Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics

Yes, Trump Can Pardon Himself But He Should Not Do So

Below is my column in the Hill on the controversy over presidential self-pardons. Many academics have long expressed the view that a president can issue a self pardon. Judge Richard Posner discussed the issue in commentary and also concluded that such a pardon could occur. Posner stated “It has generally been inferred from the breadth of the constitutional language that the president can indeed pardon himself.”  This has been a long-standing debate and there is an honest and interesting debate on the issue. For some of us, there is a difference between condemning such self-pardons as self-dealing and declaring that the Constitution clearly bars such presidential acts. That does not change because the subject of the analysis is now President Donald Trump.

Here is the column:

It seems the subject of Donald Trump, like necessity, is the mother of invention, at least when it comes to legal analysis. From bribery statutes to constitutional provisions, legal experts routinely and unfailingly conclude that Trump or his family can be prosecuted or impeached for an endless array of misdeeds. Even theories denied by the Supreme Court are seen as valid when used against Trump. Now the same certainty has been declared on whether Trump can grant himself a pardon. One of the longest standing debates in constitutional law is dismissed as ill-informed by some of the same experts.

His role as a catalyst for clarity was apparent in an interview by Harvard professor Laurence Tribe. After host Lawrence O’Donnell said he believed a president could give himself a pardon, Tribe proclaimed such a view is “incoherent and incompatible” as a constitutional matter. The declaration likely surprised few on MSNBC. Tribe has been an outspoken critic of Trump, whom he has denounced as a “terrorist,” and he has supported a wide array of criminal and constitutional claims against him. These views are popular as are Tribe’s increasingly personal diatribes, including vulgar attacks on Republican leaders and even a false attack on Attorney William Barr for his Catholic faith.

For the record, I have maintained that a president can grant himself a pardon. I held that position before Trump took office. I also believe a president can be indicted in office. The reason is the same: The Constitution prohibits neither a self-pardon nor a presidential indictment. This is not the first time that Tribe and I have disagreed. Two decades ago, we testified together at the impeachment hearing of President Clinton.

At that time, Tribe was far more restrictive in his legal and constitutional interpretations, declaring that lying under oath in the Clinton case would not be an impeachable offense. While a federal court and Democrats agreed that Clinton knowingly committed perjury, Tribe insisted that a president could commit perjury in certain circumstances and not be impeached. Thus, a president can commit a felony for which thousands have been incarcerated, including those prosecuted by his own administration, but he should not be removed from office for the same act.

I maintained that perjury is a “high crime and misdemeanor” regardless of its subject. Conversely, I testified in the Trump impeachment that the issue was far more difficult because of the absence of such a clear criminal act as perjury. While I testified that Trump could be impeached on two of six suggested articles — the two ultimately adopted by the House — I felt the Judiciary Committee had not created a record for such impeachment and was moving prematurely.

People of good faith can disagree on such issues, including that of self-pardons. The language itself is clear. 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 pardoned. The president is simply given the power to pardon anyone, for any federal crime. Many courts would likely dismiss challenges to such a pardon as simply being nonjusticiable.  Indeed, absent an actual federal prosecution raising the issue, it is hard to imagine a litigant to pass muster on standing for such a challenge under current rules.

Tribe insists the clarity and coherence comes in a later provision referring to how a president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Tribe notes: “It doesn’t say ‘except the criminal laws.’ It doesn’t say ‘except when he chooses to violate the criminal laws.’” The problem, however, is that these provisions have an inherent conflict: All pardons, for anyone, would mean that a president is negating the effect of criminal law. That is the point of a pardon. This includes preemptive pardons before any actual charge like the one given Richard Nixon. While Tribe is saying self-pardons are notably bad, any pardon for anyone would run afoul of the duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Moreover, the fact is that the pardon power is itself part of the laws of the United States.

Tribe insisted — as he has in the past — that the Framers would never have assumed such presidential power because even George III did not have the power to self-pardon. It is a curious argument since the king of England was protected by an absolute rule of immunity: “The king can do no wrong.” There would be no need for a pardon of a king in a system where he could not be charged with a crime. It is certainly true that Magna Carta sought to limit the powers of the King. However, it was focused on recognizing the rights of individuals and principles of due process. Kings continued to rule with sweeping personal privileges and immunities. Indeed, for much of history, kings were deposed in a lethal, not a legal, sense. For instance, Charles I faced a problem of revolution, not prosecution, and the ultimate loss of his head was not for want of a pardon power.

Tribe’s argument then moved from the historical to the sensational. He noted that Trump once said he could shoot people on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. A self-pardon, Tribe insisted, “would make that literally true.” No, it would make it neither literally nor even figuratively true. Murder remains a state offense which is not in any way limited by federal pardon power. Trump could pardon himself from any and all crimes — but only those covered in the federal criminal code. He still could be prosecuted under state law for that body left on Fifth Avenue.

The stronger argument against a presidential self-pardon is not the textual one raised by Tribe but, simply, that the Constitution should be read to include a principle against self-dealing. Yet presidents regularly engage in all forms of self-dealing, from nepotism to favoritism to cronyism, without a hint of constitutional difficulty. Bill Clinton not only appointed his 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.

This is why Trump can pardon himself, and why he should not do so. Just as I denounced Clinton for abusing the pardon powers, I believe such a step by Trump would be an even greater abuse. In other words, it would be as constitutional as it would be wrong.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

195 thoughts on “Yes, Trump Can Pardon Himself But He Should Not Do So”

  1. No need. For a full federal pardon one of the supremes standing by for verification and signatures etc. Trump resigns, Pence is sworn into office issues a Pardon to Trump. to carry it further pence chooses someone to be Vice PResident and that is sent to Senate while the DNC is sleeping passed by Senate… My favorite Candidate is McSally or Tulsi Gabbard one nominates the other and form the new Constitutional Republic and Independent Constitutional Democrat Party. Pelosi gets nowhere near being notified about anything. Thus they get a huge bump to the top as the first women to be President and Vice PResident compliments of the Constitutional Republic party and the well known as victimizers of women get no credit at all.

    As for the stimulus Trump vetoes it unless it’s paid to everyone and I would settle for half or 600 and 250. But as for giving it only to renter what kind of cheap offer is that? Match the cut knowing pelosi will pump it up later but it will be entirely the fault of the DNC at that point.

    So Pelosis a bit less than a trillion matched with a similar amount for everyone but no less than half and otherewise the DNC gets stiffed with the entire bill and is hated as nothing but communist socialists which is exactly what they are.

  2. If 70 million law abiding tax payers will give the corrupt system the finger and not file 1040s, they will feel our wrath

    this one will punch the enemy in the gut hard, and it’s easily doable

    good luck enforcing the bogus laws if everyone makes this “PEACEFUL PROTEST” at the same time

    spread the word. tax protest 2020!

    Saloth Sar

      1. they already are “printing money” by monetizing larger and larger parts of the debt

        but trust me tax receipts matter.

        these are the “sales” to the citizens

        the citizens must now BOYCOTT with #Taxprotest2020

      2. Well, there would be a limit. One limit is when China would no longer accept dollars to pay off the loan. But I think the US should default on their loan anyway. There is more than 1 way to skin a cat, so to speak.

    3. Anonymous, the ‘enemy’ is your own country, fool. You’re proposing an alliance with Putin (and China).

    4. We just went through 4 years of Russia investigations and an impeachment, how can you possibly ask that question? They, the liberals will punish president trump for years and try to bankrupt him, that’s what they do!!!

        1. Same question could have been asked about the first Civil War.
          The long view is necessary here when asking that question. But I guess you are shaking in your boots about Russia and china.

    5. Are you counting the billionaire who pays $750 a year in taxes amongst the law abiding taxpayers? Because I really don’t think the Treasury would feel it if next year he did not send in the $750.

      1. if you mean Trump, he proved his worthy by defying his class

        but Natch has been on here for years telling us he really wasnt a billionaire in the first place so Im taking her word for it

      2. That is no doubt a totally ignorant report. Why it is so absurd to even print that amount, that you cant’ even fathom a billionaire paying so little. But the Treasury would not even feel $750.00, but I bet they would feel 70+ million Americans not paying their taxes. You must think in 1 dimension. If that!

  3. you guys are going to be surprised when a lot of these bogus threats against trump fizzle once he’s out of office

    they were ephemeral threats contingent on his being in the POTUS. they Democrats will have better things to do once he’s gone. like gin up more bribes from all the billionaires, who are the enemy. money’s going to be coming in hand over fist. while we get poorer and sicker to boot

    Saloth Sar

    1. I know right??? We’ll come to rue the day we got rid of such a benovolent and selfless president such as trump bear.

  4. The Constitution does not specifically state the president can not self pardon, but it does strongly imply it when it says ” Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” It would make no sense for a president to be subject to an indictment that they can self pardon out of.

    The framers could not have foreseen all possible outcomes, so it is up to use to use common sense to fill in the gaps. To allow a president to self-pardon would be an absurd interpretation of an ambiguous constitution.

  5. Most presidents haven’t been subject to the hate and vitriol before and during his term in office with threats of when he’s out of office, they are going to make him pay. With the inventive schemes the Democrats have come up with, illegitimate charges will be filed (as in Russian collusion and the attempted impeachment) and will do all they can to put Trump in jail. He is fully justified in pardoning himself as he can’t rely on a subsequent left wing, godless president to do the right thing for the good of the country. Who’d want to be president after that if they are going to be prosecuted because the other side doesn’t like him or her – unless you’re a corrupt person to begin with knowing your allies will protect you?

    1. I am old enough to remember “Lock Her Up” chanted at some candidate’s rallies. Over some email security protocols, I think.

      I read on some President’s twitter account regularly to lock up this or that one of his political enemies. I keep hearing something about “Obamagate” but I am unclear exactly what that means.

      1. email security protocols sounds so benign when committed by the criminal class that gets a pass.

        If some non inner circle pleb did would they be locked up? you bet, and your inability to see that demonstrates the type of attitude that will motivate red America to no longer make or deliver the things you can’t to you.

        1. yes like INCOME TAXES from 70 million angry citizens
          time for the REVOLT

          #TAXPROTEST2020

          Saloth Sar

        2. Glad that you recognize Jared Kushner and Trump, who have also broken email security protocols, are part of “the criminal class.”

          1. the way that the mass media has conditioned Democrat cheerleaders to be angry at one billionaire Trump even as the other 700 of them steal and rob us blind, is a masterful work of cunning

            but don’t be confused. billionaires are the enemy

            refuse them your taxes, if you have courage. this virtuous nonviolent protest will be felt when the money slows rolling in and the cost of federal borrowing goes up.

            I mean we all understand who’s in charge right and how much richer they’ve become, just this year, based on all the federal reserve monetary injections into the stock and bond markets? the stories are ample,

            ask yourself, are you a billionaire bootlicker, or a citizen?

            Saloth Sar

          2. Morocco has now extended relations with Israel.

            Trump deserves a Peace Prize and Kushner a medal.

  6. Trump should not pardon himself – bad form. He should resign on January 19th. Pence would then become the 46th President and pardon Trump.
    Better than a self-pardon.

    Finally, Tribe’s hypocrisy appears to know no limits

    1. Sorry, but presumably the 46th president would be Biden. Pence would have to wait until the next go around. Why subject Trump to the vindictiveness for at least 4 years?

    2. If Pence had no presidential (or other political) ambitions, I would not object; I would favor your proposal. But it would be a job-killer for Pence.

  7. What is amazing to me is everything I see from Laurence Tribe. Is he really an expert on anything that has to do with the law? Because none of what he says makes sense.

    1. his constitutional law textbook was excellent. now his brain is demented. disregard him

      Saloth Sar

  8. A little reminder of the greatness and sacrifice of our past on sacred, Pearl Harbor Day:

    Seamen Ronald Endicott, 18, Clifford Olds, 20, and Louis Costin, 21 all aboard the sunken battleship, USS West Virginia, banged on that hull for 16 days after it went down in the sneak attack. Nothing could be done to save them as cutting the hull would flood it and the torches would cause an explosion. The three were found by the recovery team huddled in an air pocket. Every day had been crossed off in red pencil. Remember that the next time some privileged millionaire wants to kneel for the anthem. I’d wouldn’t trade any of those three boys for a thousand pampered athletes.

    1. My uncle, the guy I’m named after, died on a submarine (the HERRING) in the Pacific in WWII and would a) know that a kneeling is not a deragatory gesture, b) know that kneeling to recognize police violence on people of color is not disrespectful, and c) attempts to wrap opposition to free speech in the flag would most likely be one of the main things he was fighting against in the defense of his country.

      Elvis Bug

        1. Thanks for indulging my curiosity as to how bloviating idiots read and react to the world. You’ve been very helpful.

          Elvis Bug

        2. What an arrogant prick you are, mespo727272, to think you know his uncle’s views better than Elvis Bug does.

            1. mespothelioma,
              He knew at least one of his uncle’s siblings, so no, your guess isn’t as good as his.

              1. I knew 3 of my uncles siblings, in fact. And politics were discussed often with all of them.

                Elvis Bug

            2. Mespo, I knew my father, who knew his brother. And when my dad was a dem working in the Nixon administration I got constant earfuls of what the family believed, etc…

              Which would mean that you missed the point, I guess. Which is cool, I’m used to that being a constant with you.

              Elvis Bug

            3. Your guess is just your guess, Mespo. And you’re swimming where you have business swimming.

              Elvis Bug (Paul Cunningham)

          2. The Bug is a story teller. And Anonymous’s opinions are based on bias alone, no facts need apply. Logically one would believe that the Uncle created by the Bug could say that, whereas the real one would not kneel when the American flag is raised or any similar action taken. It is was a very disrespectful act at the time so rather than be disrespectful to any of those that died in that submarine I will believe the Bug didn’t tell the truth.

          3. Agreed on your take on Mespo, Anonymous.

            Bone head move on my part though in bringing my family into this. Got lured into it when Mespo masquered his anti free speech views by wrapping them in the flag. I’ve always been awful at not reacting when people do that b.s.

            Elvis Bug

      3. Speaking of Pearl Harbor day, did you know the Japs also bombed targets in Hong Kong that day.

        Chinese have a thing they kowtow. to show deference and respect, they kneel and bow head towards the floor

        even in the PRC where they’ve done away with old fashioned things, they still do this at the graves of ancestors

        I’m an American. We don’t bow and scrape for anybody. Including perpetually privileged & yet still aggrieved minorities. Savvy?

        Saloth Sar

        1. Such a valiant post, Saloth Kurtz. Totally expected to see your white robes trailing in the breeze as you rode off after making it.

          Elvis Bug

          1. thank you. remember, white is the color of purity and virtue

            just like the stripes on the american flag

            TAX PROTEST 2020

            fight the billionaire plutocrats and their bogus system with the one easiest thing to do:

            DONT FILE INCOME TAXES IN APRIL

            70 million strong, there won’t be a thing they can do to enforce their bogus laws if the workers act together in general strike

            Saloth Sar

    2. Mespo, thanks for the inspiring story. FY for trying to make it a political statement in agreement with you. You don’t know those guys

    3. mespo – It’s unfortunate that FDR knew in advance that the attack was coming, yet waited for eight hours before informing the military commanders that the attack was planned and the U.S. knew it. By starving Japan of the oil it needed to run their industry and their citizens, FDR got what he wanted.

      1. Yes it was unfortunate. In fact some have consider it treasonous.
        But he WAS a DEMOCRAT. In case anyone forgot.

  9. I predict about 6 weeks from now Jonathan will suddenly discover that there are all sorts of limits on Presidential power, and a President cannot just do whatever he wants no matter how corrupt it appears.

    1. Don’t forget the principle that the president must conform the the norms and customs that all others have done. Also how high of a standard the president must set.

      1. And that the foremost qualites a president should represent are honesty and physically protecting the citizenry.

        Elvis Bug

    3. BIngo!

      No doubt we’ll get the horrors about executive orders again and from Congressional Republicans, defecit outrage.

      The GOP stands for nothing now, except Trump.

  10. It sounds like Bill Barr is going to leave town before the concept of a self-pardon for Trump becomes a reality. Looks like Turley is jockeying for the role if acting AG for the last couple of weeks of the Trump administration, when all the stuff even Barr would be ashamed to do will be done or attempted.

    1. Turley will not replace Barr. Trump is not loyal enough to Trump to continue Barr’s dirty work on Trump’s behalf. Turley has seen fit to criticize the disgraced Barr on only ONE occasion despite all his duplicitous efforts to enable Trump’s chronic lying. Turley’s failure to hold his long-standing friend accountable for his deplorable conduct in the service of this disreputable president will stain his professional reputation in the eyes of many if not most of his academic colleagues. It’s a real pity.

      1. Anon – you are very right about Prof Turley’s hands-off-Barr attitude.

        On the other hand, I believe (not certain) that the Prof is correct about Presidential self-pardons. I hope that Turley is correct here becuase then we would not have to undergo constant years-long rehashing of all Trump’s malfeasance in office. I want Trump “one and done” and gone from my sight.

      2. The pity is that you knuckleheads insult Prof Turley every day on his own blog, showing no respect for his learned opinions nor his hospitality. Because why?

        Because you serve the enemy of the workers and middle class, the American globalist billionaires. Whether you get it yet or not.

        One day, you will understand.

        Saloth Sar

        1. Mr Kurtz, if you believed what you said, you’d attack the Republicans as much as you attack the Democrats. You’re still a partisan at heart, in a Saloth Sar shtick.

          1. Before Trump I came to hate the Republicans too. Then he dragged them along for a hell of a 4 year ride. Reluctantly!

            They are complicit with the billionaires to be sure.

            GLOBALIZATION is the trend that destroys nations at behest of billionaires. They seek an end to national borders which impedes their various schemes which they call “freedom:”

            1. they desire free movement of labor, so that the cheap third world labor can flood “the West” and drive down the wages of the workers and middle class, which benefits billionaires

            2. they desire free movement of goods, ie free trade, not tariffs and restrictions, so that their schemes such as “amazon.com” can continue to make billions on cheap junk made in China by the equivalent of slave labor,

            3. they desire “free movement of information” ie an internet which they can BUY and OWN and use at their pleasure to manipulate nations like so many playthings

            4. they desire the “free movement of capital” ie no restrictions on financial transfers across borders so their money can move fast and easy and cheaply from one nation to another, thus to punish any government that opposes them

            In America they have 3 and 4. Trump denied them 1 and 2, so they were mad at him, they got rid of him!

            Sorry but Democrats are in favor of all 1-4 so they get more negative from me. Let them oppose more and they can get praise

            Until then they are mercenaries of the billionaires who have bought their party; some Republicans are smart enough yet to understand Soros, Bezos, Bloomberg, et al are the enemies of the people including them

            DENY THEM YOUR TAXES IN APRIL AND JOIN #TAXPROTEST2020

            HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS

            Saloth Sar

  11. Of course this President hasn’t committed any federal crimes, so in that regard, no pardon would be necessary. Not much different from his alleged Ukraine QPQ. No impeachment was necessary. But that ship has sailed. A Biden AG will be expected to bring federal charges.

    Once again the irony that will not be lost on the American people is Biden will have the (self) pardon power. Even if the current AG/DOJ were to charge Biden or anyone in his circle for federal crimes; even if SC Durham indicted Obama, Clinton, Comey, etc., Biden could issue pardons.

    And if election reforms are not done, then even an electorate horrified at evidence proving they are being ruled by criminals, they will never be to peacefully remove them from office.

    Banana republic time.

    1. Hmmm, I wonder if Pres. Trump’s legal fees for defending himself after he leaves office, against the ongoing witch hunt will be paid by the U.S. Treasury. Does any one really know the answer to that question? If not, please cite your basis. Also if yes, please cite your basis. Thanks,

  12. I don’t get it. Has Trump been indicted for anything or is he currently on trial for a crime? What is there to pardon?

    1. It’s pre-emptive against false charges that the Democrats have been doing for the past four years.

    2. Joe, remember, this is the cancel culture we R living through. Truth or fiction – It doesn’t matter. The aim is to destroy. The progressives will keep on destroying until they have ruined everything good about this country. Not to mention the good people, and the multi-millionaires. They are already on the “list”. They have way too much money and power – even if they didn’t do anything against the counter culture. They will get theirs!

  13. Tribe was on tv recently and he was not at all convincing and somewhat confused.

  14. I have another opinion. Trump should pardon everyone he can think of, including himself. Then give the Dem’s the finger! After all, isn’t that what Obama did and Clinton did? And if you don’t think so, just look at the numbers and the type of felons they pardoned! The sauce is just as good for the gander, don’t ya think? AND BTW PROF TURLEY, WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS, ANYWAY? EH?

  15. The hard left is venomous. I fear that false charges will be used against anyone that significantly supported Trump. We have already seen that type of behavior by the left in the news.

    I have no opinion regarding self-pardoning or pardoning those significantly at risk because they support the President. No matter what he does with regard to such pardons I will support him in exactly the same.

    1. That’s an unfounded fear. It is more rational to conclude that if a president, from any party, can pardon himself, he is essentially not bound by any laws, not even the Constitution. That means we have either a king or a dictator. Prof. Turley, why does this not concern you? I doubt our founders who were fleeing the dictates of a monarch, had anything like this in mind. A people will always follow their leadership. If a President can act lawless and be unaccountable, the people will become largely lawless. Authorities will lose all respect from the people. Like someone else said, good for goose good for the gander. Smug intellectualism results in meaningless philosophies providing no worthy guidance or insight.

  16. “For the record, I have maintained that a president can grant himself a pardon. I held that position before Trump took office. I also believe a president can be indicted in office. The reason is the same: The Constitution prohibits neither a self-pardon nor a presidential indictment. ”

    Agreed, Turley. Trump is much more the argument for the former condition than the latter. And I like your thoughts on ‘limitations of the king’. And, in hindsight, i also feel like you were right in saying the dems pulled the trigger on impeachment just a wee bit too soon, although Mitch was never going to grant the ability to see witnesses in the senate trial, period. So that makes the timing of the impeachment a bit moot…

    The only thing that might’ve been able to change that dynamic (and the chances of this were infinitessimaly tiny) were for the impeachment trial to have begun after the kick in of Covid when it became clear trump was beyond incompetent and incapable of leading the country through the crisis. The combination of Mitch not being able to lean on his caucus in person, a pandemic just swallowing the country, and testimony of several key witnesses might’ve flipped Murkowski and Collins. Murkowski anyway since she wasn’t subject as much to Mitch’s control of the purse strings for re election this year.

    Elvis Bug

    1. Delaying the impeachment hearings would not have kept Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren off the campaign trail.

    1. What would he pardon himself for, mesblow? He claims not to have committed any crimes.

      1. Totally. And actually, liberals expect trump to pardon himself. All a bit moot as the only game that matters for trump post jan. 20 is how far NY state will get up on him.

        Elvis Bug

      3. Ford’s pardon of Nixon did not specify what crimes he was pardoning him for. Nevertheless, courts accepted the pardon as effective.

        1. Ford’s pardon of Nixon was never challenged in court, and we’ll never know how the courts would have ruled if it had been challenged.

  18. LOL that Turley links to a previous column titled “Trump Can Indeed Pardon Himself . . . And We Should Now Never Speak Of This Again,” while speaking of it again, yet claims “I held that position before Trump took office,” while not linking to any evidence of that.

    Tribe tweeted “Are self-pardons OK? … Presidents who know they can pardon any & all federal crimes they may have committed while in office will know FROM THE MOMENT THEY TAKE THE OATH that they’re above the law.”

    Turley doesn’t address that.

    1. Correct Turley does not address the chief argument that the reason the Framers did not state that the president could not pardon himself was that it was self-evident he could not! Otherwise, a president would become immune to *federal* criminal law. Such an interpretation would contravene the hallmark of our jurisprudence that NO MAN is above ANY law.

      As a side note, Turley is exhibiting some score settling in his posts. Apparently, there is some bad blood between him and Tribe; and one could not fail to notice his gratuitous dig at MSNBC. Turley is likewise exhibiting his prejudice against all media networks except his employer Fox with which he has NEVER found fault despite the network’s disgraceful enabling of Trump’s chronic lying.

      Jeffrey Silberman

      1. ha, billionaires are mostly all above the law. they’re the enemy!

        let’s punch them in the nads

        #taxprotest2020

        an idea whose time has come

        Saloth Sar

        1. Saloth Kurtz, you’re almost as repetitive as George. That’s not a compliment.

          1. Kurtz’s world came down with this election – he’s another who predicted what he wished for – and he can’t make sense of it. Now he’s pretending the party he supported is the enemy of the rich and actually does anything to benefit “working people”.

  20. Trump pardoning himself at the federal level is a mute point considering the state of New York will have him in their courts at the state level which he cannot pardon himself from. It’s amazing that Gov Cuomo can get legislation passed holding nursing homes and long term care not liable for his March 25 executive order that led to the deaths of over 7,000, but that orange man must go down!

Comments are closed.