Trump says he can pardon himself

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Trump has claimed he can pardon himself if the Russia investigation doesn't go the way he wants. As you can guess, this has been about as well-received as a penis-flavoured lollipop in Saudi Arabia.

Leaving aside the question of can he do it because yes, he probably can; let's address whether he ought to and what that would mean for the USA.

The way I see it, and I'm open to correction since I am giving an outsider's perspective after all, is the American legal system is designed to be a series of checks & balances so that one aspect of government cannot hold too much power. It's designed to ensure government is self-restraining to a degree, and that tyranny is kept at bay.

However this only works so long as everyone agrees to be subject to said checks & balances. What happens when we have a man who is not used to being told 'no' and actively says that if the law is applied against him, he can simply pardon himself so as to not be constrained by it. Not even Nixon pardoned himself after Watergate. Would Trump doing so (in the hypothetical case he actually does) not set a dangerous precedent?

Is the notion of one man above the law not the makings of a tyrant?

Now yes, the tweet does go on to say "but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?". That question seems more rhetorical than anything else. It reads to me like Trump is attempting to veil his threat to self-pardon as a legal or moral quandry.

Lastly, can someone please enlighten me on something: is an acceptance of a pardon not tantamount to an admission of guilt in American law?

Link

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Had Obama ever suggested such a power for the person holding the office of the President, the Republicans would have immediately been convening impeachment hearings...

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a sneaking suspicion that self-pardoning oneself could cause a negative reaction

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I imagine if it came down to it, the Supreme Court would intervene and make a decision on the issue. Realistically, if it comes down to it, I see Trump resigning before hand to have an easier time keeping his charade of a cult of personality afloat.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The 'most corrupt president since Nixon' gets a little more apt every day.

 

[Nakosis]

Trump has claimed he can pardon himself if the Russia investigation doesn't go the way he wants. As you can guess, this has been about as well-received as a penis-flavoured lollipop in Saudi Arabia.

Leaving aside the question of can he do it because yes, he probably can; let's address whether he ought to and what that would mean for the USA.

The way I see it, and I'm open to correction since I am giving an outsider's perspective after all, is the American legal system is designed to be a series of checks & balances so that one aspect of government cannot hold too much power. It's designed to ensure government is self-restraining to a degree, and that tyranny is kept at bay.

However this only works so long as everyone agrees to be subject to said checks & balances. What happens when we have a man who is not used to being told 'no' and actively says that if the law is applied against him, he can simply pardon himself so as to not be constrained by it. Not even Nixon pardoned himself after Watergate. Would Trump doing so (in the hypothetical case he actually does) not set a dangerous precedent?

Is the notion of one man above the law not the makings of a tyrant?

Now yes, the tweet does go on to say "but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?". That question seems more rhetorical than anything else. It reads to me like Trump is attempting to veil his threat to self-pardon as a legal or moral quandry.

Lastly, can someone please enlighten me on something: is an acceptance of a pardon not tantamount to an admission of guilt in American law?

Link

The SCOTUS can rule a presidential action unconstitutional, the Congress can impeach a president.

An admission of guilt is not required to receive a pardon.

The best course of action IMO would be to go through the impeachment process and first remove the president from office.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The 'most corrupt president since Nixon' gets a little more apt every day.

Since Nixon? I have a feeling we may have to change that a bit. Was Harding more corrupt than Nixon? If we are lucky we won't have to say "most corrupt ever."

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Trump has claimed he can pardon himself if the Russia investigation doesn't go the way he wants. As you can guess, this has been about as well-received as a penis-flavoured lollipop in Saudi Arabia.

Leaving aside the question of can he do it because yes, he probably can; let's address whether he ought to and what that would mean for the USA.

The way I see it, and I'm open to correction since I am giving an outsider's perspective after all, is the American legal system is designed to be a series of checks & balances so that one aspect of government cannot hold too much power. It's designed to ensure government is self-restraining to a degree, and that tyranny is kept at bay.

However this only works so long as everyone agrees to be subject to said checks & balances. What happens when we have a man who is not used to being told 'no' and actively says that if the law is applied against him, he can simply pardon himself so as to not be constrained by it. Not even Nixon pardoned himself after Watergate. Would Trump doing so (in the hypothetical case he actually does) not set a dangerous precedent?

Is the notion of one man above the law not the makings of a tyrant?

Now yes, the tweet does go on to say "but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?". That question seems more rhetorical than anything else. It reads to me like Trump is attempting to veil his threat to self-pardon as a legal or moral quandry.

Lastly, can someone please enlighten me on something: is an acceptance of a pardon not tantamount to an admission of guilt in American law?

Link

You missed the Trump voters ethos:

"There is no president worthy of bootlicking other than Trump and Mike Pence is his shoeshine boy."

There is a verse in their book "The Holy Rimjob" that says "when Trump says he can do all things, he merely grabs you by the p****."

The verse comes from the Chapter "The Liar" verse 16..

 

[Father Heathen]

I have a sneaking suspicion that self-pardoning oneself could cause a negative reaction

Trump seems to have very poor judgement and awareness when it comes to reactions and appearances, hence why he speaks and acts with abandon.

 

[YmirGF]

Trump has claimed he can pardon himself if the Russia investigation doesn't go the way he wants. As you can guess, this has been about as well-received as a penis-flavoured lollipop in Saudi Arabia.

Leaving aside the question of can he do it because yes, he probably can; let's address whether he ought to and what that would mean for the USA.

The way I see it, and I'm open to correction since I am giving an outsider's perspective after all, is the American legal system is designed to be a series of checks & balances so that one aspect of government cannot hold too much power. It's designed to ensure government is self-restraining to a degree, and that tyranny is kept at bay.

However this only works so long as everyone agrees to be subject to said checks & balances. What happens when we have a man who is not used to being told 'no' and actively says that if the law is applied against him, he can simply pardon himself so as to not be constrained by it. Not even Nixon pardoned himself after Watergate. Would Trump doing so (in the hypothetical case he actually does) not set a dangerous precedent?

Is the notion of one man above the law not the makings of a tyrant?

Now yes, the tweet does go on to say "but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?". That question seems more rhetorical than anything else. It reads to me like Trump is attempting to veil his threat to self-pardon as a legal or moral quandry.

Lastly, can someone please enlighten me on something: is an acceptance of a pardon not tantamount to an admission of guilt in American law?

Link

It's a dangerous gamble. Yes, it may well be legal pending a review by the Supreme Court. If they back it, all is fine and dandy (political fallout aside), but if they go against it and say, "Not so fast, Sunshine!" then that is an unmitigated disaster. Frankly, it's not smart politics to begin with, legalities aside.

 

[Valjean]

"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; ..."
-- James Madison, Federalist #10.

 

[idav]

Trump has claimed he can pardon himself if the Russia investigation doesn't go the way he wants. As you can guess, this has been about as well-received as a penis-flavoured lollipop in Saudi Arabia.

Leaving aside the question of can he do it because yes, he probably can; let's address whether he ought to and what that would mean for the USA.

The way I see it, and I'm open to correction since I am giving an outsider's perspective after all, is the American legal system is designed to be a series of checks & balances so that one aspect of government cannot hold too much power. It's designed to ensure government is self-restraining to a degree, and that tyranny is kept at bay.

However this only works so long as everyone agrees to be subject to said checks & balances. What happens when we have a man who is not used to being told 'no' and actively says that if the law is applied against him, he can simply pardon himself so as to not be constrained by it. Not even Nixon pardoned himself after Watergate. Would Trump doing so (in the hypothetical case he actually does) not set a dangerous precedent?

Is the notion of one man above the law not the makings of a tyrant?

Now yes, the tweet does go on to say "but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?". That question seems more rhetorical than anything else. It reads to me like Trump is attempting to veil his threat to self-pardon as a legal or moral quandry.

Lastly, can someone please enlighten me on something: is an acceptance of a pardon not tantamount to an admission of guilt in American law?

Link

The way the checks and balances work as far as something benign unconstitutional is congress and Presidents are still able to execute laws. Judiciary branch has to come in later and say “hey nincompoops, it’s unconstitutional”.

As far as a pardon power “he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.“
ThisNation.com--Constitution of the United States of America

That is subject to interpretation and lawyers can spend years arguing the semantics of not allowing pardons in case of impeachment. No surprise Trump would test the limits of law since he insists on wiping his Rump with the constitution constantly.

Aside from all that, President pardoning themselves itself is an impeachable offense considering the president has an obligation to execute the rule of law. It certainly isn’t anything an innocent person would need to worry about though so I am sure Trump doesn’t need to resort to such fascist authoritarianism.

 

[BSM1]

Trump has claimed he can pardon himself if the Russia investigation doesn't go the way he wants. As you can guess, this has been about as well-received as a penis-flavoured lollipop in Saudi Arabia.

Leaving aside the question of can he do it because yes, he probably can; let's address whether he ought to and what that would mean for the USA.

The way I see it, and I'm open to correction since I am giving an outsider's perspective after all, is the American legal system is designed to be a series of checks & balances so that one aspect of government cannot hold too much power. It's designed to ensure government is self-restraining to a degree, and that tyranny is kept at bay.

However this only works so long as everyone agrees to be subject to said checks & balances. What happens when we have a man who is not used to being told 'no' and actively says that if the law is applied against him, he can simply pardon himself so as to not be constrained by it. Not even Nixon pardoned himself after Watergate. Would Trump doing so (in the hypothetical case he actually does) not set a dangerous precedent?

Is the notion of one man above the law not the makings of a tyrant?

Now yes, the tweet does go on to say "but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?". That question seems more rhetorical than anything else. It reads to me like Trump is attempting to veil his threat to self-pardon as a legal or moral quandry.

Lastly, can someone please enlighten me on something: is an acceptance of a pardon not tantamount to an admission of guilt in American law?

Link

Actually this whole farce started when Rudy Giuliani was blind sided by a question from the still-a-Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos as to whether a President can pardon himself. According to Giuliani any president can constitutionally pardon himself except in the case of impeachment. This had nothing to do with any investigations except by inference on the Left. Keep trying.

 

[stvdv]

Is the notion of one man above the law not the makings of a tyrant?

First time I saw a picture of D.T I thought "If the anti-christ would be real, he could be it".
I see little difference with Kim. Kim is seen as God, who is above the Law. Seems they think alike.
Hitler also had similar views I think. Like you said "tyrant", that describes it quite well IMO.

I do think it's good not to take such a tweet light. Not a good example for others I would say.

note: In the picture below he does look kind of childish cute though. I hope this is the real D.Trump.
Trump pwned by Kim Jung-Un?

 

[Shaul]

Since he hasn’t even been indicted for any crime, much less convicted, this is a hypothetical question. As Sir Isaac Newton said, “hypothesis non fingo”.

 

[Shaul]

First time I saw a picture of D.T I thought "If the anti-christ would be real, he could be it".
I see little difference with Kim. Kim is seen as God, who is above the Law. Seems they think alike.
Hitler also had similar views I think. Like you said "tyrant", that describes it perfectly.

I do hope for the Americans they can change and get rid of this narcissist; the sooner the better, before he destroys long term the economy and worse

LOL

You’re laying it on pretty thick. President Trump is the anti-Christ? You compare him to Hitler too?

 

[stvdv]

Since he hasn’t even been indicted for any crime, much less convicted, this is a hypothetical question. As Sir Isaac Newton said, “hypothesis non fingo”.

Don't wait too long. Remembering letting Hitler get away with it too long.
Someone making such a claim, should be stopped; better sooner than later IMO.

 

[stvdv]

LOL

You’re laying it on pretty thick. President Trump is the anti-Christ? You compare him to Hitler too?

When looking at the foto [Trump pwned by Kim Jung-Un?], he does look cute and innocent, like a child
So probably that thought was over the top. But him telling he is above the Law is also over the top.
And looks can deceive. And power can overpower a person. Him stating this is an indication of it.
But I also can't imagine that D.T is the only one in charge in US. Probably others who control him.

 

[Shaul]

Don't wait too long. Remembering letting Hitler get away with it too long.
Someone making such a claim, should be stopped immediately IMO.

<yawn>

Wake me when President Trump is ever indicted. Until then ...

 

[stvdv]

<yawn>

Wake me when President Trump is ever indicted. Until then ...

If it were the first insane tweet, I might agree. People seem getting numb already to his behavior.
But maybe he is indeed very innocent. A barking dog never bites. Just wait and see, not much we can do.