General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDOJ Website : President cannot pardon himself : Aug. 5, 1974 DOJ opinion
Link to tweet
"Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself."
Aug. 5, 1974 DOJ opinion, 4 days before Richard Nixon resigned.
It's right there on the DOJ website:
Roland99
(53,342 posts)malaise
(269,157 posts)the man who stole the Presidency
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)Asha Rangappaa, lawyer, former FBI agent and now Yale professor on National Security Law agrees with the above - she posted on Twitter last night that the pardon is one of the few things left over from the British monarchy, and that it assumes both a grantor (the president) and a grantee (the person getting pardoned).
I'd post the tweet, but Twitter is blocked at work.
Even with a Republican SCOTUS, I would imagine Trump would lose in the courts.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)she's funny and smart. She also does improv comedy on top of her guest appearances on TV, lecturing at Yale and being a mom.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Exotica
(1,461 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)From Prof. Tribe and others https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-trump-cant-pardon-himself-the-constitution-tells-us-so/2017/07/21/f3445d74-6e49-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.a066d8b411f4
The Justice Department was right that guidance could be found in the enduring principles that no one can be both the judge and the defendant in the same matter, and that no one is above the law.
The Constitution specifically bars the president from using the pardon power to prevent his own impeachment and removal. It adds that any official removed through impeachment remains fully subject to criminal prosecution. That provision would make no sense if the president could pardon himself.
The pardon provision of the Constitution is there to enable the president to act essentially in the role of a judge of another persons criminal case, and to intervene on behalf of the defendant when the president determines that would be equitable. For example, the president might believe the courts made the wrong decision about someones guilt or about sentencing; President Barack Obama felt this way about excessive sentences for low-level drug offenses. Or the president might be impressed by the defendants subsequent conduct and, using powers far exceeding those of a parole board, might issue a pardon or commutation of sentence.....
President Trump thinks he can do a lot of things just because he is president. He says that the president can act as if he has no conflicts of interest. He says that he can fire the FBI director for any reason he wants (and he admitted to the most outrageous of reasons in interviews and in discussion with the Russian ambassador). In one sense, Trump is right he can do all of these things, although there will be legal repercussions if he does. Using official powers for corrupt purposes such as impeding or obstructing an investigation can constitute a crime.
But there is one thing we know that Trump cannot do without being a first in all of human history. He cannot pardon himself.
Scarsdale
(9,426 posts)there by Ghoulianni, to test the waters. See how much support tRump can expect if he tries doing this. Well, I think this is the answer FORGET IT.
jayschool2013
(2,313 posts)the indictment. Then the conviction.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)because he would be unchecked and balanced by no one.
The fundamental principle of the separation of powers first discussed by Montesquieu would be violated.
Cannot happen.
Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)the second paragraph is absolutely terrifying! Trump declares that he is 'temporarily' unable to perform the duties of President at, say 1:00 pm. Pence becomes acting President. At 1:15 pm Pence pardons Donald Trump. At 1:30 pm Trump says, "OK, I'm find now", Pence hands the reins of power back to Trump, and we all proceed on our merry way with Trump pardoned for everything and he didn't try and pardon himself.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Mad Hatter run amok.
Response to sunonmars (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JohnnyRingo
(18,641 posts)I'm no lawyer, but neither is the president. I would think he could only pardon himself of crimes if he's convicted of one (or more). Otherwise, it's just an official declaration of innocence, something everyone facing charges does.
Once found guilty, a president may no longer have the ability to pardon anyone, if he's rightly unseated. I weary of making the same tired comparison, but imagine if Bill Clinton pardoned himself of lying under oath.
clementine613
(561 posts)See Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.
BobTheSubgenius
(11,564 posts)wouldn't the language state that specifically. Would they assume that the absence of language specifically barring that would imply that he has that power?
That seems awfully sloppy. I'm also by the passage about the 25th...although millions of us were alive to see it already, when Ford was promoted into the Pardoner's Office.