
Yes but it was the judicial branch that made the bad judgement.
The bad actions of previous administrations are another reason for pardons.