Well boys and girls, we've finally reached the point of a PPOTUS claiming he's above the law. Even Rudy said Spanky could shoot James Comey and not be charged for it. I hope the Spanky voters finally realize we have a dictator wannabe who feels he's better than anyone else. I think he's gonna be sorely disappointed if he believes this. The cretin has to go!!
I do believe Trump was speaking OF the law. You're the one claiming he is above it.
His attorneys made the claim he can pardon himself no matter the circumstances and Rudy backed it up. Do you believe that, Dan?
Interesting that it is now the lawyer, not Trump, making the statement. But I'm not a lawyer. Are you? Or are you as ignorant as I am as to the law on presidents pardoning themselves so you make up whatever you wish to be true?
To my knowledge there is no crime, and no person, the president cannot pardon. If that isn't true, and you know it isn't (rather than simply say so), please provide the legal documents showing that.
Putting aside any argument about the law, do you think any President can or should be able to pardon himself (or herself)?
If so, that means any President can break any law without consequence.
And yes, Trump did say he has the "absolute right" to pardon himself.
Whether he can or not is a matter of law. Whether he should be able to is another matter. Personally, I feel that protections already in place prevent some (most?) cases against the President are sufficient; that the President operates under the same rules the rest of us do.
If Trump said that somewhere on his Twitter account, I accept that...as a quote from his lawyer. Even Trump won't make something like that up without checking.
I'm still not sure what you think about my question. Please put aside protections already in place. Do you think on a personal level that a President can or should pardon himself?
"Whether he should be able to is another matter. Personally, I feel that protections already in place prevent some (most?) cases against the President are sufficient; that the President operates under the same rules the rest of us do."
The President needs protection from nuisance claims designed to hurt him politically and nothing else - I believe those are already in place. He does not need protection from justifiable suits concerning his criminal actions. Therefore he does not need the ability to pardon himself.
That leaves protection from criminal suits without merit, or criminal suits of an extremely minor nature, and that are likely politically motivated. In today's political climate I can easily see some (liberal in this case) judge assigning community service or 10 days in jail for a trumped up charge without merit. Of course, appeals are always available as well, but that won't change the political damage done to a re-election campaign. (Though we see convicted criminals re-elected all the time - even for defrauding the voters that elect them!)
Spanky DID claim he could pardon himself, Dan. Gee, where do you get your news, Fox?
From your own post: "His <Trump's> attorneys made the claim he can pardon himself".
President Trump does not have any attorneys named "Trump".
Did you even read the thread title, Dan? Geesh, you do watch Fox news!
Spanky: I can absolutely pardon myself! Do you see that at the top of the page?
"From your own post: "His <Trump's> attorneys made the claim he can pardon himself"."
Do you even read what you post, Randy? Or give it up as a bad scene?
Ignored my question completely, horse......er.......Dan!
OMG, maybe is both!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta … 0922147841
On Sunday, one of Trump’s attorneys, Rudy Giuliani, made his rounds on the TV talk shows to elaborate on all of this. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he said that “it sure looks” like the president has the authority to stop Mueller’s probe and even pardon himself should he be found guilty of a federal crime. “Nothing limits the presidential pardon,” he allowed.
Another half truth taken out of context . But hey , that's the left for you . Did he also say ," but I won't because I've done nothing wrong "
Finish the whole quote Randy.
This seems to obvious to us, but not to others. The fact that he even has these attitudes and a lack of respect for the Constitution and the balance of power within our three branches of government is shocking beyond belief. It's even more shocking that this is partisan. How can you support this man and his attitudes?
What is ironic and sad, is that while Republicans support Trump, they seem oblivious to the damage this will cause. What happens when a Democrat gets into the White House with these same attitudes? What will they think then? I no more support a Republican with these ideas as I do a Democrat. If a Democrat said these things, I'd fully support impeaching that person.
Yes, if Obama or Hillary made the same claim I too would be angry, but Spanky's voters will go along with whatever Sean tells Spanky to say or do. Disgusting at the very least!
All that Trump is doing is stating multiple facts without the influences of political correctness or Lawyer diplomacy , AS to the ".............attitudes and lack of respect ........" let me ask liberals this :
HOW DOES IT FEEL? The mafia's of the Obamas , the Clintons , Schummer , Pelosi , had more respect for America , her constitution , her people ? Be serious !
What planet did you grow up on ?
I really do try to see things from opposite perspectives. I have a friend who many would consider to be the leading conservative voice in our state. But really, mafia? Under that definition, any supporters of any politician are mafia members. But I get it, politicians, corruption, double standards...
The presidency is about precedents. Presidential behavior is set by them. You think you hate liberals now? Wait until one gets in the White House who follows the precedents set by this President, assuming our Republic even makes it until then.
If nothing else, we should all agree on how our government works and it works due to the balance of power between the three branches of government. Displaying a complete disdain for that balance, be it from a D or an R, is incredibly dangerous.
The Constitution is pretty simple.
While no President has ever attempted to pardon himself, the law supprts the President's right and ability to do so - "he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
So if you want to get rid of Mr. Trump, you need to impeach him first and then once he's removed from office, he cannot pardon himself
Subject to interpretation of the current court I'm certain since it's never been tried...
Good point, but how do you impeach someone who already has been pardoned?
So what you are saying is that a President can commit any number of crimes and then pardon himself thereby removing the chance he will be prosecuted or even charged.
Think about what you are saying. Also, think about what kind of person would suggest such a thing. Is that something an innocent person suggests?
I'm not saying it - I'm only repeating what is commonly know - this same argument came up when everyone assumed Hillary would win, but instead suffered a humiliating and soul-crushing defeat. There were speculations that she'd pardon herself for any wrongdoings concerning her illegal homebrew server and lack of security if she was elected. It also came up with her husband and his Oval Office antics. We'll liekly never know the real answer unless someone actually tries to go through with it.
Where? The only place it came up was on conspiracy web sites. And this is not some blogger suggesting that somebody they hate would do something crazy, like, I don't know, conducting a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant. This is the President himself saying he can pardon himself.
Which does bring up an interesting idea - Trump could conduct his own child sex ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant then pardon himself and totally get off scott-free.
Regardless of whether it is the letter of the law or not, it was again, a stupid thing to say, regardless.
He seems superbly gifted at saying stupid things.
He sounded like a tin horn/two bit petty dictator, instead of the "leader of the free world".
Why stir up a hornets nest and give people the impression that the LAW, that he is supposed to enforce, only exists for his convenience?
Perhaps to reinforce that the LAW, not opinions or accusations from lefties, is what governs the country?
Of course, that isn't always true - look what happened when he tried to enforce immigration laws - but it is what is supposed to happen.
So, you say, Wilderness, but we always know where it is you come from. Regardless of your interpretation of the law, Trump's comment still remains stupid and ill-timed.
You asked a question, I gave one possible answer ("possible" as indicated by the question mark at the end). How is that "So, you say" or my interpretation of the law? Do you disagree that it is a possible reason for the remark?
Yes, it remains stupid and ill-timed, but then most of his tweets are.
"Yes, it remains stupid and ill-timed, but then most of his tweets are.,
Wilderness, this is really the only point that I am making.
So, maybe he can pardon himself, but the arrogance of such a statement would not be something that I would release for public consumption.
I wouldn't either. But then I keep a much tighter rein on my mouth than Trump does. Personally, I would like to see the White House be a little more free with public statements (not through media) than past presidents and less free than Trump. There is a middle ground, and we crossed way over it.
For real, I like the idea of a president that speaks to the people from himself, not from the faux aristocratic image kept for public display. I like the idea of seeing who that person really is rather than the persona they would have us believe. Trump just takes it a wee bit too far.
Just a "wee bit"? The understatement of the century, Dan!
This isn't the first time this idea has been floated around - in fact it was discussed in October of 2016 in connection with the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal - remember when she was expected to win but got destroyed instead? - https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/if-hill … ssion=true
Randy, lol, Hillary is actually president in fox fake channel world, and so is Bill, together they share the role lol: I think Hillary is president on Sundays Wednesdays and Fridays, and Bill gets the duty on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, alternating every other week:
But ya know, when your target audience consists of 80 and 90 year olds, does it really matter?
Yep, if you listen to Faux Noos you'd think Hillary was a past president. They never focus on Spanky's scandals as if they didn't exist. This is mainly the reason Spanky fans are so ill informed about Spanky's troubles. Faux watchers won't dare watch a real news outlet and seemed to be brainwashed not to. Too bad for their ignorant asses!!
They floated it around when Bill Clinton was caught also. Here's an article on Slate - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … mself.html
I still don't what you meant by your Hillary remark, Ralph. And the self-pardon power of the POTUS is still up in the air, although I doubt it would ever pass the smell test. If a POTUS can pardon him/herself then they would be no better than a dictator believing he/she is above the law.
let me help you clarify it - Hillary Clinton was running for President and lost - while she was running (but before she lost) there were members of the media who assumed she would win (but she lost) and discussed speculatively whether she could pardon herself if she was elected - https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/if-hill … -helpless/ - read the link and you can make your own call on the info - but since she lost in an epic landslide of a wipeout, we'll never need to worry about her getting anywhere near the White House again.
I also doubt that it would be allowed for the same reasons you cite and more. When the Constitution was drafted, I'm pretty sure that no one was expecting a President to be in a position of criminal actions that would warrant the need for dealing with pardoning themselves.
Okay, interesting that it's been floated before. I acknowledge that the idea has come up. First time the actual President has said he can do it though.
It's not so much the novelty of the issue that is at hand, it's the characterization of somebody who thinks it can be done and why they would assert such a thing. Do you want a President who thinks he can pardon himself?
Better a President that understands the law than one that decides he has the authority to ignore it in favor of what he personally thinks is right and wrong (as in DACA orders).
Wildnerness, I think you know pretty well that your DACA assertion is a false premise. I was just listening to an interview with a Senator last night. She was asserting that Trump has a lot of discretion when it comes to DACA and coming up with a solution.
In fact, Presidents assert discretion on a lot of things. Name a single President in the last 30 years who hasn't used "discretion" to skirt the War Powers Act. So, this argument that some law was broken is just a tired argument that goes back and forth and is used at the discretion of whichever partisan wants to paint the other with the law breaker brush.
Using that line of thinking a President is a King and can do whatever they wish. It is "discretionary", after all!
I disagree. Obama gave a "bye" to thousands and thousands of criminals because he thought it was the moral thing to do - that congress had acted immorally and wrongly in denying the DACA kids permanent residence - and did so for an open-ended time period and an open-ended number of people.
He did not have the authority to do that. Enforcing the laws of the nation are not discretionary, and one of his oaths is to enforce all of them. Not just the ones he likes. The only reason he wasn't called on it was that it would cost political points to anyone that dared disagree with him.
The War Powers Act is a law as well. Every President has violated it. Presidents have quite a lot of discretion on things and it's accepted. The precedent of breaking the War Powers Act undoubtedly has led to Presidents using discretion elsewhere.
I actually don't have a lot of beef with this; somebody has to be at the helm, and it isn't a congress that takes 2 years to decide they are unable to get their act together enough to produce any results. You cannot govern a nation of 320 million people on a day to day basis by a committee of hundreds. Especially when that committee cannot work together but only press for individual ideas or nothing at all. Our congress is nearly ineffectual on a long term basis and hasn't accomplished anything at all on a day's notice since Pearl Harbor.
Sounds like the exact justification for the DACA decision.
Yeah, I know. It's a thorny, twisted problem without a decent answer, except for maybe the one Trump chose (FORCE congress to act by enforcing the law). Except that very liberal courts, in the pockets of liberals, won't let the law BE enforced.
At least we agree that Congress is a problem, which is why people elected an authoritarian like Trump.
Our problem is not and was not the President. It always was congress. A collection of self serving people far more interested in getting re-elected, and earning while in office, than it was in running the country.
I don't know about electing an authoritarian. I think it was more about electing someone outside of the tried and failed political arena - someone not of the "swamp" (I know, that term is overused, but it is appropriate).
I know I voted for Ross Perot and I voted for Trump (although I have always detested him and his TV show). While the thought that perhaps someone that understands business and how capitalism works, it was mostly about someone from outside the political scene - someone not beholden to an electorate that had to have their greed satisfied to return to office. Someone that had zero intention of being a life long politician, forever sucking at the public teat and giving nothing in return.
The problem with Congress is that they fail at national politics, but they succeed locally. Each Congressperson exists to squeeze as much out of the federal government as possible to direct toward their constituents. It's not as much about the country as a whole as it is about individual districts. How else do you explain these people getting re-elected all the time. Our system is broken in many ways.
"someone not beholden to an electorate that had to have their greed satisfied to return to office."
That's exactly what I meant - congressmen and women's primary task is to squeeze the federal government for what their electorate wants instead of doing what the country needs.
That and the nearly 100% refusal to work together has resulted in a swamp (there's that word again!) where nothing of value is allowed to occur.
The question remains that there is a difference in interpretation for your understanding of what the electorate wants verses what YOU think the country needs. I elect these people to have them do my or our bidding not act contrary to it for what you believe is ' for our own good'.
That difference I can live with - it's called "compromise" or "cooperation". What I can't live with is the constant funneling of federal money to states (pretty much all of them) whose greed outpaces their ability to pay, and a near complete refusal to compromise on any point at all. When we repeatedly find that a "compromise" means only that the fight is over today but will resume tomorrow to get more "compromise" on the same issue, well, it simply means that "my way or the highway" is the only acceptable answer.
Best example I can think of here is the eternal fight on abortion. A compromise was found long ago and ever since that time the fight has continued to make as many abortions as possible either illegal or impossible to get. Those people will not stop until there are no abortions permitted in the country, and to heck with anyone that disagrees with their stance.
RJ , This in itself speaks volumes about the TDS , ..................
You could write a book about the absolute political hypocrisy from the left today .
The US law , Treason , high crimes and misdemeanors , for impeachment were here long before Trump was , first of all . Second , And here's a shocker for liberals ; If Trump wants to stand on a corner of Times Square and then taunt and scream at the top of his lungs ,
" Impeach me I'm a dictator " , waving his golf clubs in the wind --He Can .
If he wants to scream,
"You can't touch me I'm the president " He can .
Ever heard of the first amendment ?
Kind of sucks when someone other than liberals scream out offensive things does it ?
My Gawd, this thread is going exactly as I thought it would. I'm embarrassed by our president, but I'm more embarrassed by how quickly his sycophants fall in line.
Is this the United States of America? I'm starting to wonder.
The left can't even decide what they want most to charge , indict and impeach the president FOR , yet they are melting brains about the law and whether he can pardon himself ?
Why not ? I guess that TDS delusion runs deep .
Btw, this is not the first time he floats the idea.
"While all agree the U. S. President has the complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us.FAKE NEWS"
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta … 57?lang=en
A reaction to
"The Washington Post reported that Mr Trump inquired about the scope of his power to issue pardons, as a means of undercutting special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged Russian interference in the US election."
Donny Boy is so boring and predictable now, all of our enemies know exactly what he's thinking and exactly what he's gonna do every single minute of the day:
Sound eerily familiar, and we all know how this turned out right?
Besides that, Mueller is asking for Manafort's bail to be revoked as Manaforte is accused of tampering with witnesses now. I feel a flip coming on..........
Paul cannot afford a long prison term at his age and will give Spanky up to save his own ass. Just a prediction mind you...
You could be right Randy, Russian Operative, Trump's Campaign Manager Paul Manifort who is acclimated to living the high life on what appears to be corrupt crooked millions just like Donny Boy, might find it somewhat difficult to adjust to life in a federal penitentiary with 3 walls and bars staring at him and beans for dinner, especially when the hardcore inmates discover his relationship to Donny Boy:
This is how egregiously arrogant these Trump like elitists are, believing they are above the law and committing even more crimes while under house arrest: UNREAL: Just like his pal Donny Boy who continues to commit crime after crime and exacerbates his existing dire legal situation while his entire campaign is under criminal INVESTIGATION !! : Unreal::
The noose around Donny's neck seems to be at the constriction point, he's on a little girlish twitter tantrum almost every day, wasting our precious time, embarrassing himself and the nation while giving our enemies like N Korea and Russia a daily road map into his sick, twisted, bankrupt mind which undermines and severely jeopardizes national security every second: But who knows, maybe that's his demonic covert plan, do it in the open so nobody will think it's a criminal act: He's a very disturbed individual and Mueller needs to accelerate his indictment ASAP before it's too late:
Is this an i want to go out and get laid thing because i can have an abortion and make it go away? there are quite a number of families out there wanting to adopt and would be happy to raise your fun! Murder is murder and not right at any age or do you feel it is? How do you compromise a life that did not ask to be created in the 1st place? There are some situations, don't get me wrong but there are many more just carelessness and they need to live. you want to play, you gotta pay. it's not as easy as the slip of a knife.
What does abortion have to do with Presidential pardons? I must be missing something.
by The Minstrel 3 weeks ago
Running rough shod over the Constitution by making these impeachment inquiries secretive nd cherry picking what they leak will hurt our country in the long run. Having a liar like Adam Schiff run the proceedings already brings great disrepute to the House of Representatives. He is a complete...
by The Minstrel 5 hours ago
After watching the sham impeachment hearings run by lying Adam Schiff and bumbling Nancy Pelosi, something has to be done so that we do not have to be tortured by politicians using the solemn act of impeachment for their own political gain. You would think the definition of high crimes and...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 2 years ago
POTUS attorneys were supposedly asked if he can pardon aides, family and himself. Why would that be necessary?
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
It has been almost a year since he left office. Though he seems to stick around DC and make his comments occasionally about policies...The question I have for all is this - what is your opinion of this President in his 8 years in office...?Overall, has he been good or bad for America?Please use...
by Readmikenow 3 months ago
Anti-Trump Harvard Law prof Laurence Tribe calls Mueller hearing ‘disaster’ that helped the presidentHarvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe, a fierce critic of President Trump, said Wednesday that former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's House Judiciary Committee hearing was a...
by Mike Russo 21 months ago
Too bad there is not an article or amendment in the Constitution that outlines how The President of the United States of America should act and behave. I don't think one has been necessary until Trump has come into office.When I was in the Air Force, the military had/has the Uniform...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|