well,as anybody who has watched the news in the past couple of days already knows,donald trump's lawyer,rudy giuliani,is claiming that it is impossible for donald trump to obstruct justice,since he is the top legal official in the country,and has the right to interfere in any federal legal case,and,if he commits a crime,that he can just pardon himself for it,if he is convicted.

to me,that means that he has put himself above the law,which i was taught to be totally untrue,as NOBODY is above the law,including the president of the united states.

do you agree with this?

should the president be above the law?

and,should he have the power to pardon himself,if he is found guilty of commiting a crime?

what do you think?

well, it would be crazy if you were allowed to be the defendant and the JUDGE, whatever title you held, seems a clear conflict of interest ....

so to the answer SHOULD they, definitely not

as to whether the constitution restricts it, I dont think it does

however, such an act COULD fall under grounds for Impeachment and removal from office by congress.

I think the investigation is a waste of tax payer $$. I think the discussion of Trump pardoning himself is just more liberal drama.

trump is the one claiming that he can pardon himself...

NOT the 'liberals',so how could that possibly be 'liberal drama',as you are claiming that it is?
seems more like it is 'republican drama',or 'TRUMP drama'!!!

cuz,he investigation has already led to 17 indictments,and 5 guilty pleas....
[with MORE on the way!!!]

so,how is THAT a waste of money?

ESPECIALLY,compared to the massive investigation into hillary clinton by the republican party,both the whole 'EMAIL' scandal,and the whole 'BENGHAZI' affair,that went on A LOT longer then this has,and produced ABSOLUTELY NO INDICTMENTS?


seems like you are just trying to pivot the issue,so you can deflect,and distract from the facts!
so,please stop doing that,and stay on topic!!

the nixon/watergate investigation went on for 3 years,before they revealed THEIR evidence against nixon,and allowed him to resign in shame,rather than go through the impeachment process for,among other things,...obstruction of justice.
[was THAT a waste of taxpayer money?]

and HE couldnt stop the investigation,or pardon himself!
cuz,i am pretty sure if that was a valid option,he would have done it!!

robert mueller's investigation has only been going on for ONE year!

i think that trump is just desperately grasping at straws,and hoping to confuse the issue,to distract from what special investigator robert mueller is going to reveal AFTER he FINISHES his investigation,cuz it really appears that there is quite a bit of evidence against him,and just trying to claim that there isnt,just because special investigator robert mueller hasnt revealed what he has discovered to them doesnt mean that there ISNT any evidence.
cuz,according to THE LAW,the prosecution doesnt have to reveal the evidence they have against somebody until the 'DISCOVERY' phase of the TRIAL [NOT the 'investigation'!!] ,which doesnt happen until AFTER the indictment.

but,back on topic,....
BEFORE robert mueller finishes his investigation,is it legal for donald trump to interfere in it,and obstruct the investigation?
[i just dont see that that could possibly be true!!]

and,AFTER robert mueller FINISHES his investigation,and reveals the evidence that he has dug up during his investigation,and gets an indictment against him,should donald trump be allowed to pardon himself,and doesnt he have to wait until there is a CONVICTION against him,before he can issue a pardon for something?

I don't think any leader in the "free " world should be able to pardon him or herself. that's for the dictators of this world!
Surely you have something in place to cope with something like this?

Sure.
Just as congress should be allowed to enact articles of impeachment and strip him of any power or position and put him in a position where he can't pardon himself.


It is impossible for donald trump to obstruct justice in an investigation started and controlled by the executive branch of government.

It takes congress enacting articles of impeachment to start an investigation with their resources and subpoena power (in conjunction with the judicial branch) to investigate alleged charges in which the president can't interfere.

Let's say you live in a small town and you just elected a sheriff. That's the only law enforcement officer.
Based on the legal terminology as opposed to hypothetical semantics is it possible for the sheriff to interfere in an investigation performed on himself that he started himself?

Or put another way, if you come up with a new way to play solitaire, that only you know, you set the rules yourself, and then you don't abide by those rules, can it "legally" be considered "cheating" at solitaire?


I do not agree that he has put himself above the law.


He can't be as long as the other branches of government are functional.
The legislative and executive branch can begin impeachment proceedings on any alleged crime, the success of which is based on by what their resources can prove.


That's not going to happen and is quite silly.
FBI agents based solely on their own authority go to the white house to arrest the president who is remanded to some secure facility or home and he just sits there until the trial date, sits in silence during the trial until they find him guilty, meanwhile the legislative branch just sits there and does absolutely nothing whatsoever, and at the end of the trial the president just stands up and yells "neener neener, I was touching home base! I pardon myself!" and by the power of greyskull the manacles fall off, his orange jumpsuit turns into a business power suit, and all of a sudden people just accept his declaration and authority as president?


If he is "found guilty of committing a crime" then articles of impeachment would have been in place already and the judicial branch and the legislative branch would be working together.
He would have no power.
Innocent until proven guilty.
No one is "found guilty of committing a crime" until they actually go through the trial. Despite what The Enquirer or CNN says about someone.

If the FBI arrests and jails him, under no authority other than that given to them through the executive branch (which the people voted Trump to be the executive of), Trump can "pardon" himself, tell the FBI to go screw themselves.

If the legislative and judicial branches go through the law (impeachment) and find him guilty of committing a crime, if the judicial and legislative branches give authority to FBI resources to arrest and jail him, he can't "pardon" himself.



Yes. Because it was started by the executive branch.
Not congress as part of the impeachment process.
Not the judicial branch.

Might as well say "Obama changed Obamacare, allowing insurance companies reimbursement without an act of congress, through an executive memo! Now Trump has passed an executive order to not reimburse insurance companies! Trump is putting himself above the law!"


If the indictment is only supported by the FBI and ignored by the legislative branch, if the legislative branch does not start impeachment proceedings at all, then yes.
If the legislative branch takes the indictment and runs with the impeachment proceedings, Trump can't "pardon" himself.
If it's just the FBI indictment, he doesn't really need to "pardon" himself so much as say "F' you FBI, I'm changing the head and you's all gonna get fired."


Yes.
And if there is a conviction and impeachment proceedings, he can't "pardon" himself.


OMG! Was the entire point of this thread to prove that "Trump uses imprecise language!?"

Holy moly! I just hope he doesn't know the covfefe loophole in the constitution which will make him king forever.

it sure seems like andrew johnson,richard nixon,and bill clinton would have taken advantage of this loophole,if it was an actual thing,and not just a bunch of nonsense dreamed up by an over-the-hill lawyer who is so addled in the head that he cant keep track of his client's lies,and keeps giving him up on national TV,doesnt it??
LMAO!!!

it's just more of his truthful hyperbole, he knows what his base wants to believe and then he exaggerates it exponentially ...

“The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration—and a very effective form of promotion.” Donald Trump, Art of the Deal


truth is there is no express power GRANTED to a president to pardon THEMSELVES< there just happens to be no power RESTRICTING it at this point ...

but,since trump,and his team of 'legal minds' have now PUBLICALLY put the theory out there that the president is above the law,then they have pretty much pushed congress into a corner,and this will FORCE THEM to address this issue,nd write legislation that clarifies this omission.

and,probably before his impeachment trial can go forward,although,the supreme court is probably going to make a ruling on it,as well,since he has pushed the entire justice system into the same corner as the rest of the country,and if they dont,it will cause a 'constitutional crisis',as they are calling it,nowaddays.

but,at least ONE good thing about trump...
he is MOTIVATING the hell out of some people to do things that have been long overdue,although his methods leave something to be desired!!!

I agree , this going after Trump is all built on lies and false acccusations.
They haven't come up with anything that he's done wrong as president, after a year. Which means it is nothing more than a which hunt The Dems are wasting the peoples money. The law is on the Presidents side and article 2 of the constitution gives the President the power to pardon himself or any one he wants to pardon. That was giving to us by the founding fathers.

why can't he?

it' not like having your secretary with your DNA all over her dress and then you lie under oath [perjury].

the best Clinton line ever:
I never knew oral was considered an act of sex


and Nixon had a case of truths stacked against him with solid fact from week #3 till he stepped down.


the only proven facts are so far is that Obama wire tapped W.H., Clinton paid to create this dossier, multiple accounts of Democratic lies, and the FBI wasting my tax money [and Mueller even admitted he did not have anything to force Trump to sit down and be questioned].

so, if Trump got hammered over lies created by butthurt Lefties, then I see no reason in he being able to pardon himself. it actually would be justifiable justification!!

this whole thing has been a farce from the jump ..so what's there to pardon himself from.... Injustice bought and paid for by Hillary and her cronies..I mean are you serious ...seems to me that more of them are facing indictments than anyone..odd how that be..eh...they should have been investigating her all along rather than Trump and the evidence if nothing else shows that..and there's no denying that...

no proof of wire tapping

Nixon resigned before being impeached

and neither Clinton nor Nixon proposed to be the JUDGE of any case or investigation against them ... so .....


let me get this right

there are plenty of Trumps panel being indicted with more to come, but all that doesnt mean he is corrupt, only that cronies are to get him,

whereas all the LACK of indictments of the Clintons doesnt mean any cronies are out to get them, but just that they are obviously corrupt ...

and the double standards keep flying ...


and the topic is still about a POTUS right to pardon themself.

cases take a while to build, if you remember they could not find enough to build a case against Clinton until SIX YEARS into his presidency

as far as a POTUS pardoning themselves,

that one is up to legal debate, Article 2 states a President can be removed upon CONVICTION of certain crimes, so it stands to reason the clause would be irrelevant if the President had the power to pardon a conviction against themselves themself.

but like I said, there is no express power in the constitution to pardon THEMSELF and there is express power for a POTUS to be removed from office if convicted(found guilty) of certain crimes.

how do YOU know what they have come up with against trump???

robert mueller's investigation has been EXTREMELY close mouthed with what they have found,and havent allowed any leaks to the press,so NOBODY except for the members of the investigation know exactly what evidence they have against donald trump!
[including donald trump,and his legal staff!!!!!]

but YOU speak like YOU have some SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE about the information that robert mueller has that NOBODY ELSE has managed to get!!

so,tell us,....
whatg is your secret connection that allows you to have this information that NOBODY ELSE has?

oh,yeah....
you have heard trump keep screaming 'there is no evidence against me to prove collusion' so many times that you actually think that it is true,just because you heard the person being accused of a horrible crime agauinst the country try to clam that he is innocent.

[notice that he never claims that 'i didnt do it'???
all he keeps claiming is 'that there is no evidence against me'!!!]
(that is what you call 'a freudian slip"!!] lol

but,i guess that it seems like it is safe to assume that you think that it doesnt matter if trump is guilty,or not,and that donald trump IS above the law,isnt it?

If his fart hits the nostrils of others, he should !

depends on what our government considers a crime? Our president doesn't even need to go there. There is a government process for removing a president from office. So far all I've seen is the dems exposing themselves as crooks and corrupt. All because they thought Hilary was going to win. They apparently never thought she would loose.

The whole question is really irrelevant, its just another bone Trump trows out to drive the left wing media bonkers.

The Constitution gives the president the right to pardon anyone, period. Some scholars might disagree that it may not mean he can pardon himself but the real argument about this is just an exercise in futility because the Constitution also makes it clear that the President can NOT be indicted criminally as President so there is no need for a self pardon.

The ONLY recourse against a sitting president is Impeachment and there is no pardon for that.

Mueller has no power to indict or charge the President with any crime, period!

kind of

“Judgment in cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office … but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.”

— Article I, section 9, U.S. Constitution



the IMPEACHMENT process can only remove the POTUS, but the POTUS is THEN still liable to the proper authorities according to the law.


so a POTUS can't be criminally charged while POTUS, but the removal from office allows for them to THEN be criminally charged.