Today I will have the pleasure of participating in a debate titled Civil Disagreements: Presidential Self Pardons. I will be debating Professor Brian Kalt, who believes that the presidents do not have the authority to pardon themselves. I will be taking the opposing position. The debate will be held entirely online. The debate is sponsored by Reform for Illinois, the American Bar Association, the Chicago Chapter of the American Constitution Society, and the Chicago Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society
I have long maintained that presidents do have the authority to grant self-pardons. That does not mean that I approve of the practice as a policy matter, but the question, in my view, rests with a president in using the authority granted under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, which defines the pardon power as allowing a president to “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
I value the effort of these two legal groups to foster civil and substantive dialogue on these questions and look forward to the debate with Professor Kalt.
The debate will began at 1pm (ET) and participants can register here.
It’s good that Democrats believe that “no one is above the law”. It is increasingly likely that Joe Biden will not be on the ballot in Ohio this year because he will not have been formally nominated by the Democrats in time to meet a filing deadline set by Ohio law. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13449117/president-joe-biden-general-election-ballot-ohio-campaign-2024.html Republicans could change state law for his benefit, but after the ballot cleansing campaign of the Democrats in Colorado and elsewhere, why would they?
This is not as good a thing as it appears. Joetard has ZERO chance of winning in solid-red Ohio, so keeping him off the ballot only provides him a talking point for claiming that the election was rigged.
Republicans are not keeping Biden off the OH ballot – failure to comply with a decades old law is.
No one has been “removed”, Biden has not met neutral criteria for being on the
OH ballot. Democrat KNEW this before thei set their schedule – they created a similar problem in the NH democratic primary.
Republicans are willing to change the law – as part of an election law package that improves OH election integrity.
If Ohio ignored the SCOTUS, obviously Colorado would too. And we’d be off to the races as the U.S. turned into breakaway states.
One can’t help but wonder what would become of trumpistan if it found itself flanked by Mexico to the south and an expanded Canada to the north and was forced into a two front war (with instant rebellion in the urban areas of trumpistan states). Lol.
Has SCOTUS said that Ohio’s law is unconstitutional ?
Ohio did NOT through Biden off the ballot. Ohio requires that candidates qualify for the general election by a specific time prior to the election the law is decades old. Republicans have altered it multiple times to suit Democrats who keep ignoring is and scheduling late conventions. This year they said “no more” – or more accurately they said “we are not doing this for free”. Republicans will move the deadline – but only in return for other provisions to insure election integrity.
Democrats have balked. Therefore the law has not been changed.
It is highly unlikely SCOTUS is going to step in. This is a valid state election law requirement – many states have similar provisions – even blue states. The law predates democrats problem by decades. Ohio did not chose the date of the Democratic convention. Democrats did – knowing the law was in place for decades.
Democrats did the same in New Hampshire with a different election provision – and as a result Biden was not on the NH democratic presidential primary ballot.
We can all see what the R’s are doing, right? They’re sending Turley out on the Constitutional assault tour. They’re sowing the seeds for a big step toward dictatorship…
Here we have trump railing on about Biden trying to ‘assassinate’ him because the search warrant for MAL contained language about deadly force that EVERY SINGLE SEARCH WARRANT CARRIES. It’s just a clause that points out if you’re attacked while serving the warrant people can defend themselves…
But as we’ve seen constantly, trump is naught but projection. He accuses you of doing what he himself is planning to do. Trump is sowing the seeds for extra judicial assassinations with a corresponding lack of having to answer for it. And Turley is acting as front man for it.
Thing is, it’s been pointed out that R’s have no agenda other than to support trump, but really they’re being very clear what their agenda is now…
Project 2025 and political assassinations. We’re here folks. And there is substantial support for this within their base, much of that sentiment revealed here on a daily basis.
“Here we have trump railing on about Biden trying to ‘assassinate’ him because the search warrant for MAL contained language about deadly force that EVERY SINGLE SEARCH WARRANT CARRIES.”
– Aninny
___________
“The document that has been referred to in the allegation is the Justice Department’s standard policy, limiting the use of force as the FBI advises it as part of the standard operations plan for searches, and in fact, it was even used in the consensual search of President Biden’s home.”
– Merrick Garland
_____________________
So show some respect to your superior, rewrite the warrant, and take the “language” out for Real President Donald J. Trump, you ——- idiot.
There is no comparison between the armed raid on Real President Donald J. Trump’s Mar-A-Lago and the courtesy visit with “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” according to Garland’s hatchet boy, Robert “I Know Nothink” Hur.
I can’t wait to watch the CNN coverage of the next president’s armed predawn raid on Merrick Garland’s house.
Real President Donald J. Trump should pull a full Lincoln and impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus, seize power, smash CNN’s presses, throw political opponents in prison, and repeal America back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the American Founders and Framers, completely extirpating the Lincoln-Marx version of “democracy.”
“the search warrant for MAL contained language about deadly force that EVERY SINGLE SEARCH WARRANT CARRIES.”
False – do we have to continue this nonsense ?
This issue was raised and dispatched DECADES ago.
The FBI Illegally authorized the use of Deadly force at Ruby Ridge – way back in the 90’s. This was addressed by the courts then.
The standard FBI/DOJ form requesting a warrant contains a checkbox regarding deadly force.
If that Checkbox is checked – which is NOT common – then the AG must signoff on the warrant.
Very few Warrants are signed off on by the AG.
You are making a STUPID argument – because the deadly force authorization is NOT the only unusual aspect of this warrant.
Whether you like it or not – Warrants served by SWAT teams are unusual.
Warrants served early in the morning are unusual and require special signoff by the judge.
When a defendant is represented by counsel – that counsel is ALWAYS notified of the service of the warrant PRIOR to law enforcement showing up. Counsel can not inform their client, but they ARE typically their to defuse conflicts.
Warrants in which law enforcement shows up with arms drawn without clear identification are unusual.
Warrants are not served when the target is cooperating – and CONTRA the idiotic claims of the left and the media atleast 6 DC FBI Agents have testified that they REFUSED to seek a warrant without a direct order from DOJ – BECAUSE Trump was cooperating.
In the prior visit to MAL by the FBI Trump’s attoney’s REFUSED to allow the FBI access to some material – and Trump overruled them and allowed the FBI access.
The attorney’s involved in the case NEVER show up on site for the execution of a search warrant.
Doing so risks their becoming a witness in their own case – which disqualifies them from prosecuting.
And it waives their immunity for the conduct of the search. Bratt showed up for the MAL Search.
Law enforcement abides by the terms of the warrant – this warrant required notice to Trump’s attorney’s and limited the search to storage areas, and Trump’s presidential offices – yet Agents ILLEGALLY searched Melania and Baron’s bedroom. They did not find anything.
But they violated the warrant.
This was actually an unusual situation. I do not think it has ever happened before that A warrant has been served on something that the Secret service is protecting.
There was a very serious risk of Blue on Blue violence. FBI agents are going to cooperate with the service of a warrant. But they are also going to respond with deadly force to a perceived threat to a protectee.
And it gets still worse. We have now learned that of the 100+ boxes that were transported to MAL only a handful were done at Trump’s direction. We have EXACTLY the same situation at MAL as we had at VP Pence’s home – GSA and WH staff packed lots of stuff unilaterally determining what went to MAL and what went to NARA.
Subsequent communications with NARA started the process of reviewing what went to MAL to determine what should be returned to NARA.
Something that has been done with every prior president.
The case is slowly devolving to – Trump alone of all prior presidents is not allowed to make that determination on his own.
And worse still – DOJ/FBI has admitted that the botched the record keeping on the documents and boxes seized.
This is incredibly important in light of the fact that nearly all boxes of documents at MAL were packed and transported by WH/GSA staff.
SC Smith can no longer identify which documents were transported to MAL by Trump personally and which by WH/GSA staff.
I do not expect this prior to the election – but this case should be dissmissed.
It is a mess – because DOJ/NARA/FBI/Biden made it a mess.
House Republicans Move To Strike Facts From Congressional Record
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) received a rebuke on the House floor Wednesday after he remarked on former President Trump’s ongoing hush money trial, comments that were deemed “offensive.”
The spat — which grinded the House floor to a halt for more than an hour — began after McGovern, during debate on a procedural rule, described Trump’s current legal entanglements in no uncertain terms, mentioning the hush money case and allegations that he worked to overturn the results of the results of the 2020 election.
Rep. Jerry Carl (R-Ala.), who was presiding over the chamber at the time, asked McGovern to sit down, and the chamber then went into an elongated standstill, with individuals determining how to proceed.
More than an hour later, Carl ruled that McGovern’s words — which he deemed “offensive” — would be taken down, concluding that a presumed nominee for president should receive the same treatment as a sitting president under the rules of decorum in debate, and that alleging the presumptive GOP nominee did something illegal “is not in order.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4680071-democrat-jim-mcgovern-donald-trump-hush-money-comments-rebuked-house-floor/
………………………………………..
Republicans have actually spoken of Trump’s “sham” trial on the House floor and their words were not stricken from the record.
Yet Congressman McGovern only noted the various indictments pending against Donald Trump. For that Republicans determined that McGovern’s words were an “unfair attack on a presidential candidate”.
Does this mean that facts can no longer be referenced on the House floor?
It is against the House rules to accuse any member of a crime or of illegal activity, or to insult a member personally.
That has been the rule for over 200 years.
The 102nd congress, over 30 years ago, extended that rule to the president, or to any presidential candidate.
There has never been a rule against calling a trial a sham.
That would seem to be the R plan, yes.
That is not a plan – it is an actual fact.
Trump did nothing illegal – just as the over 1000 people on the “exonerated list” people who have been convicted, sentenced and even jailed and subsequently PROVEN to be innocent.
We are several weeks past the trial and no one has STILL named an actual illegal act that Trump committed.
The President kills the Secretary of State in full view of witnesses in the Oval Office. But as murder is a federal crime in the District of Columbia, the President then pardons himself.
DBB:
If it was this SOS, it would be an act of charity given Blinken’s utter failure as a diplomat.
Yes, that could happen. I don’t see how one can read the constitution any other way.
DBB – this is a fair point. But if some part of this crime was committed outside DOC, it might be possible to find commission of a state crime. At the very least, the President would be liable for a wrongful death civil action, ala O J Simpson.
edwardmahl — But such a civil suit would have to be filed in the District of Columba, yes? So the President could pardon himself once again.
No Pardon’s do not extent to civil matters.
The president would be impeached, removed, and then convicted – you did not read Turley.
I know Blinken is a moron – but WHY Would Biden kill him ?
And just to be clear – Murder is a crime – all killings are not murder.
Does this mean that a president could repeatedly deprive the civil and constitutional rights of supporters and members of the opposing party in the most heinous fashion, and then just pardon himself and his appointees to avoid justice? That’s a scary proposition.
He could.
But that pardon wouldn’t stop an impeachment.
Correct. Congress would pass impeachment and the Senate, conviction, within the hour.
Like Lincoln did?
Lincoln didn’t pardon himself, because he was never charged. But he certainly could have done so.
I expect that Trump “going after” DOJ as well as the rest of government will resemble more what Milei is very successfully doing in Argentina than some kind of vendetta.
Argentina has all the elements necescary to be a very successful country with a high standard of living. Various forms of boated socialism have kept Argentia from that success.
While Milei has a long way to go, his success thus far has been incredible. Inflation while still too high has come down by orders of magnitude, the economy is picking up steam, by nearly all measures Argentina has improved greatly in a VERY short period of time.
This is the model Trump should be following.
Take a chain saw to the federal government.
This is also why Trump was elected in 2016.
The first Trump term had far far to little of Trump’s signature “You’re Fired”.
There is a great deal of indication that Trump II is going to borrow strongly from Milei.
We can only hope.
That’s John Say saying we need a rightwing strongman and shouldn’t worry about losing democracy.
Apparently, he believes it is NECESCARY[sic]!
BugAnon – Mitt Romney said: “I love to fire people.” Is he a closet authoritarian? You can’t change institutions without changing personnel. That’s why NFL coaches get fired easily and repeatedly.
Huh? How is Milei a “strongman”, or a threat to democracy? He was elected, wasn’t he? That makes him as democratic as you could wish.
In any case, it’s liberty that’s important, not democracy. Democracy is merely a means to an end. Liberty is that end. If it were possible to guarantee liberty without having democracy then democracy would be worthless.
Nowhere in the declaration of independence and the constitution does the word democracy appear.
The declaration states a right of citizens to government themselves – and explicitly leaves the form of that self government up to the citizens.
A test of ones bias is the ability to accurately descibe the argument of a person you disagree with.
Where did I say anything about a “right wing strong man”.
Melei is NOT right wing he is libertarian. Further he is acting completely within Argentina’s presidential powers to REDUCE government.
That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of what a “strong man” would do.
I know that those of you on the left beleive that infinite government is a right, but in fact it is NOT
As the US declaration of indepenence clearly states – the purpose of government is the protection of individual rights.
It is those who use government power to RESTRICT individual liberty that are the tyrants.
@ John Say
You post dozens of long-winded, incoherent diatribes every day, with unrelated and disconnected thoughts, that are absolutely impossible to comprehend.
Have you heard of “pressure of thought and pressure of speech”.
It results in an uncontrollable urge to give voice to any fleeting thoughts without any kind of filter.
These are common symptoms in psychotic disorders, especially bipolar disorder.
Another bipolar disorder symptom is severe insomnia. Do you find that you need very little sleep, or can go for several days without sleep.
This is a typical finding in the manic phase of bipolar disorder.
Just trying to be helpful.
You introduced me to your friends Tina & Gina, got lost in the WeHo drug scene, but got cleaned up. You should too.
===
“Tina and Gina: Killing us Softly – A Community Discussion on Sex, Meth and GHB”
Date: May 07, 2014 7:00 PM – 8:59 PM
Location: West Hollywood Park Auditorium
645 N. San Vicente Boulevard
West Hollywood, California
Crystal Meth and GHB are two potentially life-threatening drugs used both separately and in combination that continue to have a huge impact in the community, particularly in regards to gay men who live, visit and play in West Hollywood. “Tina and Gina: Killing Us Softly – A Community Discussion on Sex, Meth and GHB” is a panel/forum of experts, former users, and others that will aim to raise public awareness, provide education, and offer resources regarding crystal meth and/or GHB abuse. Admission is free.
Floyd, a ‘park auditorium’? That’s not exactly a prime venue. It’s more like a.. park auditorium. Anyone can get a permit for a park auditorium. It was probably a poetry reading.
No you are not trying to be helpful. You are being condescending.
You are free to wrap yourself in a robe of condescension if that is the image you wish to create.
As to your post – this looks like a cut and past of the same stupid argument you have made previously
I have zero interest in your psychobabble.
Using words and phrases does not mean you understand them.
Nor does understanding them mean you are using them correctly.
@John Say,
Regardless of what Trump says or does… the left will accuse him of everything possible under the sun.
He needs to bring in a serious USAG and head of FBI and start to clean house. Even of those not political appointees.
I think most people regardless of party affiliation will support us getting back to normal.
IL will be hard hit because without Fed Funds to help bail them out… it will be worse for anyone earning enough money to pay taxes.
‘Regardless of what Trump says or does… the left will accuse him of everything possible under the sun.”
No, that is a republican tactic. The Demos currently in power are just going after actual crimes committed, like classified documents hidden in a home, falsifying business records to make an illegal campaign contribution, defaming a person you sexually assaulted. Interfering with vote counting, pressuring election officials to modify vote counts, and putting forth false electors in states he lost.
trump is not only a loser, he is a criminal loser.
Did I miss any crimes by trump?
“The Demos currently in power are just going after actual crimes committed”
False. Bribery is a crime.
Possession of classified documents by a president or ex-president is not.
Categorizing expenses is NOT falsification of business records.
Nor is actually falsifying them – which did not occur, absent doing so to cover up a crime.
The FEC has consistently held since the Edwards campaign decades ago that paying for silence is not a violation of election laws
They have also held contrary to Merchan that an expenditure can not ciolate comapign finance reporting requirement unless the SOLE purpose of the expenditure is political – a standard that is extremly hard to meet.
And in the unlikely even you actually met it – Again Merchan mistated the law – political candidates are allowed to contribute as much of their own money to their own campaigns as they wish – without reporting it.
Defaming people is not a crime – nor did it occur – Carrol is NUTS.
It is not republicans that temporarily dropped the statute of limitations against antigue claims just to “Get Trump”
There is far more evidence that Biden sexually assuatled Tara read than there is that E Jean Carrol was assulted by Trump (or anyone else). The ACTUAL defamation is by carroll.
But for those on the left burning the rule of law to the ground – all of these cases would have been dismissed.
The reason that statutes of limitations exist is that time destroys evidence – evidence of guilt and evidence of innocence.
Courts are not supposed to allow cases to proceed to trial in the absence of evidence.
Carroll can not even specify what year her allegations occurred. The law requires that allegations are specific, because without specificity – they can not be defended against. I would bet that if Carroll provided a date that his alleged event took place – Trump would be able to prove he was elsewhere at the time. Where the allegation is not specific, the defendant is denied the oportunity to produce an alibi.
I would note that none of this nonsense has moved the needle politically – Why ?
Because only in the tank left wing nuts beleive this nonsense.
“Interfering with vote counting,”
How so ? The only interferance with vote counting was by those on the left who failed to follow the law.
PA STILL has almost 200,000 more ballots counted than people who voted.
Pretty much sounds like someone needed to “interfere” with counting ballots.
Fulton county did not do signature checks on ANY mailin ballots as required by GA law.
In another GA county a problem with the firmware in GA voting machines was corrected when a Tech called back to his home office and they updated the machines remotely. Magically they were able to remotely update firmware in machines that by law can not be connected to the internet, and do not have modems.
” pressuring election officials to modify vote counts”
Typical of those on the left – vague claims – A crime is something that you can state CLEARLY with very specific words.
Hunter Biden checked the box on a Sworn Firearms background check form that he was not abusing illegal drugs.
There are no weasel words in that.
What does “pressure” mean and when is it a crime ?
Raffensburger was a state elected official. Trump was president. Trump was NOT Raffensbergers boss.
Trump can say whatever he wants to Raffensberger – you can Call it pressure if that makes you happy, but you can not make it into a crime. Nor did Trump ask Raffensberger to modify vote counts. He asked Raffensberger to “find more votes”.
Do I really need to explain that Modify is a form of Alter -Find is not.
“and putting forth false electors in states he lost.”
There is no such thing as a false elector. PRoviding an alternate slate of electors is litterally the way Federal couyrts have specified that presidential elections are to be challenged in congress.
“trump is not only a loser, he is a criminal loser.”
No Crimes, and the loser claim is pretty weak.
Regardless, conduct the elections according tot he law, and we wont have any problem.
38 state constitutions require secret ballot elections – in those states mailin voting violates the state constitution.
The only swing state in 2020 that did NOT have a secret ballot constitutional requirement was Nevada.
All other mailin ballots would have been stacked in a big pile and publicly burned.
If you do not like the state constitutional requirements – amend the state constitution.
“Did I miss any crimes by trump?”
Nope, because there are none.
Correct.
100 + comments.
Its clear the Constitution is clear on the Pardons.
The only restriction, is impeachment cannot be pardoned.
Only academics could turn this into a debate.
Except for the “but Trump” constitutional provision, this topic has not raised much interest, till now.
I forgot to add.
This is about Constitutional enumerated Power.
AS in. Who has the Power to challenge the President from Pardoning himself?
@iowan2
Have you looked at the links I provided to Comer’s Presidential Ethics bill in the Dickinson College posting.
You know, the one you said couldn’t possibly be true.
Here they are again in case you missed them:
Here is the link to the actual bill:
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/PresEthicsReformAct.Comer_.Disclosures_xml.FINAL_.pdf
Here is a press release from Comer’s office:
https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-porter-introduce-landmark-presidential-ethics-reform-act/#:~:text=The%20Presidential%20Ethics%20Reform%20Act%3A,two%20years%20after%20leaving%20office.
Anonymous said: “Comer’s Presidential Ethics bill”
I read a report on that bill a few hours ago. It very much seemed like it was, in effect, imposing additional qualifications for the office of President to those stipulated in the Constitution. If that is the case, I very much doubt that the bill would survive Constitutional scrutiny.
It very much seemed like it was, in effect, imposing additional qualifications for the office of President to those stipulated in the Constitution.
How so? I just skimmed the bill, and it doesn’t impose any qualifications. It merely imposes a positive duty on the president and vice president to make certain reports. If they fail to do so they don’t stop being president or vice president, they’re just in breach of the law. I don’t see how that’s unconstitutional.
Milhouse said: “If they fail to do so they don’t stop being president or vice president, they’re just in breach of the law. I don’t see how that’s unconstitutional.”
I guess I’ll need to go read the actual bill. The report I read seemed to indicate that presidential or vice presidential candidates would be required to make the financial disclosures, with the implication that failure to do so would be a disqualification for office. That is what I was questioning.
It does not matter if it is a disqualification for office, or just a constraint that can get a president impeached.
You can not modify the constitution by passing a law.
The constitution is not something you get to game.
You can not say – no, no this is not an unconstitutional requirement to be president.
It is just a new crime specific to the president and VP that can get you impeached and convicted.
You can not do throught he backdorr what you can not constitutionally do through the front.
You know, the one you said couldn’t possibly be true.
I said I don’t trust what you post and you suspiciously skipped posting a source.
I said, but if Comer was attempting what you claim, it violated the Constitution
I said Congress cannot create qualification for running for the Office of President. I compared it to The Presidential Records Act. A law that congress dictates to the Executive branch how Presidential papers, must be handled. A violation of Separation of Powers.
Unlike you, I disagree with Republicans when they are wrong. I support the Constitution, and Rule of law, regardless of who, or how, it effects the politics. Because the Nation is more important than team politics
So you agree with me that James Comer is dimwitted, stupid, and incompetent for even attempting to do this !!
At least we agree on something !!
Congress cannot create qualification for running for the Office of President
No, it can’t. But it can impose positive legal duties on presidents, or on presidential candidates. If they fail those duties it can impose penalties on them. It just can’t stop them being elected, or serving if elected.
Then the President by EO can impose impose positive legal duties on Congress members?
No, of course not. He doesn’t make laws, they do. He can only give orders to his employees, which they are not.
And they make laws that bind him. He is not above the law.
To claim that the separation of powers means he doesn’t have to obey the law would mean that judges would be exempt from the law too, and that the president would not be bound by court orders, which is obviously wrong. Habeas corpus, for instance, is right there in the constitution, and it’s an order by a court to the president, which he has no choice but to obey.
“But it can impose positive legal duties on presidents, or on presidential candidates. If they fail those duties it can impose penalties on them. It just can’t stop them being elected, or serving if elected.”
Your language is extremely broad.
Presidential power is constrained by the constitution. Congress can only constrain the president in the powers that CONGRESS delegates tot he president.
Justice Roberts has addressed this with SEnate democrats who are trying to legislate ethics rules for the supreme court.
They CAN’T – each branch of government sets its own ethics rules. Congress can not impose ethics rules on the president or justices.
I have not read the law in its entirety – but what I have read is unconstitutional
What little I( read sounded reasonable – we SHOULD consider requiring these things – but we must amend the constitution to do so.
ATS – I have no idea what you are claiming – but reading a few sentences of the bill reveals that it is unconstitutional.
SCOTUS has been consistent – the only requirements that can be placed on presidents are those in the constitution.
You can not require tax records of financial disclosures of presidents and vice presidents without amending the constitution.
Will you post a video of the debate that I was unable to register for? Thank you.
“I will be debating Professor Brian Kalt, who believes that the presidents do not have the authority to pardon themselves. I will be taking the opposing position.”
************************************
Sorry I missed the debate but most assuredly POTUSs can pardon anyone for any federal offense or infraction except what the US Const. specifically proscribes. “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed” goes the legal maxim or as Cicero might have said “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege.”
Self-pardons aren’t mala in se merely malum prohibitum in some jurisdictions but notably not in the US federal system. You can quote the history all you want but the absence of the prohibition within the four corners of the document carries the day.
It’s me.
Some among those present propose that, per the Constitution, secession is not prohibited, therefore, secession is prohibited.
Lincoln must have been “nipped in the bud” by the Supreme Court.
That “infinitesimal oversight” and misperception led to Lincoln’s destruction of the Constitution and the America of its Founders.
“Everything which is not forbidden is allowed” goes the legal maxim or as Cicero might have said “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege.”
In the same vein, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Hear, hear!
So you’re going to argue pro conflict of interest, Jon? Good on ya. Fits right into your trump is above the law vibe you’ve been pushing…, question though…
When did you completely give up on the rule of law? Or at least as it would apply to the R party?
ATS – there resolution for conflicts of interest for the president is impeachment.
The executive power of the united states is vested in the president – no one else.
Whether they have a conflict or not – it is the president who must choose how to exercise that power.
The existence of a conflict of interest with respect tot he president does not alter the fact that only the president has the powers to act or not act.
Presuming a president can not self pardon because there is a conflict of interest is ALSO to presume that there is always a good alternative.
We have 9 members of the supreme court. Lets assume there is some conflict of interest that impacts every single one.
Must they allow a bad lower court decision to stand – because a conflict results in their doing nothing ?
Conflicts of interest preclude people from making decisions when there are others without conflict to make those decisions.
Merchan could have recused and allowed another judge to take the case.
When a supreme court justice recuses they alter the final resolution to an issue – there is no one to step in for a justice.
When a president does not make a decision because of a conflict – that is still making a decision.
If you beleive the decision of a president was both wrong and that the president was conflicted in that decision – impeach them.
A self pardon does not prevent impeachment or removal.
I would further note that SCOTUS can decide if a president self pardons, is impeached and removed, whether the impeachment and conviction in the senate effectively undo the self pardon, and the president can then be prosecuted. That is a question for SCOTUS.
That also raises the currently pending presidential immunity case.
Those on the left constantly try to decide cases based purely on the winners and losers of the moment.
SCOTUS erred in allowing the Paula Jones civil suit to go forward in the Clinton administration. That is not to excuse Clinton conduct with Jones or his subsequent perjuries or obstruction of justice. But the Jones trial should have been delayed until the end of clinton’s presidency.
We have nearly that requarding criminal charges – a president can not be charged or indicted while sitting.
For most of our history we have presumed that a president can not be charged or prosecuted for acts as president absent impeachment and removal.
Because the left is after Trump – they are ranting about “no one is above the law” – but as is constantly evidence – democrats clearly think they are above the law. Merchan refused to recuse despite a clear conflict. You can say whatever else you wish about VP Biden and Ukraine – but inarguably he haqd a huge conflict of interests when he demanded Shokin’s firing. Sussman made a False report of crimes tot he FBI – yet a democrat jury that that was irrelevant.
Presidents and ex-presidents should not be subject to criminal prosecution for acts during their presidency without being impeached and removed FIRST.
That does not place a president above the law. But it does reflect the unique position of the president and the lightning rod that their position entails.
This is not about Trump – it is equally true about Biden.
Presidents should not have to “self pardon” – unless that is for acts when they were NOT president.
They can not be prosecuted for acts while president – absent impeachment and conviction.
Impeachment and conviction is very hard – and that is how it should be.
It shoudl be very hard to prosecute a president or ex-president for acts while president.
I would include acts outside their official powers.
We have had all kinds of absurd hypotheticals. Do you think it would take long for the house to impeach and the senate to remove a president that used Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival ?
Clearly you weren’t paying attention recently…, impeachment has become obsolete. It’s just a political process now.
We’re talking legal issues now…
The only reason the right is trotting out the talking point you are now is because they’ve managed to gerrymander their way into making impeachment completely ineffective.
Gerrymander is your hammer. Everything you don’t like is a nail.
Gerrymander has nothing to do with the Senate. Which needs 2/3 majority to convict an impeachment
I would further note that SCOTUS can decide if a president self pardons, is impeached and removed, whether the impeachment and conviction in the senate effectively undo the self pardon, and the president can then be prosecuted. That is a question for SCOTUS.
Sorry, that’s not possible. To say this would mean that Congress has an effective veto on presidential pardons, which is not even hinted at in the constitution.
For most of our history we have presumed that a president can not be charged or prosecuted for acts as president absent impeachment and removal.
By “as president” do you mean “in his capacity as president”, or merely “while president”? Because we’ve never presumed the latter. On the contrary, it’s always been assumed that his private acts while president can be prosecuted; perhaps not while he’s still president, but certainly once he’s left office.
Any official immunity (which is a concept foreign to the founding generation, and was invented by the courts much later) can only attach to his official acts in his capacity as president, just as a judge or a prosecutor has absolute immunity only for his acts within his official capacity and not his private acts, and likewise a policeman with his qualified immunity.
Jonathan -I’d like to acquaint you with the ethics principle called “conflict of int….”, oh nevermind. Professor Kalt will rub you nose in it well enough. If we cannot even agree that public decisionmaking be distanced from conflicts of interest, I’m wondering if we even grew up in the same country???
Why did the Founders deny public officials the benefits of bribery, if they did not ascribe to this ethical principle?
“Jonathan -I’d like to acquaint you with the ethics principle called “conflict of int….”, oh nevermind. Professor Kalt will rub you nose in it well enough.”
*************************
I missed that conflict of interest provision in the US Constitution barring self-pardons. Maybe one exists in your world but the delegates to the Constitutional Convention forgot about it. Maybe youcan rub their noses in it, too. **chuckle**
Here, too.
The question – as Turley correctly notes is not whether a president SHOULD have the power to self pardon – it is whether they do.
As I understand a governor in the later 19th century DID self pardon and that was upheld by the courts.
There is nothing in the text of the constitution that prohibits self pardons.
I am unaware of any discussion by our founders – but I would be happy to hear.
Yes, there is a conflict of interests. But there is nowhere else that the consitution bars a president from acting because of a conflict of interest.
The enforcement mechanism for conflicts of interests of presidents is impeachment.
Regardless, the executive power of the united states is vested solely in the president. There is no one with the power to replace the president when a president has a conflict on a particular decision.
This is why the Trump impeachments are a farce.
The Biden family dealings in Ukraine were always a legitimate interest of the United States.
But there is an inherent conflict of interest in investigating a political rival.
I do not hear democrats screaming as it becomes more and more self evident that Biden has driven the Trump lawfare.
Aparently it is OK to leverage the power of government against a political rival – so long as you do not do so in the area of foreign policy.
And in the area of foreign policy it is OK to leverage the power of the united states for political advantage – so long is it is not to go after a political rival
Or put differently the left makes up the rules as they go.
With respect to self pardons – I am fine with that – as disturbing as it is.
If Biden does not self pardon on the way out the door, then the first thing Trump should do is Pardon Biden.
Ford was correct in pardoning Nixon. I cost him re-election but it was still the right thing to do.
There has to be a reconing for the political weaponization of government power. We must end this.
That requires consequences.
I am in favor of something like a truth and reconcilliation commission.
I think Trump should appoint such a commission, give them subpeona power. They will gather testimony in secret for a year.
Anyone that testifies gets immunity for any abuses of power they testify honestly to.
At the end of that year everything is made public and DOJ can start prosecuting anyone who did not come forward.
Principles of ethics are very nice, but they do not override the constitution.
Jonathan: Sorry, I’ll have to miss your debate with Prof. Kalt, the well know legal scholar on presidential powers. I have other obligations. Perhaps you can provide us with a link so we can see or hear the debate later. But let me put in my two cents and here is what I have to say on the subject:
In 2018 DJT claimed he had the power of self-pardon. The last time such a claim was floated was when Nixon contemplated it when facing impeachment and prosecution. The Office of Legal Counsel in the DOJ wrote
a strong opinion letter saying that the concept of self-pardon was alien to centuries of Anglo-American law–that no person may be a judge in his own case. That opinion letter probably caused Nixon not to exercise such a sweeping power. While the DOJ opinion letter is not binding on the courts it would undoubtedly be compelling.
While the Framers of the Constitution did no specifically prohibit presidential self-pardons that’s probably because they could no contemplate any president trying to exercise such a broad and unconstitutional power. Presidents are not Kings under our Constitution.
In the present context DJT’s claimed right of self-pardon intersects with his “absolute immunity” claim now before SCOTUS. DJT claims he could use the military to assassinate a political rival and be immune from prosecution. I doubt even the most conservative MAGA supporters on the Court would endorse such a proposition. So if DJT were to carry out such an unlawful act and he were criminally indicted, DJT would undoubtedly try to use an anticipatory self-pardon to avoid accountability. I doubt the Framers would have approved of such an abuse of the pardon power. They wanted to get rid of the Divine Right of Kings!
Dennis – as long as we are trying to read the minds of The Founding Fathers, you should consider whether they contemplated that a political party controlling the government would use its powers to jail or disenfranchise the leader of another party. The obvious answer is a resounding “NO”.
If there is brazen lawbreaking committed by the leader of a political party, what are we as a Republic of laws supposed to do?…just let it go? Trump is trying to invent some kind of “get out of jail free card” — one that if a Democrat candidate were the one breaking the law, he’d be all for prosecuting.
Trump’s moral code is that of a solipsist — “what is right is what benefits me or vexes my adversary — what is wrong is that which vexes me and benefits my adversary”.
We accept this shallow moral egocentrism from very young children as innate, but expect them to outgrow it by adulthood as a token of moral development and self-management. Trump is a narcissist with severely arrested emotional development — when something goes wrong, it’s always somebody else’s fault. He simply refuses to take responsibility for his errors. That is the sign of a weakling who is desperate to cover it up with bravado.
If there is brazen lawbreaking committed by the leader of a political party, what are we as a Republic of laws supposed to do?
Its there in the Constitution.
Impeachment
“If there is brazen lawbreaking committed by the leader of a political party, what are we as a Republic of laws supposed to do?”
Impeach in the house, convict in the senate – then you are free to prosecute.
The phase “absolute immunity” is a misnomer.
The FACT is that presidents are barred from being prosecuted for acts while president without impeaching and convicting FIRST.
If you can get 50% of the house and 2/3 of the Senate to find a presidents actions egregious – THEN and only THEN can you send law enforcement after them.
Presidential immunity is NOT absolute. No one is above the law. But Presidents inarguably have powers and duties that CAN be at odds with the law, their first duty is to the constitution and the nation – not the law. Separately – especially as we have seen this left wing nut lawfare arrise presidents and expresidents are a lightning ride for political weaponization of the law.
As we see the actually LAWLESS prosecution in FL- where evidence was manufactured and manipulated. Where the AG authorized the use of deadly force in an unnecescary SWAT raid of a former president,
In GA where a corrupt and lawless prosecutor is prosecuting acts that are not illegal.
And in NYC where the only crimes re by the prosecution and the prosecution witnesses.
In DC where we are seeing the courts entirely disregard the first amendment and criminal prosecute people for protected first amendment actions.
All of this shows WHY presidential immunity needs to be strong and bright line.
Do you want Trump doing to Biden in 2025 what Biden has done to Trump ?
Let me remind you – that short of a presidential pardon – or a court finding Joe Biden mentally incompetent
nothing prevents a Trump DOJ from prosecuting Biden for mishandling classified Documents
For those who objected to me saying “Honesty, integrity, and the ability to critically analyze facts is key to being in academics. The modern conservative movement has rejected the concept of objective facts”, this post a good example of what I mean.
The FACT is that presidents are barred from being prosecuted for acts while president without impeaching and convicting FIRST.
This is not correct. That’s not what the constitution says at all. All it says is that impeachment and conviction is not a bar to prosecution. It certainly doesn’t say that it’s a requirement.
Remember that in the 1780s there was no such thing as official immunity. Not qualified and not absolute. Not for judges, not for policemen, and not for presidents. The entire concept was invented later, by the courts. So the ratifiers who adopted the constitution would certainly have contemplated a president being sued or prosecuted, even for official acts.
But they never qualified the pardon power, therefore it isn’t qualified.
“Framers of the Constitution did no specifically prohibit presidential self-pardons”
Therefore they are not prohibited. Atleast one US governor in the 19th century self pardoned and the courts upheld it.
You beleive thaqt presidents should not be able to self pardon – and I respect that beleif. I understand your arguments,
There is nothing wrong with them. But they are not determinative.
I have elsewhere here made a strong argument for a completely different approach.
There is NOT BTW some long anglo tradtion of NOT self pardoning. The instances in which it would be considered are incredibly rare.
The FACT that we have no direction on handling things that have never occurred before – such as self pardon’s or criminal prosecutions of ex-presidents does not mean that there is a tradition regarding how we deal with things that never happened before – except maybe to say there is a strong tradition of not prosecuting expresidents – as there should be.
Regaqrdless, this is NOT about Trump.
If we are going to have a first presidential self pardon, that will be after Nov. 2024 when Biden pardon’s himself.
If that does not occur – then Pardoning Biden should be Trump’s First act.
Biden should lose this election, and go home to Delaware to die in obscurity and peace. He should have chosen that in 2020.
Regardless, while there is a need to thoroughly investigate the political weaponization of government that occured under Binden – and even to prosecute some, to make sure that never happens again, we should not continue this stupid NEW tradition of prosecuting ex-presidents, just because it is republicans turn.
Biden SHOULD pardon himself, and if he does not Trump should.
The reason Nixon did not self pardon was because he did not beleive he did anything wrong. He argued that through the end of his life.
He resigned because he was told by Barry Goldwater that he would be impeached and that enough senate republicans would vote to remove him.
The question now is why are there no democrats doing the same regarding Biden and Mayokas.
I personally beleive that Republicans should have impeached Garland First – nearly all roads of misconduct run through Garland.
No, Trump should NOT pardon Biden, and Biden should be prosecuted, once he’s out of office. Not for any misuse of his official powers; he should be immune for that. But for private acts, both before he became president and during his presidency. For instance if it could be shown that he accepted a bribe while president, that is not an official act and it should be prosecutable, just as it is for a judge or a congressman. Note that neither judges nor congressmen can be prosecuted for doing what they were bribed to do; but they can be and are routinely prosecuted for accepting the bribe in the first place.
Trump is correct both about self pardons and absolute immunity.
But it is Joe Biden that is the one who is most immediately going to benefit from those.
NJ is in play, VA is in play. NH is in play, MN is in play. Allegedly WA is in play.
even in NY Trump will almost certainly lose – but by less than half of what he did in 2020.
Barring a miracle Biden is losing this election.
Without any comparison to Trump – Biden has arguably been the worst president in US history.
When Competent he was senator clueless. Today he is a complete disaster.
He has the reserse Midas touch – everything he touched turns to schiff.
Even Obama told us all – never to underestimate Biden’s ability to F#$K things up.
After the election in November – it is likely that Biden will pardon himself and his family.
If Republicans do not like that – they should impeach him the senate should convict and THEN he can be prosecuted – pardon not withstanding. Otherwise as Biden leaves office – he should be left alone.
I would note that at this moment NOTHING prohibits a Trump AG from prosecuting Biden for mishandling classified documents as a Senator and VP. Hurr declined to do so – but not for reasons that constitution a final judgement.
Should the country go through a prosecution of ex-president Biden – for actions that Hurr absolutely found to be criminal ?
If Biden does not self pardon – it should be the first thing Trump does.
And you are so in the tank that you do not grasp that even though it is Trump talking about these things – that it is Biden who they will matter for.
The Same BTW is true regarding presidential immunity. The house impeachment investigation is over activities as VP and ex-VP. Those would not be subject to presidential immunity in any scheme. But they ARE a subject for self pardon.
Trump’s lawyer in SCOTUS erred when he argued that acts outside the domain of presidential powers are not protected while president.
That is wrong – the correct bright line is that Presidents can self-pardon. That self pardon or not acts while president can not be prosecuted absent impeachment and conviction in the senate.
That is True if you are Trump. It is true if you are Biden.
The difference between you and I is that when Trump defeats Biden in November and Biden self pardons – you will suddenly be arguing for the validity of self pardons. You will also be arguing for broad presidential immunity.
Your view on issues – your weighing of FACTS changes based on whose oxe is being gored.
I ferverently hope – and fully expect that as it becomes ever more likely that Trump is president in 2025, that you will start to reconsider your positions on these issues.
The first president to self pardon will most likely be Biden – not Trump.
However SCOTUS resolved presidential immunity – expect a Trump DOJ to use that as a guide in going after Biden in 2025.
Trump owns massive amounts of space in your mind rent free.
There is not an issue where your first thought is not “how does this apply to Trump”
The purpose of immunity or even self pardons is to protect the PRESIDENCY, not the person.
Presidents have powers and responsibilities that often conflict with laws.
Right now the ICC has issued a Warrant for the arrest of Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu.
Thankfully Biden has slammed that.
We do not want presidents to be intimidated from doing their constitutional duty because current or future political enemies might target them criminally.
If there is broad understanding that the conduct of a president is criminal – impeachment and conviction by the senate will be easy.
Otherwise you are barred from using lawfare as a means to punish a president or former president for political decisions you disagree with.
Turley claims to value “civil and substantive dialogue”, but actions since going on the Fox payroll speak louder than words. Turley has made wildly inappropriate comments and opinions–just yesterday, he said that Judge Merchan should grant a directed verdict against the prosecution based on Michael Cohen being a liar. Yet, Turley knows that every relevant aspect of Cohen’s testimony is backed up by documentary evidence. More importantly, Turley knows that the issue of witness credibility is the sole province of the trier of fact–the jury in this case–and that a Judge cannot take the case away from the jury solely on the basis of witness credibility when there is supporting documentary evidence. Not ony that, but Turley actually accused Judge Juan Merchan of being “dishonest”–he claimed that an “honest judge” would grant a directed verdict. An accusation of dishonesty against a judicial officer is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Someone should file a disciplinary complaint against him and file a formal complaint with George Washington University Law School because they have a faculty member who, because he was paid to do so, accused a sitting judge of dishonesty. Such an accusation falls outside the parameters of fair commentary. Since he sold his credentials to Fox, Turley has lost all credibility as a legal scholar. That’s why nothing he says or writes has any scholastic value, which is why I would never tune in to any broadcast of his nor purchase any book he wrote..
I HAVE noticed one little thing–there used to be in Turley’s byline a comment about being some kind of “chair” with the name of some donor–that’s gone now. I wonder why.
The Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law. It’s in his bio.
“he said that Judge Merchan should grant a directed verdict against the prosecution based on Michael Cohen being a liar.”
No, a directed verdict has nothing to do with the credibility of the witnesses.
It has to do with the absence of evidence of the required elements of the crimes charged.
At the VERY BEST, Bragg has presented evidence of the Misdemeanor of filing fraudulent records – whose SOL has expired long ago.
Frankly bragg did not even come close to proving that, but this jury could cherry pick who they beleive and who they do not in a very bizarre way and find Trump guilty of a misdemeanor that has long past its SOL.
There is no other crime charged. There is no evidence of any other crime.
The requirement to escalate the records charge to a felony is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a crime that has not been charged and that few if any of the required elements have ANY evidence of.
Gigi,
This case is over. It is Dead. No matter what the Jury does, it is near certain NOT to have the benefit that Democrats hoped.
In the event Merchan does not grant a directed verdict or a mistrail, and the jury does not hang or aquit, the case will be thrown out by an appeals court eventually on any of several excellent grounds.
The purpose of this case was NOT to convict Trump. It was to cause him to lose in 2024.
That has FAILED. All that is being debated now is how this case finally dies.
Trump is polling slightly higher today than when this case started.
Betting odds are almost back to where they were before the trial started – heavily favoring Trump.
Most people have not followed the details of this case. But they have grasped that Merchan has a clear conflict and shoudl have recused.
And that Micheal Cohen has confessed to a more significant crime than Trump is accused of.
Further while most people many not grasp that there is no crime here at all. They do grasp this is a record keeping dispute of no consequence.;
Put simply – this case has FAILED to change the minds of voters.
You can continue to hold out the faint hope that maybe the jury will convict and that will change voters minds,
But that has not worked thus far.
What has occured is that voters – especially independents realize this is all political lawfare, and those going after Trump are at best no better and probably much worse.
An accusation of dishonesty against a judicial officer is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
No, it isn’t. It’s protected by the first amendment.
Seems likely that the Founders believed that pardons could not happen before conviction. So as no President can be convicted of crimes before being impeached and convicted of same, ipso facto, no president can self-pardon.
Interesting…what is the basis for stating, “It seems likely?” Or, is this merely speculation?
Ditto. whats the source for that?
Nixon was pardoned before being tried or convicted for anything.
What was the prior history of pardons?
The prior history, going all the way back to the Washington administration, was that pardons do not require conviction, or even charges. Nor do they have to name an individual. Pardons can be for an entire class of people, none of whom have yet been charged with anything; Jimmy Carter’s pardon of all Vietnam-era draft dodgers was completely within two centuries of precedent.
Nixon was pardoned without conviction
I have to admit I am a little jealous at GEB’s suggestion that Washington D.C. be moved to Kansas. I would prefer the upper Mid-West. Isle Royal is in Lake Superior and would be an excellent choice. It is far away from any outside distraction. Perhaps work would actually be done!!
Too many wolves on Isle Royal.
Edwardmahl said: “Too many wolves on Isle Royal.”
So much the better.
Move it to Mackinac Island ! – the Grand Hotel the new Capital
https://www.grandhotel.com/
Too many tourists and horses.
But the Fudge!
DC is constitutionally the seat of the federal government.
But nearly all the various agencies should be moved in whole or in part elsewhere.
There is no reason for a Department of Argiculture in DC run by bureaucrats who have never touched dirt or seen a cow.
Nothing in the constitution requires DC to be the seat of government, or even for there to be a federal district at all. Congress would be entirely within its rights to move to Guam and not make it a federal district. The hitch is in convincing Congress to do that.
What about the consent of the Guammians?
The only debate regarding presidential self-pardons involves the ability or ineptitude of readers.
“The President shall…have Power to grant…Pardons….”
___________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
A huge thanks to GEB. What he stated in point 3 is what has been referred to as “The Deep State”. Republicans have been fighting this for years to no avail. Michael Flynn saw this problem and the nation witnessed what happened to that great man. It was only a foretaste of what was to come. Now, Mr. Comey states that Mr. Trump will be “Going after the DOJ”. There is nothing wrong with a good housecleaning. If folks working in the federal government are unable to support the new administration, then leave and get another job.
Comey is trying to “get ahead” of his coming arrest and incarceration to frame it as “coming after the good guys.”
DOJ and FBI are not good guys.
Comey is very right to be scared, as he is a key criminal operative to be prosecuted.
It does not matter whether they are the good guys or not.
We need very very little federal criminal law, There is very little the FBI does that should not be done by the states.
There is no general police power for the federal government in the constitution.
The FBI should be shrunk to the minimum necescary to enforce the very few federal criminal laws that are required.
There should be almost no overlap between federal criminal law and state criminal law. Where there is now – with few exceptions the federal law should be void.
While Federal law should have supremecy over state law – where there is a constitutional asignment of a power to the federal government, it should NOT even exist anywhere else.
John Say said: “The FBI should be shrunk to the minimum necescary to enforce the very few federal criminal laws that are required.”
I could support making the FBI a subordinate branch of the IRS. To be followed by repeal of the 16th Amendment.
Repealing the 16th amendment would not get rid of the IRS, or the income tax.
Remember that the tax on wages, which is the bulk of taxed income, was never questioned and never needed any amendment to permit. The 16th’s only purpose was to allow taxing income from property, such as rent, interest, and dividends.
And the current understanding of the direct taxation clause is so different from what it was 100 years ago that the 16th is probably no longer necessary even for that.
I’ll do you 1 better – FBI should be dissolved and any “useful” functions merged into US Marshals.
FBI cannot continue to exist.
Forget “going after the DOJ,” Comey, or anyone else; America must be repealed back to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Naturalization Act of 1790, of the American Founders and Framers, understanding that reprehensible slavery has been excised irrevocably from American history. Actual Americans must finally be allowed to enjoy their Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Immigration Law—they must be allowed to enjoy the complete America established by its Founders.
Lincoln ignored fundamental law, imposed martial law, seized power, suspended habeas corpus, smashed presses, threw opponents in prison, etc., to “Save the Union.”
Trump must pull a full “Lincoln” to “Save the Nation.”
George – the irony is that Presidents who were closest to being dictators – Lincoln, Wilson, F. Roosevelt, Biden – are rarely called authoritarian, whereas Presidents who exercised power cautiously – Nixon and Trump, for example – are called criminals. Thus it is shown that words are more important than facts.