Below is my column in USA Today on the assertion of President Donald Trump that he can pardon himself. Since such an act would be the most profoundly disgraceful moment in the history of the American presidency, it is chilling to have a president to even engage in such a public debate. However, I believe that such a power does exist in the Constitution. It is a long and unresolved debate that turns on how you interpret silence. Since the Constitution is silent on any bar against a president benefitting from this power, I believe that a self-pardon is indeed constitutional, even if distasteful.
Lord, protect us all from “really interesting constitutional” questions should be part of every inaugural prayer. This weekend, Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani described as a “really interesting constitutional argument” his contention that the president “probably” could pardon himself.
“Really interesting constitutional argument” for presidents fall in the same category as “really interesting improvised explosive devices” for bomb disposal experts. They are interesting to the same degree as they are lethal.
President Trump appears on course to answer many such “interesting questions” on the meaning of emoluments or the ability of prosecutors to charge a president with obstruction in firing senior executive officials. The answers to some of these interesting questions are not likely to be the ones that Trump hopes for.
For example, despite the bravado of the recent letter to special counsel Robert Mueller on Trump’s ability to simply ignore a subpoena, Mueller is likely to prevail in such a fight. However, on self-pardons it is Trump who has the advantage, though this is one interesting question he would be wise to leave unanswered.Whether a president can grant himself a pardon is a question that has long fascinated academics. It has never been answered since, thankfully, no president had had the reason or the temerity for such a self-dealing abuse of power. Trump’s recent uses of pardon authority, however, are widely viewed as signaling to Mueller’s targets that the president could act to gut the investigation with a barrage of pardons, including for himself.
In his emblematic (and enigmatic) style, Trump’s longtime friend (and potential target) Roger Stone took to the airwaves to translate the president’s hidden message: “The special counsel has awesome powers, as you know, but the president has even more awesome powers.”
To use Stone’s “awesome” rating of powers, pardon authority is … well … the awesomest.
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution defines the pardon power as allowing a president to “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” There is no language specifying who may or may not be the subject of a pardon. The president is simply given the power to pardon any federal crime.
As a textual matter, there is nothing to prevent Trump from adding his own name to the list of pardoned individuals. And Trump agrees, according to this tweet from Monday morning:
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!
Some have wrongly claimed that a line in the Constitution bars self-pardons. Some — such as Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, Minnesota professor Richard Painter and Brookings Institution fellow Norman Eisen have claimed that the final words of Article II, Section 2, bar self-pardons. They claim that “the Constitution specifically bars the president from using the pardon power to prevent his own impeachment and removal,” and “that provision would make no sense if the president could pardon himself.”
While there are arguments against self-pardons as improper forms of “self-dealing,” this is not one of them.
The language in question has nothing to do with a self-pardon or even most pardon controversies. It simply means that a president cannot use pardon authority to prevent the impeachment of an executive branch official (including himself). Thus, if Trump pardoned himself, it would not bar an impeachment. Indeed, it could well be included among the articles of impeachment.
A simple line is drawn in the Constitution: Impeachments concern the office holder, while pardons concern the individual. A president can pardon someone who is not even charged with a crime, but that pardon for a judge or an executive branch official will not bar removal from office.
That makes perfect sense. What does not make sense is the idea that the Framers would debate this and other presidential powers while leaving this major limitation unstated.
These authors and others also point to a line in the impeachment provision that states anyone impeached and convicted “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”
Again, this only states that impeachment does not alter the status of these officials. They remain liable for prosecution. Again, impeachment goes only to their status as an office holder. Indeed, a judge or official could receive a pardon before assuming office.
None of this is to say that this is an easy question, or that there are not good arguments for barring self-pardons. I wish the Framers had put in such language, but they did not.
Presidents have engaged in all forms of self-dealing. Trump has engaged in open nepotism with the selection of his family members as high-ranking White House officials. Bill Clinton not only appointed his own wife to head a major federal commission on health care but pardoned his own half-brother. The Framers did not bar such forms of self-dealing any more than they barred self-pardons. What they did put into the Constitution is a process for changing such provisions, not through judicial fiat but constitutional amendment.
There is no evidence that any president has ever seriously considered such a reprehensible and ignoble act. Giuliani denies that Trump is considering such a move and admitted that such an act is likely viewed by the president as “unthinkable and (would) probably lead to immediate impeachment.”
That would be more convincing if the Trump team were not threatening total war with Mueller over the special counsel’s authority and the president’s inherent powers.
The Trump team should think seriously about triggering these fights over subpoena, charging and pardoning powers. Bad cases can make bad law — even when they are “really interesting.”
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley.
John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute has it right. (I’d love to see Whitehead and Jonathan Turley debate the issue.)
“There Is No ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ Card for the President”
June 5th, 2018
https://rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/there_is_no_get_out_of_jail_free_card_for_the_president
About John Whitehead:
“Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His…book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online… Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.”
Anon — Been reading Whitehead off and on for several years – I agree – Whitehead vs Turley – that would be a grand debate!
“Whitehead vs Turley – that would be a grand debate!” -Autumn
It certainly would.
From Whiteheads posting, linked above:
The warning signs were definitely there, blinking incessantly like large neon signs.
“Still,” Gellately writes, “the vast majority voted in favor of Nazism, and in spite of what they could read in the press and hear by word of mouth about the secret police, the concentration camps, official anti-Semitism, and so on. . . . [T]here is no getting away from the fact that at that moment, ‘the vast majority of the German people backed him.’”
Half a century later, the wife of a prominent German historian, neither of whom were members of the Nazi party, opined: “[O]n the whole, everyone felt well. . . . And there were certainly eighty percent who lived productively and positively throughout the time. . . . We also had good years. We had wonderful years.”
In other words, as long as their creature comforts remained undiminished, as long as their bank accounts remained flush, as long as they weren’t being discriminated against, persecuted, starved, beaten, shot, stripped, jailed and turned into slave labor, life was good.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.
Beware of those who prioritize their politics over your freedoms.
Beware of those who prioritize their bank accounts over your freedoms.
Beware of those who prioritize their religion over your freedoms.
Beware of those who advocate absolute obedience to those in power.
Beware of those who equate patriotism with submission to the government’s dictates.
Beware of those who shrug dismissively over official misconduct and urge you to turn a blind eye, as well.
Beware of those who wage war against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are all that stand between us and despotism.
As revolutionary war hero Daniel Webster warned, “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” -John Whitehead
I’ve been puzzling over the pretzel logic behind the argument that Trump’s lawyers made. I think maybe I’ve cracked the code on this particular instance of pretzel logic.
Trump thinks that granting reprieves and pardons is the same thing as obstructing justice. So, since The Constitution gives The President the power to pardon, therefore, Trump thinks that The Constitution gives The President the power to obstruct justice.
The idea that the pardon power should be used to correct an injustice, or to prevent an injustice, or in the interest of mercy, or even to quell a rebellion in the interest of domestic tranquility, appears to be beyond the ken of Trump’s law-and-order mindset.
Or else Trump is merely pretending to believe such things for the sake of expediency.
anonymous:
“(I’d love to see Whitehead and Jonathan Turley debate the issue.)”
*****************************
Whitehead’s is a great philosophical argument on jurisprudence — that no one is above the law, not even the President — but where he falls flat is that the nearly unlimited power of the pardon (derived from ancient times) is part of that law not the philosophy of the law. The law grants exceptions from enforcement all the time. Think priest-penitent, husband-wife, lawyer-client (a favorite) and the myriad of other privileges placing some circumstances “above the law,” i.e. above truth gathering.
Logic rules the day in debates. It would be a short debate.
I’d like to hear it from them: Turley and Whitehead. Together. I’m quite sure it would be interesting. Let’s just call it “a discussion.”
Okay, fair enough. Listening to smart people always makes me smarter. And I’m a fertile field!
mespo,
Let’s take an extreme example — leaving Trump out of it.
There a murder — and it’s committed by our president — who then pardons him or herself. How would it play out?
Rephrasing:
Our president (not Trump) kills someone. He then pardons himself. How would this play out?
anonymous:
The President would be immediately subject to impeachment which has great chances of sucess. The 25th Amendment would likely be simultaneously activated. Under Sec. 4 thereof, the POTUS would be immediately supplanted by the VPOUS who is then “Acting President.” Any issue about the propriety would be decided by Congress on a 2/3 super majority vote pending impeachment. Following impeachment and removal, the former POTUS would then be indicted and tried for the crime.
Thanks, mespo.
Hear, hear!!!
An enhanced and accelerated impeachment process.
Congress/Senate should have taken those steps about 100 years ago and employed the process to assure that “…courts…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void,…” per Hamilton and to preclude the imposition of the welfare state.
Start here to void all contrary acts and decide the entire welfare state unconstitutional: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 – Congress has merely the power to tax for “…general Welfare” not that of the individual nature.
_______________________________________________________________
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Will wonders never cease? George opposes a Presidential self-pardon for Trump on Hamiltonian grounds that a Presidential self-pardon for Trump would “. . . affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize [obstruction of justice], but what they forbid [failure to take care that the laws should be faithfully executed] . . . by means of a President who would, rather than “…courts…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void…”
Unless I’m wrong. George is a tough nut to crack. You know.
Thanks for reading.
Validation is my raison d’être.
Mespo broached the constitutional tool of impeachment. I seconded his reference and noted that the singular American failure since “Crazy Abe’s” “Reign of Terror” has been the eminently impeachable SCOTUS in that the entire welfare state should have been struck down before it was implemented or conceived of. Hamilton’s words say precisely that – “…void…all acts contrary to the manifest tenor…” with reference to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. Read them. That I opposed a self-pardon is a wholly erroneous conclusion on your part, not inconsistent with the general incoherence and hysteria of the day. President Donald J. Trump may pardon himself all day long if he likes – that’s what the Constitution says. I couldn’t care less about a presidential self-pardon and President Trump doesn’t need it. It is up to Congress to impeach which it should do daily agaisnt unconstitutional and communistic liberal democrats (Roberts understood that Obamacare is unconstitutional as he engaged in semantic hijacking to insidiously allow it – then he criminally commingled the definitions of federal and state). You may want to have your logic circuits repaired but I suspect that in your circles no one notices their dysfunction.
Well, again, we have JT’s spin, and it is just that — spin. Well-respected law professors and ethics experts disagree as to whether silence implies total power to pardon any and all offenses, including those involving the means by which one attained this country’s highest office. As JT claims: how one interprets silence is the heart of the question. I think interpreting silence requires a much broader view and that is based on the fact that the framers were unqualifiedly patriotic, unlike Trump, and it also involves foreseeability: whether the framers of the Constitution could have intended that a mentally-ill reality television star with a fragile ego who was jealous because a black man won and maintained a successful presidency and who cheated to “win” by manipulating social media via a hostile foreign power also possesses an unfettered right to pardon himself for the very crimes that resulted in the “victory.’
I think they would never conscience such a thing. I can’t imagine any other rational person believing the framers would approve such a thing. I can’t imagine the framers could ever have foreseen someone who wanted to be president solely because of a pathological need for power, adulation and attention. They risked their lives to establish this country. Trump dodged the draft. The issue is a simple one to me.
Wake up Nutchacha
Joe Rohan, B list comedian, is where you go for validation of your wack job conspiracies. You know it is not true until the NZ indies weigh in.
Rohan not Rohan still B grade comedian.
Joe rocks – you just hate it that authentic citizen journalists come from all walks of life – and are not paid/manipulated by the DNC and corporations.
Also, comedians have been truth tellers throughout history. I betcha you loved Jon Stewart – I certainly did – but he even he finally had enough of defending the Dims and retired.
The current crop of Establishment Comedians are pathetic — Colbert, Kimmel, Trevor, Oliver, Maher — pathetic corporate tools. Jimmy Fallon, a sweet and genuine guy’s career was almost ruined because he dared to “humanize” Trump.
Move over for Jimmy Dore, Joe Rogan, Lee Camp, Tim Black, John F. McDonnel, Naomi Karavani…. Truth tellers who are not employed by corporate entities and thus don’t have to thump on Trump to get a laugh from the delusional Dim cultists. Sad.
Trump dodged the draft.
He receive a I-Y deferment of which about 200,000 were issued annually at that time. You cannot stop lying.
For “heel spurs”, easily correctible then and now. He’s a fat coward. Was and still is. Does he still have the spurs, or did he wait until after Viet Nam was over to have them removed?
Maybe you should tweet the “fat coward” and ask him about his bone spur health. But wait awhile because he’s busy with Abe – you know, conducting state business…
Nutchacha, what a I-Y deferment does is send you to the back of the queue. People received them for being underweight, for being overweight, for hernias, pilonidal cysts &c. I knew a chap issued one for eczema on his feet. You can be recalled for another physical in as little as 90 days. In Trump’s case, he was not recalled ‘ere the draft lottery was instituted at the end of 1969. He and his brother had high lottery numbers, so were not examined during calendar year 1970 and were excused for the rest of the war. There were no ‘dodges’ it was all perfectly straightforward and ordinary, and the only discrete act Trump undertook was to get a written summary from his doctor.
Democrats routinely lie about the service records of Republicans. Of all the consequential presidential candidates of the last 40-odd years, only two actually took evasive maneuvers to avoid induction, One was Bill Clinton, who executed a series of moves which allowed him to shirk his ROTC service obligations. The military officer he’d conned into interceding for him was infuriated and saved the smarmy letter he got from Clinton, publishing it in 1992. The other was Bernie Sanders, who hired a lawyer to press a bogus claim for CO status when his student deferment ran out in 1965. The lawyer won so many continuances that when the draft board was ready to decide the issue, Sanders was overage.
You don’t know anything, and you lie all the time.
Bill Clinton isn’t the story. Pivoting to him, Bernie Sanders or anyone else when discussing Trump’s 5 heel spur deferments, is not relevant to the topic at hand. The spurs could have been easily fixed, but Trump is no patriot. Neither was his father or any other member of his family. Trump’s presence in the White House is an abomination.
However, since you just love, love, love to pivot, how about we pivot to JFK? He couldn’t pass the physical to get into the service. He had multiple, genuine health problems his entire life, including some blood dyscrasia thought to be some form of chronic leukemia. He had undergone multiple episodes of unexplained bleeding, to the point of being life-threatening. He was chronically underweight and experienced much general sickness. Nevertheless, he used his father’s power and influence to get into the Navy anyway, because he was patriotic and wanted to serve his country, which he did with honor. After PT 109 was cut in two by a Japanese destroyer, some of his crew were killed immediately. Kennedy put one of his men who was seriously burned into a life jacket, and, pulling him along with the straps of the life jacket in his mouth, swam several miles to a nearby island, saving his life. He carved information about their whereabouts onto a coconut, which he gave to a native, who, in turn, contacted a group of Australians, who, in turn, got in touch with the US Navy. That’s how they got rescued. Regardless of his extramarital sexual escapades, JFK was and is a genuine hero.
I’ve never lied about anything, and you know it.
Natacha – you missed the very important part where JFK was assigned to the PT boats in Pacific, he did not volunteer. Would you like to reveal to us why? Or would you like me to?
when discussing Trump’s 5 heel spur
He was issued one deferment in mid-1968.
However, since you just love, love, love to pivot,
You’re projecting.
However, since you just love, love, love to pivot, how about we pivot to JFK?
Why? His service record is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Trump dodged the draft. As noted, some people have more impressive records than others.
He couldn’t pass the physical to get into the service. He had multiple, genuine health problems his entire life,
His Addison’s disease was diagnosed in 1948. His back problems were a result of war injuries and did not predate his enlistment. Now go away.
JFK’s patriotism is relevant to the fact that the likes of Trump isn’t fit to occupy the White House. JFK leveraged his father’s influence to get INTO the military, as opposed to Trump, who avoided service with a trivial, treatable health problem. He suffered with colitis and Addison’s Disease, which alone were disabling.
Kennedy was assigned to the PT service mainly because he had civilian small craft experience, but I know what Paul is driving at–Inga Binga. However, nothing ever came of that.
Natacha – lots of stuff came of it. 😉 Just admit it. You don’t court-martial the son of a major Democratic Party donor, you just re-assign him. He was boffing the admiral’s wife and got caught. Now, if you are the admiral, do you admit that your aide has been boffing your wife and doing a better job than you? or do you send him to the Pacific on a small craft that has a survival rate of 0?
JFK wasn’t married. I was referring to his encounters with Inga Arvad (he called her “Inga Binga”), who was married to a German. The affair happened while he was in the de-coding service, and critics of his father speculated that he could have passed along information to her. However, since he was decoding messages that came from the Germans in the first place, this theory was never viable. I’ve done lots of reading on Kennedy. When the PT boats were placed into service, the Navy was looking for men who had sailing or small power craft experience. Kennedy was an able seaman, having sailed around Hyannisport all of his life. So, they recruited him. They also might have wanted to get him out of the job he was doing for other reasons. The PT boats were a good idea that was badly executed. They had Chrysler automobile engines, which weren’t suitable for marine use, so they stalled more often than not. That’s what happened to PT 109. The idea was to have a small, fast craft that also carried torpedoes. They could launch a torpedo and then move out of the way if an enemy vessel retaliated.
I’ve never lied about anything, and you know it.
None of your posts are free of a lie, a gross distortion, or a generic false statement. I’ve never in meatspace encountered anyone like you.
Well, that’s your opinion, to which you are allowed; no matter how embarrassing it must be to open your mouth and reveal the fool. My opinion, since we are sharing opinions, is that you are a timid, frightened oldster, who thinks the world is moving “just a little” too fast, and everything would be peachy-keen if we just went back to the “good ole days” when “those people” weren’t so “uppity” and everyone knew their place. AmIRight?
this is to “Ya, he’s an imbecile of the first degree, but at least he’s an old white guy” nutty sufferer
Wait. Seriously. JFK’s father was the Ambassador to the Court of Saint James (which he purchased off the shelf) and his son was gifted a glorious and powerful ski boat in paradise. Typically, as a Kennedy, he managed to screw that up through his manifest inability to command and had is ski boat cut in half by a Japanese combatant. It’s not clear if the Japanese even noticed the disarticulation of JFK’s little boat. To JFK’s credit he apparently swam an injured crew member to shore – I mean you can’t just leave the guy, right? Oops, I completely forgot about another Kennedy and one Mary Jo Kopechne. Geez, were the Kennedys cursed or did they commit suicide by ego?
He dodged the draft. That’s what it’s called when your daddy has enough money to buy off a doctor.
He also had his own personal Vietnam, which he described as avoiding STDs in Manhattan in the 70s and 80s.
He dodged the draft. That’s what it’s called when your daddy has enough money to buy off a doctor
No evidence has ever been adduced that Fred Trump bribed a doctor to issue a false medical summary.
What’s grossly amusing about you is that you fancy you’re a paladin of morals and ethics.
“He dodged the draft”
Bill Clinton indeed dodged the draft
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/14/opinion/bill-clinton-s-vietnam-test.html
“Bill Clinton worked to avoid the draft, at times cleverly, but in ways that accorded with accepted common practice among others of his generation. Against that history, this Vietnam echo looks like an irrelevance that ought not distract New Hampshire voters from judging Bill Clinton on his merits.
The questioning centers on the fall of 1969 when Bill Clinton was headed back to England to complete a Rhodes Scholarship. It seemed unlikely that his draft board would defer him again. He tried and failed to win Navy or Air Force commissions that might have sent him to Vietnam, though not as a grunt soldier. Then he signed up for a Reserve Officer program that kept him out of the draft.
A few weeks later, on Oct. 31, his draft board, having learned he had changed his mind about R.O.T.C., reclassified him 1-A, theoretically exposing him to call-up. Only on Dec. 1, when his birth date came up 311 in the brand new draft lottery, was he safe against worry.
He may have felt safe even during that exposed November. Draft calls had been reduced and graduate-student deferments were about to be restored. Taken in isolation, the Clinton record could thus be read to show manipulation and delay.
Amanda:
This article is 26 years old! What’s relevance has it to the pardon issue??
Complain to Natacha. She’s the on who raised the matter of Trump’s service record.
Trump has NO service record.
Other than Bill Bradley and Alan Keyes (whose service records are a puzzle), just about every other presidential candidate’s record was by the book.
Some were more impressive than others. Jimmy Carter was at Annapolis during the 2d World War, Jerry Brown was a perpetual student (at a time when only a small sliver of the U.S. military was in combat anywhere to be sure), Henry Jackson was excused as an elected official, Jesse Jackson had a student deferment followed by a minsterial exception, Gary Hart was a perpetual student, Michael Dukakis had a student deferment during the Korean War (followed by occupation duty as a titless secretary). Pat Buchanan had a categorical medical deferment (IV-F), Howard Dean was also classified IV-F, Mitt Romney had a cavalcade of exemptions (student deferment, ministerial exemption, 2d student deferment, dependent children, belt-and-braces high lottery number). Newt Gingrich had dependent children, John Kasich had a lottery number high enough to exempt him (few people being drafted in 1972).
Two people entered the service and received special treatment therein, one on account of the intervention of his Senator father (Pat Robertson) and one because the Army was anxious about PR (Albert Gore). Contemporaneous accounts of their conduct in the service paint Robertson as insufferable.
Dan Quayle and George W. Bush were raked over the coals for National Guard service, Richard Gephardt and Steve Forbes weren’t.
In other words, anyone who got anywhere had somehow avoided Vietnam. And I believe real statistics bear that out. Generally speaking Vietnam veterans didn’t do that well in life.
In other words, anyone who got anywhere had somehow avoided Vietnam.
You seem to fancy that the only people who ‘got anywhere’ ran for President. You’re not even right about that. John McCain, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, and Bob Kerrey all had a tour in VietNam. Tom Harkin was not stationed in VietNam but he was in theater, flying in and out of VietNam.
And I believe real statistics bear that out. Generally speaking Vietnam veterans didn’t do that well in life.
Charlie Daniels wrote songs, not social research. The Bureau of Labor Statistics published a study in 1985 which indicated that Vietnam Era veterans had an unemployment rate of 6.7% rather than the 6% norm for their age group – a gap it attributed to service-related disabilities and social metrics manifest at the time of induction.
https://www.wired.com/story/robert-mueller-vietnam/
Nii said, “Charlie Daniels wrote songs, not social research.”
Mueller’s favorite is Creedence Clearwater Revival.
From Wikipedia on John Fogerty:
Fogerty received his draft notice for military service during the Vietnam War in 1966, but that same day, he went to a local Army reserve recruiter, who signed him up immediately. Fogerty was grateful and believed the recruiter dated the paperwork to take effect before the draft letter arrived. He served, during his time in the army, at Fort Bragg, Fort Knox, and Fort Lee.
5PM – if Trump had unprotected sex with Stormy Daniels that shows me all the bravery I need to hear about.
Dialogue is essential in a civilized country.
Consider moving to N. Korea, Venezuela or San Francisco if you seek monolithic thinking.
This forum aint it
https://countrysquirecouk.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/sam-white1.jpg
Natacha:
Well in your comment you’ve divined the precise intention of everyone from the framers of the Constitution to Donald Trump. The only way that happens is if you are a swami. If you are, can I book you for parties?
TRUMP WILL SELF-PARDON.. AND FORFEIT ALL LEGITIMCACY
THROWING THE COUNTRY INTO CHAOS
It was just this time of year, June of 1973, when the Watergate hearings began. President Richard Nixon had been reelected by landslide margins the previous November. But Nixon’s approval ratings would quickly plummet as the Watergate hearings revealed a “cancer on the presidency”. Nixon would never regain his former popularity. Instead his presidency would become a terminal decline; not unlike a cancer patient’s.
Donald Trump never enjoyed the level of popularity Nixon once achieved. Nixon had been a two-term Vice President and longtime favorite of the Republican establishment. Nixon knew how government functioned and possessed a commanding grasp of foreign affairs.
But Donald Trump entered office as a political novice with ‘no’ historic ties to the Republican establishment. Trump’s ignorance of governance is matched by his total lack of knowledge regarding the larger world. Trump lost the Popular Vote to an unpopular opponent. And his current standing among world leaders is tenuous at best.
Therefore Donald Trump has no attributes to shoulder the inevitable crisis that would result from self-pardon. Having lost the Popular Vote, Trump already suffers issues of legitimacy. What’s more, Trump’s only ‘achievement’ to date is repealing Barrack Obama’s achievements; hardly the basis for enduring leadership. With self-pardon Trump could become, almost instantly, a rump president to everyone outside right-wing media.
And ‘yes’, I allowed a typo on ‘legitimacy’. How ironic!
LEGITIMCACY is perfectly LEGIBICLE.
PH re: “Donald Trump entered office as a political novice with ‘no’ historic ties to the Republican establishment”
That’s why people voted for him — he easily defeated all the other Republican Establishment candidates. Gotta give it up to the RNC – at least they didn’t derail him as the DNC did Bernie.
Meanwhile the daily distractions take away from the spygate Awan brothers who are seeking a plea deal.
Jeff Sessions is a Deep State swamp creature.
““The DOJ, under Jeff Sessions, is covering up a scandal that exposes the entire Russia narrative as a hoax,” he [Luke Rosiak] told Dobbs. “It is within Jeff Sessions’ power to demolish this Russia narrative once and for all, charge the Pakistanis with hacking Congress, and expose the Democrats’ hypocrisy and negligence… This case is open and shut, and Jeff Sessions is refusing to bring the charges.”
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/reporter-jeff-sessions-covering-up-scandal-that-will-demolish-dems-russia-narrative/
And what about the Martians. I hope you have your ankles wrapped in aluminum foil, that you are grounded, or they will hack your a**.
smoking early Issac? You are such a moron.
Address the facts – oh yeah you didn’t hear about the Awans on MSNBC
Google it.
Here is a fun fact. Not all Lefties are Crazyivans…..
“Times Up, Bill”
https://www.thecut.com/2018/06/bill-clinton-monica-lewinsky-today-show-metoo.html
“Clinton reared back, flustered. “We have a right to change the rules but we don’t have a right to change the facts,” he said, suggesting that Melvin didn’t know the facts of the Lewinsky case. Clinton claimed to “like the #MeToo movement; it’s way overdue.” But when Melvin pressed him on whether it had prompted him to rethink his own past behavior, like so many millions of other men and women around the world — including Lewinsky in a March Vanity Fair essay — he sputtered that of course he hadn’t, because he’d “felt terrible then.”
“Nobody believes that I got out of that for free. I left the White House 16 million dollars in debt,” Clinton said, as if having paid a literal debt was the extent of the work to be done in the midst of a cultural and social reckoning. Then, as if he’d forgotten the rules of time and space and the evolution of progressive movements, Clinton kicked into full self-defense mode: “This was litigated 20 years ago … Two-thirds of the American people sided with me; I had a sexual-harassment policy when I was governor in the ’80s; I had two women chiefs of staff when I was the governor; women were overrepresented in the attorneys general office in the ’70s.”
Toward the end, James Patterson jumped in, perhaps hoping to assist his floundering co-author: “This thing was 20 years ago. Come on. Let’s talk about JFK. Let’s talk about LBJ. Stop already.”
….
“Let’s not forget, and I’ll be brutal,” MSNBC host Chris Matthews said of Clinton in January of 2008, during Hillary’s first run for the presidency, “the reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That’s how she got to be senator from New York … She didn’t win there on her merit.”
For the last time: Clinton has nothing to do with Trump. This is Fox spin. You look dumb when you pivot to accuse any Clinton of anything when Trump is called out.
“The Cut” is a left wing news organization authored by feminists writing to feminists readers.
Presidential abuse of powers is the topic at hand. Address the topic
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKbAj8anPyI
Bill Clinton is not the news story. Lewinsky was a 23 year old who seduced him. Yes, he was wrong to allow it, but he didn’t have a newborn at home like Trump did. Lewinsky wasn’t a porn star, either. Trump and his crimes and bad conduct are relevant now, not Bill Clinton.
“Lewinsky was a 23 year old who seduced him.”
Breathtaking.
No wonder Trump won. No wonder Hillary lost….twice. No wonder people hate Hillary because of what you peddle as licit
In Monica’s own words. No doubt Nutchacha would hang her for daring to tell her story in light of the truth.
~~~~
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/27/monica-lewinsky-says-bill-clinton-affair-was-gross-abuse-of-power
“Now, at 44, I’m beginning … to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Lewinsky said.
“I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot, although power imbalances – and the ability to abuse them – do exist even when the sex has been consensual,” she wrote.
“But it’s … very, very complicated. The dictionary definition of ‘consent’? ‘To give permission for something to happen.’ And yet what did the ‘something’ mean in this instance, given the power dynamics, his position, and my age? Was the ‘something’ just about crossing a line of sexual [and later emotional] intimacy? An intimacy I wanted – with a 22-year-old’s limited understanding of the consequences.
“He was my boss. He was the most powerful man on the planet. He was 27 years my senior, with enough life experience to know better. He was, at the time, at the pinnacle of his career, while I was in my first job out of college,” she said.
thanks for posting that Amanda. Surprised The Guardian ran it – I thought most articles had to be vetted by the Clintons =)
Nutchacha is a delusional and angry Hilbot.
but he didn’t have a newborn at home like Trump did.
No, he had a wife and 15 year old daughter resident in the same building complex where his supply of cigars was kept.
Sure she does – if that entitled criminal POS hadn’t insisted on derailing Bernie we might have had a wholly different outcome. At least it would have been a fair fight.
“Deep State” LOL
Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept:
“The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer”
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/
“This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”
“Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss, as well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing — eager — to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry, and damaging those behaviors might be.”
but Richard – don’t you know that Greenwald is a Putin-puppet? =)
Progressives love him, Liberals hate him because they can’t stand the truth.
Only idiots differentiate between liberals and progressives; if you need a word to to define your politics, you really are a fool. Why can you not be honest, you speak for the Kochs. I think the kremlin could do better so it must be the Kochs.
YNOT – yuuge difference between Progressives and Liberals and you know it. You’d like to pretend that all Left leaners are in the same camp. Well, we are not. We probably despise the Dem Establishment more than any Republican or Libertarian.
“Deep State” LOL.
This “Deep State” organization which you have uncovered sounds ominous. It appears your dogged and indefatigable sleuthing has revealed for all the world to see, a nefarious cabal of ne’er-do-wells, seemingly hell-bent on eradicating our ‘Merican way of life, our love of cheetos and mom, or to fluoridate our precious bodily fluids, or some such other dastardly deed. Well done inspector, well done indeed.
this is to “Inspector Clouseau, at your service madam” richie
Jeff Sessions has been conservative Republican his entire career. Sessions was one of the first Republican senators to support Trump and worked on Trump’s campaign.
So ‘why’ is Sessions covering this ‘conspiracy’ against Trump? ‘Where’ is the logic??
No logic, none is required when wing nuttery is afoot.
Sessions, Mueller, Wray, Rostenkowski: The leaders of the Republican conspiracy to overturn a duly elected Republican President.
Crazy George will explain it all…
Why isn’t Sessions going after the Awan brothers?
Haha. Awan. More tomfoolery. Please post more of this type of material.
this is to “yesterday, I saw a whole fleet of black helicopters lurking behind the 7-11 store on the next block” autumnic
If the president pardons himself and the supreme court agrees, then we were never the democracy we pretended to be. We were just a succession of 45 tyrants who traded their robes for suits.
How is popular government subverted by executive clemency?
Pardoning yourself to cover up corruption and possible criminality is the ultimate obstruction of justice.
You didn’t answer my question and you stole a base to boot. A little integrity, please, if you can ever manage it.
I stole home. I have more than enough integrity for this lifetime. Thanks for playing.
You still haven’t answered my question. And, no, you haven’t shown any integrity in this discussion.
Well if justice is subverted by the prez, why should anyone follow the law? Our democracy is based on equality (debatable but surely a cornerstone of democracy), in theory chaos would be an appropriate response. Why should I or anyone else follow the rules?
YNOT
Good question! Maybe you can tweet Obama and get an answer?
Billy Joel has a song for you
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SuFScoO4tb0
Trump should do something sweet, like pardon the skeezy characters in his brother’s circle of friends, or pardon people considerate enough to see to it his brother-in-law gets a six figure finders fee, or pardon a chap on the lam in Switzerland whose wife has a bodacious bosom.
Trump’s Lawyers Argue That He Cannot Be Impeached Because He Was Never Actually Elected
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In what they believe is a legal masterstroke, lawyers for Donald J. Trump are now claiming that he cannot be impeached because he was never actually elected.
In a lengthy memo sent to the special counsel, Robert Mueller, the lawyers pushed back vehemently against any allegation that Trump was legally elected President.
“Because Russian interference made the election of Donald J. Trump wholly illegitimate, any attempt to remove him from an office that he does not legally hold is clearly impossible,” the memo asserted.
The memo claimed that the Constitution contains “no provision for removing a person from office when that person was installed there by a foreign power.”
The memo went on to argue that, if a subpoena is sent to the White House, it will be returned to Mueller and stamped “addressee unknown.”
“A person referred to in a subpoena as ‘President’ Donald J. Trump simply does not exist,” the memo claimed.
Minutes after the memo was leaked, the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani appeared on “Fox & Friends” and proudly announced that he was its author.
“Sometimes I have to just step back and say, ‘Damn it, Rudy, you’re good,’ ” he said, beaming.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trumps-lawyers-argue-that-he-cannot-be-impeached-because-he-was-never-actually-elected
Borowitz and Alexandra Petri are indispensable. Thank you for posting.
You’re welcome, have a great day.
Enjoy
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zGf-ZcYiRJw/V5o1MjvWlLI/AAAAAAAAbfU/Mt8rdf0nB1o_KY5BMmGFmgNLYEher0wEACEw/s1600/DT7.jpg
He said “juggernaut.” So sorry for your loss.
this is to “but all my friends like him, too!” charlie
OT – Styxx spot on
Idiot.
Meanwhile Americans worry about
https://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/branco-cartoon_us_msm_russian_propaganda.jpg
and discuss amongst themselves
https://rwcnews.com/wp-content/uploads/russia-hack-crime-scene-a-f-branco-cartoon.jpg
Le pièce de résistance!
Trump is now desensitizing citizens to the pardon so when he pardons others in his family or involved in his situation it will not seem unusual. He is not the kind of person to do this out of kindness or on principle
Even so, this one deserves credit. Thank you, President Trump.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44390737
My people wont see your link because they are working.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/92/aa/0a/92aa0af9e29b7531d45d1f79ff60a2f6.jpg
You however will provide dozens of links to left wing websites that your echo chamber comrades devour
Excerpted from the article linked above:
“A 63-year-old grandmother jailed in 1996 on a non-violent drug charge has been released from prison after she was granted clemency by President Trump.”
L4D said, “Thank you, President Trump.”
Jamie said, “You however will provide dozens of links to left wing websites that your echo chamber comrades devour.”
L4D replies, “Jamie disagrees with Trump’s use of the pardon power, because Jamie is just too dang stupid to agree with Trump’s use of the pardon power.”
“Since such an act would be the most profoundly disgraceful moment in the history of the American presidency”
******************
That covers a lot of ground. Nixon plotting against the Dems in Watergate. Clinton diddling an intern in the White House. Reagan violating the Iran embargo law to fund the Contras. Warren Harding awarding no bid contracts to Big Oil on government land in Teapot Dome. Obama selling our soul to the Iranians for a nuclear deal that was no deal. Grant testifying for his aide who undoubtedly took bribes in the Whiskey Ring Scandal.
But a President who could potentially derail an undoubtedly stacked deck investigation against him founded on a lie is the worst of the worst. No accounting for taste, I suppose.
As long as Trump presents his self-pardon in a US Court, then he can tell the Judge that he pardoned himself in the interest of justice to prevent a deep-state coup d’état and a partisan political with hunt.
Or Trump could allocate in open court to the offenses for which Trump pardoned himself.
L4D:
Or he can just say “I pardon myself for any and all crimes contemplated by the indictment.” No need to appear either. A letter would likely do.
If Trump remains in office, a blanket pardon would be perilously close to pardoning himself for crimes he had not yet committed. I think that one is expressly forbidden. But I will now have to look it up. Gee–thanks.
“…blanket pardon would be perilously close to…”
https://reclaimourrepublic.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/bill-hillary-lynch.jpg
Have you no shame, Early4brunch?
No, that’s why I referenced the indictment to make sure we were talking about already placed charges.
You and others continually get this wrong. Monica diddled Clinton. Here is a woman, not girl, who saw an opportunity to access privilege by taking advantage of an older man with a known weakness. It takes two to tango. Clinton’s disgrace was not telling the court that it was none of their business instead of sleazingly arguing what constituted sex. A hummer is having sex. A 69 is having sex. The old in/out is having sex. That is Clinton’s disgrace, or one of them.
“Clinton’s disgrace was not telling the court”….the truth.
Apparently the truth is something you now covet passionately nay erotically whereas back in the 1990s, not so much
Wipe the white stain from your blue pleated pants, Baconvich, or at least use latex
Ha – or Isaac could use BleachBit — or is that only for servers?
Turley is rubbing himself raw here. This is the same old legal self gratification BS. Trump can do a lot of things but the issue at had is not whether or not he can pardon himself or refuse this or that, but if he can get away with it. You can rob a bank but if you get caught and if the authorities decide to do something about it, you go to jail. Lawyers can argue most anything in either direction until the cows come home. If Trump pardons himself what will Congress do? One could attach the ‘crime’ being pardoned to impeachment and then the President can’t pardon. So, the only thing that is factual and concrete here is illustrated by the little relevance exhibited in Turley’s posting,
‘Since such an act would be the most profoundly disgraceful moment in the history of the American presidency, it is chilling to have a president to even engage in such a public debate.’
Trump is the most disgraceful moment in the history of the American Presidency. That he engages in this debate and so many other equally idiotic debates, illustrates how disgraceful Trump really is.
Somehow amid all the legal BS there is something relevant.
Mueller is not ‘likely to prevail’ in such a fight, except under the assumption that everyone plays nice with the lawyers. Which they shouldn’t.
Here’s someone who says the most likely thing to happen when Trump pardons himself is . . . nothing.
https://abovethelaw.com/2017/07/an-exhaustive-list-of-what-happens-after-trump-pardons-himself/
He also says Trump is “lazy and stupid,” so don’t mortgage the farm on his say just yet.
That’s reassuring. I hope something would happen if Trump pardons himself.
Nothing will happen since Republicans control the Senate and they don’t care what the upstart rabble in the House say.
I’m afraid you are correct.
Jay S:
That’s why Madison hated the rise of factions in democracies. They behave like … well … factions.
Lefties realize Trump has absolute right to use pardon powers and the precision in which he using it it (and not yet using it) is driving them lefty loons to be even more nutty.
The fascists on the right as well.
No need to discriminate.
Bill Martin said, “Lefties realize Trump has absolute right to use pardon powers . . .”
Ordinarily righties would distinguish rights from powers. But then, Bill Martin is clearly not Chief Olly.
Meanwhile, he who will not be deterred, Robert Swan Mueller The Third, would, in the event of a Trump self-pardon, immediately indict Trump in just such a way that Trump would be compelled to present both himself and his self-pardon in a US Court at Trump’s arraignment and lay that self-pardon on the Judge’s bench so that said Judge can determine for herself whether or not Trump had correctly guessed at exactly which offenses against the United States he had needed to pardon himself.
Trump is confident that there will be no need for a self-pardon and has said such, and Giuliani laughed at the question raised by Bill Clinton’s former pet George S on ABC. Regardless, the answer technically is “yes” which caused resistance – loyal lefty media to get theirs panties in a bunch which I suppose is not so comfortable during dog days of summer. No coincidence lefties clinging to this hyped story week before Trump heads to Singapore to seal a NK deal and lock down Nobel Prize (something that he worked to achieve unlike his predecessor). # “Winning!”
If Trump pardons Manafort, Kushner and Trump Jr., then their testimony on offenses for which they were pardoned can be compelled–as in a grant of immunity vitiating the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. That, in turn, makes it likelier that Trump would pardon himself as well as Manafort, Kushner and Trump Jr.. And then the pretzel logic turns in on itself yet again when Trump’s testimony on offenses for which he had pardoned himself can be compelled because his self-pardon would forfeit his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
OMG Ms. Lefty Loon. The real power Trump holds is that he knows that he won’t need to pardon Kushner or Don Jr. And fired campaign manager Manafort is better left to keep fighting on his own. Trump is in no hurry to get in the way of street fighter Manafort who is standing up to Muler and not being some weak-as weasel like his former partner. Still at the end of the day you lefties need to accept the fact that trump holds the position and you all have no choice but to assume the position. Have a lovely day Songbird.
And to think I was tempted to let you have the last word, today. “Assume the position?” That’s your last word for today?? And then you’re off to yoga classes??? Fine. So be it. Preying Mantis.
So sad. It appears the wackjobs luvs them some day glo bozo more than their country. I remember when being a Republican was honorable; when being a Republican meant that you loved your country; when being a Republican meant that your love for the United States Constitution was more heartfelt than any short-term political advantage. Why does your ilk so hate America? Why does your type so easily sell out this last, great hope of mankind for 30 pieces of silver? I remember when Republicans would disavow someone whose conduct so publicly revealed his hatred for mom, Old Glory, and these United States. So sorry for your loss.
this is to “it’s all these dam furriners, see” billie
This post by JT has has an adolescent hysteria to it; as if JT can’t believe his own words.
Indeed they are hard to believe.
The Steak-Salesman’s legal team throws out a thousand hypotheticals and then waits and watches for all the free analysis, to help determine the path to take — in the same way that the Pizza Hut spokesman used campaigning and now the office to garner free publicity for “his” own properties.
It’s amateur-hour rife with corrupting self-interest over the public’s interest.
And it’s interesting that the Founder’s had an issue with emoluments and the idea of a king generally, yet would allow for self-pardons constitutionally.
I opine that it depends upon the meaning of pardon to the drafters of the constitution. I suspect that they understood pardon to mean prior conviction.
Washington pardoned the Whiskey Rebellion rebels before they were charged with any crimes. Hamilton had previously guessed correctly that the pardon power might be useful to quell rebellions. Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Carter and a few other presidents besides also used the pardon power to grant amnesties before charges were filed. The real question is whether the pardon can preempt indictment. I vote no.
Because the pardoner has to guess what offenses against the United States were to have been pardoned in the first place. If the pardoner guesses incorrectly, then the pardonee is SOL. It’ll be interesting to see if Trump can figure out with what crimes Mueller is going to charge Trump. Eenie, meenie, mienie and more might not cut muster with The Judge.
Thanks.
You’re welcome, Dr. Benson. Preemptive pardons are rare. And the Trump campaign is not exactly The Whiskey Rebellion, The Civil War, nor even dodging the draft, for that matter.
I’ll have to contemplate that last.
Sometimes I click the post message button without thinking things through.
L4D enables David Benson Some 20 people were arrested during the Whiskey Rebellion, some were acquited the rest pardoned. By the time Washington and his oversized army appeared, the rebellion had ended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
Persnickety turf warrior, Senor Bos, coughed up a citation. Well, two can play at that game.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/first-presidential-pardon-pitted-hamilton-against-george-washington-180964659
Excerpted from the article linked above:
“First issued by George Washington on November 2, 1795, the pardon put a public end to the earliest major instance of civic violence in the United States since the Constitution’s establishment six years earlier. The presidential action forgave two Pennsylvania men sentenced to hang for treason, simultaneously quelling a nascent uprising and proving the power of the chief executive.”
So the pardon was not preemptive. Nevertheless, The Smithsonian–not Schmikipedia–says it quelled a nascent uprising. Also, they seem to think that Hamilton was opposed to the pardon. Even so, Hamilton’s Federalist 74 argued that the pardon power would be useful to quell rebellions. And there you have the first flip-flop in American politics as well. Unless Senor Bos would propose another.
L4D enables David Benson – the rebellion was over when Washington showed up with his oversized army. The army or threat of the army quelled the rebellion.
Meullers red button has a device to affix it to his lapel. He can only use it to prick himself.
all of these are in reverse order.
The Constitution is a whole document and all the parts are fitted together to accomplish a single goal. Tamper witih one, cherry pick one or two then a violation of another portion is certainly guaranteed. The notion of money is free speech for example translates as I have the right without explanation to all of your rights witout exception. One new right, illegally granted violates at least five other rights. Next thing you know we have probable cause replaced withi ‘suspicion of.’
The point on pardons is very clear. The sentence does not stutter.The power of pardon has no exceptions. If distateful there to enough there is a corrective mechanism which is far easier than than the 100% majority required to put the document in place. The change requires more than 50 percent plus one and less thamn 100%. If enough do not take that action it stands
Electoral college has seen 700 plus attempts and still stands. Sadly the unintended consequences were ignored when the States were stripped of the power of acting as a check and balance against the fhe federal government by that required majority. We are now paying the price for that loophole.
As for the President even the power to pardon did not extend to include impeachment. That he cannot pardon. Not can the Supreme Court over rule as they too are impeachable and the penalty is stripped of their office same as for the President or any public official.
This portion could not be stated more clearly is part of the whole and the whole stands as it has for 240 plus years.
Ignoring it is not acceptable yet it has been ignored for various reasons none of them acceptable or they would have been used to provide a legal amendment.
No one has the power to strip me of any of my rights in favor of a new right that is non existent. Money is not free speech, The President is not limited in the powers ofi pardons except in one instance, and to take it a step further ‘the full faith and credit’ of the USA does not refer to finances .
A step further. The executive has no judicial powers no legislative powers. The Judicial has no legislative nor executive powers and the Legislature has no Executive or judicial powers. Thus any agency which employs all three is unconstitutional unless an amendment is passed with the required number voting in favor to make Fourth Branch or super branch such as the IRS or BLM. I have never found that magic wand that allowed such to exist except for the Uniform Code of Military Justice and even then it must be scrupulously applied to protect ALL rights . One cannot or should not have been able to incarcerate one for that which another is allowed to commit and run free to continue commiting a crime.
Michael Aarethun, congratulations on your best writing yet.
There may be an exception to the pardon power for civil contempt charges. It looks to me like Chief Justice Taft did not extend that exception to criminal contempt charges. But he discussed it at length at length in the link below:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/267/87/case.html
Here’s an argument for extending the exception to the pardon power for civil contempt charges to criminal contempt charges in the case of Trump’s pardon of Arpaio. The argument hinges on the notion that a given constitutional power cannot violate a constitutional protection for civil liberties.
https://verdict.justia.com/2017/08/31/presidential-pardon-power-may-not-absolute
Mueller has a red button and Trump has an even bigger red button. 🙂 Take that!!!
Trump’s red button is still covered by a $130,000 Non-Disclosure Agreement.
L4D is enabling David Benson – Stormy is now bad mouthing JT’s favorite student. 😉
La donna è mobile
Qual piuma al vento,
muta d’accento
e di pensiero.
Sempre un amabile,
leggiadro viso,
in pianto o in riso,
è menzognero.
È sempre misero
chi a lei s’affida,
chi le confida
mal cauto il cuore!
Pur mai non sentesi
felice appieno
chi su quel seno
non liba amore!
La donna è mobil’
Qual piuma al vento,
muta d’accento
e di pensier’!
English Translation for “La donna è mobile”:
Oh Denise, shooby doo
I’m in love with you, Denise shooby doo
I’m in love with you, Denise shooby doo
I’m in love with you
Denise, Denise, oh, with your eyes so blue
Denise, Denise, I’ve got a crush on you
Denise, Denise, I’m so in love with you
Oh, when we walk, it seems like paradise
And when we talk, it always feels so nice
Denise, Denise, I’m so in love with you
Your my dream and I’m in heaven
Every time I look at you
When you smile it’s like a dream
And I’m so lucky ’cause I found a girl like you
Oh Denise, shooby doo
I’m in love with you, Denise shooby doo
I’m in love with you, Denise shooby doo
I’m in love with you
Denise, Denise, oh won’t you hold me tight
Denise, Denise, oh can we kiss goodnight
Denise, Denise, I’m so in love with you
Oh Denise, shooby doo
I’m in love with you, Denise shooby doo
I’m in love with you, Denise shooby doo
I’m in love with you, Denise
wildbill99 – that is a very very loose translation. 😉
Not my fault, blame Randy and the Rainbows and Verdi if you must.