Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Should Trump be impeached again? [View all]grantcart
(53,061 posts)25. You cannot read simple English. Conviction has absolutely nothing to do with it
This is not even a controversial position, boiler plate constitutional law.
Trump was impeached but not convicted. All of those involved in crimes related to the impeachment cannot be pardoned:
So, for example, Roger Stone cannot be pardoned for the crimes he committed that were a part of the impeachment:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/27/trump-pardon-roger-stone-constitution-117757
But fortunately, the Constitutions framers imagined this nightmare scenarioa suspected criminal president pardoning a co-conspiratorand they put in the Constitution language to legally prohibit the pardon power in exactly this kind of case.
Both the plain meaning of the Constitutions text and the historical evidence show that once a president has been impeached, he or she loses the power to pardon anyone for criminal offenses connected to the articles of impeachment and that even after the Senates failure to convict the president, he or she does not regain this power.
Under Article II, Section II of the Constitution, the president is given the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. Pardons are supposed to be used as acts of mercy. The framers thought of the pardon power as a benign prerogativeprerogative because it was mostly unchecked by courts or Congress, but benign because presidents would use it for the public good.
But the framers knew not to place blind trust in the president to wield the power justly. Thats why they forbade a president from exercising the pardon power in cases of impeachment. This phrase is often interpreted to mean that a president cannot use his pardon power to stop an impeachment case of someone else from proceeding in Congress. But the phrase should also be interpreted as preventing the worst abuse of the pardon power: an impeached presidents pardoning of cronies who have been convicted of crimes related to the presidents own wrongdoing.
The issue was so important that some delegates to the convention refused to vote for it unless some limit on Presidential pardons was added to prevent exactly this situation:
The framers deliberately used the phrase cases of impeachment, not conviction. One reason why is simple: A president convicted by the Senate would be removed from office, and thus unable to pardon anyone. As such, there would be no reason for the Constitution to curb a convicted presidents pardon power. No exception to the pardon power needs to be granted, because no such power exists.
It is simple, direct and means exactly what it says,
The pardon powers of the President are based on Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section 2, Clause 1), which provides:
The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.
It works exactly the way it is written.
Anyone who is related to a crime in which the President has been impeached cannot be pardoned. Conviction in the Senate is not an issue.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
32 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Computers don't respond to "overcoming", that's just reality. We can continue to expose Red Don's
uponit7771
Jun 2020
#8
No, don't need to change votes at all. just make it harder to vote and Russians fund 3rd party ...
uponit7771
Jun 2020
#21
You cannot read simple English. Conviction has absolutely nothing to do with it
grantcart
Jun 2020
#25
It seems to me there would be some value to have it all prescribed for history?
kentuck
Jun 2020
#28
At this point it devalues the impeachment process and gives him political ammunition to use in Nov
PTWB
Jun 2020
#29
He should be impeached again just as soon as there is a bigly chance of convicting the SOB.
Thomas Hurt
Jun 2020
#24