pardon me?

What are your views on the reports Trump is looking into pardoning himself and others, family and friends etc.

Please keep it civil! We can have a difference of opinion without name calling... can't we? thanks!

I have no doubt Tromp will pardon those around him. Rude political brayings will befowl the night but nothing much else will happen. Tromp won't pay a price there, although Dems will foolishly feel encouraged about the midterms.

But if Tromp pardons *himself*... then it gets interesting.

Guppies thinking they can still squeeze *something* out of Tromp will resist impeachment (indictment) for his high crimes. Lawsuits will reach SCOTUS which will (or won't) render a judgment. Is self-pardoning constitutional? Is it such an extreme misuse of power that SCOTUS orders POTUS removed from office? Don't say SCOTUS can't do that -- they've assigned themselves strong powers for a long time. Question is, who would enforce their order?

Nightmare scenario: Tromp self-pardons to escape punishment for his traitorous dealings with Russia. Senior military decide they can't take orders from the traitor. Cue the military coup...

SCOTUS can't remove Trump from office, that's a power of the Congress. What they can do is say that self-pardoning is unconstitutional, possibly exposing him to regular prosecution once he's out of office, but in general government officials are immune from prosecution while in office and for most things that done as part of their official duties, so it would mostly have to be for something done before he became president. The idea that the president could be prosecuted for crimes committed in office is repugnant to high government officials in general, because it would really limit the exercise of power, especially regarding war. It would open the door to prosecution of all the high-level proponents of every US conflict since at least Panama. Impeachment, as a political action, is a different story, especially as the Clintons and Bushes no longer occupy positions they can be removed from.
I really can't see much happening in the way of civil suits or criminal prosecutions regarding any of the issues yet raised, because once in a court of law there are penalties for lying. There is discovery. There are actual facts. Nobody wants that.

DrDelirium said:

SCOTUS can't remove Trump from office, that's a power of the Congress.

Click to expand...

I didn't say SCOTUS could remove him. I said they could ORDER his removal, because a court can issue any order they wish. The trick is having it carried out. SCOTUS issued illegal orders in Bush v Gore -- and they were obeyed.

All branches of gov't have an opportunity for overreach. SCOTUS deposing POTUS would be overreach, as would POTUS dissolving Congress or ignoring orders from SCOTUS -- as Tromp's hero Andy Jackson did. Congressional curbs on SCOTUS would be overreach -- like trying to limit judicial review of certain cases. All branches have exceeded their constitutional authority.

Balance of powers only functions when all involved agree on the balance.

I can see Trump doing it. He hasn't shown an understanding of limits in government yet or an appreciation of why they are there. I don't think he'll do it from knowledge that it's wrong and why--that's what I think the Republicans in Congress will be doing when they let him go down that road at least part of the way, and maybe all of the way. The greater guilt will therefore be theirs.

Tromp may follow the example of his role model:

Vladimir Putin: 'I may not leave Russian presidency'

Asked what he plans to do when he leaves the presidency, Vladimir Putin paused and smiled. “But I haven’t decided yet if I will leave the presidency,” the Russian leader replied, to laughter and applause from an audience made up almost entirely of Russians who were born after he first became president in 2000.

Click to expand...

Hypoxia said:

I didn't say SCOTUS could remove him. I said they could ORDER his removal, because a court can issue any order they wish. The trick is having it carried out. SCOTUS issued illegal orders in Bush v Gore -- and they were obeyed.

All branches of gov't have an opportunity for overreach. SCOTUS deposing POTUS would be overreach, as would POTUS dissolving Congress or ignoring orders from SCOTUS -- as Tromp's hero Andy Jackson did. Congressional curbs on SCOTUS would be overreach -- like trying to limit judicial review of certain cases. All branches have exceeded their constitutional authority.

Balance of powers only functions when all involved agree on the balance.

Click to expand...

Well, SCOTUS can order a unicorn and pepperoni pizza, but they aren't going to get it. Their orders in Bush v Gore were procedurally within the usual scope of judicial power, even if the effect was to steal the election. Ordering the removal of a sitting president has no constitutional support whatsoever, and there are clear cut constitutional procedures for accomplishing the same task. So if someone with the material power to remove Trump wants to do it, they might just as well do it without involving the Supremes, because absolutely nobody is going to buy that cover. SCOTUS could conceivably rule after the fact that X, Y or Z gave legal cover to the coup, but ordering it is just absurd. It's not just overreach, assuming it's an order to some institution capable of arresting Trump, it's overthrowing the government of the United States by force and violence. It's hard to see anyone following such an order, so it's hard to see anyone giving it.

DrDelirium said:

It's hard to see anyone following such an order, so it's hard to see anyone giving it.

Click to expand...

It's happened around the world and it can happen here. Sure hope it doesn't, but I've learned never to underestimate the duplicity, power-hunger, and asshole-ness of humans. A pressured SCOTUS might issue such an order if they felt assured someone WOULD follow it. Oooh, a conspiracy! Well, conspiracies happen (and mostly fail). Coups happen (and bloodily succeed). Atrocities happen. American Exceptionalism is no prophylactic.

DrDelirium said:

Well, SCOTUS can order a unicorn and pepperoni pizza, but they aren't going to get it. Their orders in Bush v Gore were procedurally within the usual scope of judicial power, even if the effect was to steal the election. Ordering the removal of a sitting president has no constitutional support whatsoever, and there are clear cut constitutional procedures for accomplishing the same task. So if someone with the material power to remove Trump wants to do it, they might just as well do it without involving the Supremes, because absolutely nobody is going to buy that cover. SCOTUS could conceivably rule after the fact that X, Y or Z gave legal cover to the coup, but ordering it is just absurd. It's not just overreach, assuming it's an order to some institution capable of arresting Trump, it's overthrowing the government of the United States by force and violence. It's hard to see anyone following such an order, so it's hard to see anyone giving it.

Click to expand...

First, the 2000 election was not stolen. SCOTUS ordered the FL electors to cast their ballots and thy did, for W. To do otherwise would have been to disenfranchise the voters of a large state. When all the counting and recounting was done, W carried FL by a very thin margin, so things worked out the way they should have.

There are only three legal ways to remove a seated POTUS. One is by voting him or her out of office in a normal election, and this can't happen until Nov. 2020. Another is by impeachment followed by conviction, and this is not going to happen. The third is through the 25th Amendment, which is also very unlikely.

It's my understanding that Trump can't pardon himself, but here is a explaination on Impeachment.

The Impeachable Offense

Editor's Note: In 1974, a law professor named Charles L. Black published an extraordinary brief volume, entitled, Impeachment: A Handbook. It is the finest text on the subject I have ever read. With the subject of impeachment on many people's minds these days, we received permission from Yale University Press to republish the portion of Black's book that discusses the parameters of the impeachable offense. I also asked Jane Chong to write an essay applying the lessons of Black's book to our time. I recommend that readers take the time to read Black's book in its entirety, along with Jane's exceedingly thoughtful treatment of its importance in the age of Donald Trump.

—Benjamin Wittes

Click to expand...

Boxlicker101 said:

First, the 2000 election was not stolen.

Click to expand...

Immediate family of two justices (Scalia's son, Thomas' wife) were officers in Bush campaigns and thus principles in Bush v Gore. That Scalia and Thomas did not recuse themselves for gross conflict of interest renders the decision invalid. But it was enforced anyway, so there we are.

There are only three legal ways to remove a seated POTUS.

Click to expand...

Any way SCOTUS says is legal, *is* legal in USA. They're the final arbiters. SCOTUS may indeed order whatever they want. The trick is enforcing an order, as Andy Jackson's SCOTUS learned.

It becomes a scary game. Nasty scenario: SCOTUS rules Tromp invalid and that he be removed by force. Joint Chiefs, sick of Tromp's Russian treason, send in an MP detail. Bye-bye, Donald. Hope you enjoy Leavenworth.

Is that likely? Oh fuck I hope not. Is it possible? Oh fuck I'm afraid so.

JackLuis said:

It's my understanding that Trump can't pardon himself, but here is a explaination on Impeachment.

The Impeachable Offense

Click to expand...

This is interesting. According to the Jane Chong essay, Obama committed at least one impeachable offense when he sicced the IRS on his political opponents. The emoluments clause seems to be not an impeachable offense. Hillary apparently committed impeachable offenses when she accepted massive payments from certain parties.

Use of Tax System to Harass Opponents

This has been discussed just above, as an illustration of the partial irrelevance of the ordinary criminal law to the finding of an impeachable offense. This offense not only thoroughly satisfies the canon of interpretation I have tried to elaborate, but also strikes close to the heart of what the Framers most feared in a president—abuse of power. Enforcement of any law, including the tax laws, must be to some extent discretionary. Perhaps the most dangerous (and certainly the most immoral) line of conduct an official can follow is that of using this discretion, which is given him for public purposes and is meant to be used neutrally, for the grossly improper purposes of menace and revenge. I should think that clearly evidenced and persistent misconduct of this kind is impeachable beyond a doubt.

The terms "impeachable offenses" and "high crimes and misdemeanors" have no legal basis. These are political measures. A Congress bent to impeach (indict) can set any standards they wish. A supposed legal violation may be the excuse for impeachment, trial, and removal, but there's no established standard. Had Hillary not been swamped by 75k votes in three counties, she would now face a Guppy-run congress that might be happy to impeach her for whatever. She wears pants-suits in the Oval Office! Off with her head!

Any impeachment at this level is political theater. Whose audience will be happiest? How can we spin it for gain? Wee Willie Clinton's trial was a great stage play full of marionettes, dancing donkeys, mute spear-carriers, and drooling clowns. The Guppy base was enthralled. They're all that mattered.

IMHO every prez since Ike has been forced (or found it irresistible) to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. Every recent prez has thus been theoretically impeachable. Politics of the time prevented that. Will Tromp fuckup enough to persuade Guppies to expel him?

Hypoxia said:

The terms "impeachable offenses" and "high crimes and misdemeanors" have no legal basis. These are political measures. A Congress bent to impeach (indict) can set any standards they wish. A supposed legal violation may be the excuse for impeachment, trial, and removal, but there's no established standard. Had Hillary not been swamped by 75k votes in three counties, she would now face a Guppy-run congress that might be happy to impeach her for whatever. She wears pants-suits in the Oval Office! Off with her head!

Any impeachment at this level is political theater. Whose audience will be happiest? How can we spin it for gain? Wee Willie Clinton's trial was a great stage play full of marionettes, dancing donkeys, mute spear-carriers, and drooling clowns. The Guppy base was enthralled. They're all that mattered.

IMHO every prez since Ike has been forced (or found it irresistible) to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. Every recent prez has thus been theoretically impeachable. Politics of the time prevented that. Will Tromp fuckup enough to persuade Guppies to expel him?

Click to expand...

I think you can go back to George Washington. War is messy. It is all a crime of killing, whether the reason seems like a good one at the time or not. There is no such thing as a safe, clean war.

Hypoxia said:

I have no doubt Tromp will pardon those around him. Rude political brayings will befowl the night but nothing much else will happen.

Click to expand...

I think the political damage would be irreversible, assuming it isn't already. It's hard to predict exactly, because this sort of banana republic stunt is totally outside of American experience. Trump literally believes there is no legitimate constraint on his power.

Hypoxia said:

I didn't say SCOTUS could remove him. I said they could ORDER his removal, because a court can issue any order they wish. The trick is having it carried out. SCOTUS issued illegal orders in Bush v Gore -- and they were obeyed.

All branches of gov't have an opportunity for overreach. SCOTUS deposing POTUS would be overreach, as would POTUS dissolving Congress or ignoring orders from SCOTUS -- as Tromp's hero Andy Jackson did. Congressional curbs on SCOTUS would be overreach -- like trying to limit judicial review of certain cases. All branches have exceeded their constitutional authority.

Balance of powers only functions when all involved agree on the balance.

Click to expand...

I can't let this go without remark -- this would absolutely never happen, any more than the Supreme Court would order the American flag to be replaced by the jolly roger. We can have disagreements about "overreach," but making up completely new rules to questions already answered by the Constitution is another matter entirely. The Court has no role whatsoever in the removal of a president, other than the Chief Justice presiding over the impeachment trial.

Wrong Element said:

I think the political damage would be irreversible, assuming it isn't already. It's hard to predict exactly, because this sort of banana republic stunt is totally outside of American experience. Trump literally believes there is no legitimate constraint on his power.

Click to expand...

Until he *is* forcibly restrained, his belief will be correct.

I can't let this go without remark -- this would absolutely never happen, any more than the Supreme Court would order the American flag to be replaced by the jolly roger. We can have disagreements about "overreach," but making up completely new rules to questions already answered by the Constitution is another matter entirely. The Court has no role whatsoever in the removal of a president, other than the Chief Justice presiding over the impeachment trial.

Click to expand...

And I'll point out that various branches of gov't have acted unconstitutionally since at least 1795 when treaties with Native American nations were first broken. Or maybe look at the Alien & Sedition Acts. We can't assume that branches of gov't will act legally in the future because we know they haven't in the past. We can't say something can't happen, only that it hasn't happened yet.

We should never underestimate the depravity and corruption of our fellow humans, especially when power is involved.

Hypoxia said:

Until he *is* forcibly restrained, his belief will be correct.

And I'll point out that various branches of gov't have acted unconstitutionally since at least 1795 when treaties with Native American nations were first broken. Or maybe look at the Alien & Sedition Acts. We can't assume that branches of gov't will act legally in the future because we know they haven't in the past. We can't say something can't happen, only that it hasn't happened yet.

We should never underestimate the depravity and corruption of our fellow humans, especially when power is involved.

Click to expand...

The problem is that as soon as you step onto this path, you commit the crime of sedition.

Your last statement can be applied to your outlandish rants here as well. You wish Trump out of power. Why? Answer: So you may seize power yourself or for yourself.

it is a deadly web you weave.

Hypoxia said:

The terms "impeachable offenses" and "high crimes and misdemeanors" have no legal basis. These are political measures. A Congress bent to impeach (indict) can set any standards they wish. A supposed legal violation may be the excuse for impeachment, trial, and removal, but there's no established standard. Had Hillary not been swamped by 75k votes in three counties, she would now face a Guppy-run congress that might be happy to impeach her for whatever. She wears pants-suits in the Oval Office! Off with her head!

Any impeachment at this level is political theater. Whose audience will be happiest? How can we spin it for gain? Wee Willie Clinton's trial was a great stage play full of marionettes, dancing donkeys, mute spear-carriers, and drooling clowns. The Guppy base was enthralled. They're all that mattered.

IMHO every prez since Ike has been forced (or found it irresistible) to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. Every recent prez has thus been theoretically impeachable. Politics of the time prevented that. Will Tromp fuckup enough to persuade Guppies to expel him?

Click to expand...

What impeachable offense did Ford commit?

Boxlicker101 said:

What impeachable offense did Ford commit?

Click to expand...

Trying to walk and chew gum at the same time!

bluekitty69 said:

What are your views on the reports Trump is looking into pardoning himself and others, family and friends etc.

Please keep it civil! We can have a difference of opinion without name calling... can't we? thanks!

Click to expand...

I don't doubt Trump is taking steps to defend himself, and his family, for alleged wrongdoings that are being investigated at the moment. I have no doubt that something nasty will be found under one of the stones that will be turned over. I don't doubt that getting advice on the extent of his power to pardon is part of that preparation.

I'm sure he will pardon any family member who is charged or found guilty of any criminal offense.

I'm certain that the advice he receives will inform him that he is unable to pardon himself. I hold this opinion on the basis of my belief that the alternative, a criminal able to pardon himself, is a legal nonsense. It is also a precedent you wouldn't want to set. Imagine a president who decides it's a good idea to throw his opponents out of an 8th floor window, or a helicopter! Impeach... Pardon... Impeach... Pardon. It is a banana republic situation.

Well... Maybe.

Boxlicker101 said:

What impeachable offense did Ford commit?

Click to expand...

Pardoning Nixon, if the Dem-run Congress had wanted enough to go after him. Remember that impeachable offenses are political, not criminal. Whatever a fervid Congress deems "high crimes and misdemeanors" are sufficient. Guppies promised that Hillary would face impeachment hearings not long after inauguration, before she'd had time for evil-doing.

Both impeachment and the 25th are political tools. And when all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails.

Little Jared Kushner, Ivanka's sweetheart, does not need a pardon ! Fuck that, Kushner is 36 years old, and he is the father of three children.

Ahead of his closed-door interview with the Senate intelligence committee Monday, Jared Kushner released a statement confirming four contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign, but he denied any accusations of collusion or wrongdoing.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/here-is-what-jared-kushner-will-tell-congress-today/

The meeting was orchestrated by email by Don Jr. Don Jr.'s emails proved that those attending were aware of the promise that the Russians had powerful information to hurt the Clinton campaign.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/07/jared-kushner-turns-tail-and-runs


gsgs comment-

Excuse me, while I wipe food from my chest. Laughing while eating, is not wise. Who, would accept this statement at face value ?
/end gsgs comment

“I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector … Hopefully, this puts these matters to rest.”

-Jared Kushner

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/jared-kushner-explains-it-all.html

Did brave Jared Kushner face the press, and answer the media's questions ? No. No, he did not.

"There are no surprises here unless you were expecting Jared Kushner to come out and admit everything, which just isn’t how the Trump gang rolls. He basically denies ever doing anything wrong, attacks Trump’s critics, and then walks away without taking any questions from reporters; in other words, exactly what we expected."

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...White_House_After_Senate_Intelligence_Meeting

(Sergey)Gorkov, meanwhile, was the head of a bank with $59 billion in assets, restrained by sanctions that the U.S. imposed in 2014. VEB’s ties to the Kremlin are deep. Gorkov graduated from the Academy of the Federal Security Service, or FSB, a kind of Langley-on-the-Moskva. He had been appointed as VEB chairman by Russian President Vladimir Putin in February. In March, a VEB banker in New York pleaded guilty to spying for Russia.

The Kushner-Gorkov encounter was first reported in March—Kushner had left it, along with dozens of other meetings with foreign governments, off his White House disclosure forms—but it’s under new scrutiny now that the Washington Post has reported the extent to which Kushner tried to hide his dealings with the Russian officials from the Obama administration.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/05/31/why_did_jared_kushner_meet_with_the_russians.html

gotsnowgotslush said:

The meeting was orchestrated by email by Don Jr. Don Jr.'s emails proved that those attending were aware of the promise that the Russians had powerful information to hurt the Clinton campaign.

Click to expand...

He claims he didn't read that far into the e-mail.

I don't see why anyone needs to go any farther than what he left off his original security clearance application.

That was a "mistake". His assistant pressed Send too soon, snort

sr71plt said:

He claims he didn't read that far into the e-mail.

I don't see why anyone needs to go any farther than what he left off his original security clearance application.

Click to expand...

Hypoxia said:

Pardoning Nixon, if the Dem-run Congress had wanted enough to go after him. Remember that impeachable offenses are political, not criminal. Whatever a fervid Congress deems "high crimes and misdemeanors" are sufficient. Guppies promised that Hillary would face impeachment hearings not long after inauguration, before she'd had time for evil-doing.

Both impeachment and the 25th are political tools. And when all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails.

Click to expand...

Issuing a pardon, as Ford did, was well within the president's authority. I believe it was also the right thing to do. Any legal pursuit of Nixon would have served no purpose, and would have been strictly divisive. For the same reason, probably, no legal action has been taken against Hillary and will not be, even though she did break some laws.