Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.I am quite sure that the line of "Me and my family did nothing wrong, so that's why I'm pardoning all of them" will no doubt meet with approval with the 35% who would be with Trump if he staked down a bunch of live puppies and drove over them with a tank. He is a wannabee autocrat who believes that the Department of Justice and the FBI exist only to serve his whims.
Can anyone come up with a time when a president pardoned people who had not been shown to have done something wrong? With the exception of Nixon, maybe, everyone else who has received a pardon had been convicted of something.
If Trump starts issuing preemptive pardons, that would be an overt admission of guilt. No doubt in my mind that Republicans would do nothing. Because they love their party more than their country.
UPDATE: As explained in the comments, pardons won't get Trump out of all trouble. It could even make things worse, as in any civil cases, pardons would remove the 5th Amendment shield of not having to disclose information that could result in criminal charges.
1/8th the way through his pResidency, and he is looking for cover. Afraid all his skeletons will put on a Busby Berkeley performance, I guess...
ReplyDeleteI have high confidence that, barring the sudden, violent imposition of a new (old) form of government, trump will be found guilty of a staggering array of crimes.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet I can see that for decades to come, there will be trump supporters bleating, "fake news!" and "nothingburger!" and "he did what he said he'd do!"
Nangleator, I doubt your premise, in that once a Presidential Pardon is issued, there will be no conviction and thus no "guilt"? I'm assuming that we can say he did stuff, but he was never found guilty, because no crime was adjudicated. There will be little public appetite for a full accounting, as long as the Pardoned group leave power. Russia would be the one thing people would like to know the reality about.
ReplyDeleteNow, does anyone know how a Pardon would impact a civil charge?
This promises to be a fascinating event, and might be the beginning of a new era in candidate transparency requirements.
CP88, pardons are only for crimes against the United States. They have no effect on civil litigation. Nor, for that matter, on state-level crimes.
ReplyDeleteSo if the AG from NY or one of the DAs there can build a criminal case against Trump or his team, they are free to do so. And I will bet that they are already, quietly, looking into doing just that.
And so, a pardon will not do anything to this civil case.
ReplyDeleteTrump's in trouble, especially once this case gets into discovery. The standard for what is discoverable and what is not is very low.
Can the Resident pardon himself and still remain as resident?
ReplyDeletew3ski
Still waiting for charges, to see what they think he had done besides some unsubstatiated rumors.
ReplyDeleteThen we can talk about proof.
So far, all I see is hot air and hope by desperate folks who will do anything to hobble Trump.
Make no mistake, if he HAS done something, I will be with you. But so far all I see is hatred and innuendo (and a shitload of money spent looking for something that is....ethereal at best). But you gotta show something concrete to get folks like me to believe it. Especially since the Other Side has cried WOLF!!! so many times already.
B, like the right cried wolf over Obama's birth certificate, or his bailout to the nation during the recession, or Bengazi investigations, ( I think ther wear 7 different ones). The dems making accusations now. Is now is no different than when the republicans did. We complained for eight years. It's only been 6 months and now you want us to stop. Turnabout is fair play I believe is how the saying goes.
ReplyDeleteI know that sounds childish and petty, but jeez Louise, your guy is so deep in the muck and slime of deceit, I find it hard to imagine you actually continue to believe in this guy.
Dale
Just curious, B: Do you think it's a sign of innocence that trump is asking about pardons? Or do you think the report about trump asking about pardons is a lie?
ReplyDeleteAfter his rant to the NYT about it being a "violation" for Mueller to investigate his finances, one has to wonder what he is willing to take such risks to protect.
ReplyDeleteAlso, he is wrong about his finances being out of the purview of the investigation, as the decades long relationship he has had with Russian money is germane to the question of whether he cooperated with any Russian state actors in their attack on our election. Money is one of the main tools Russia uses to coerce its way out of foreigners.
He is said to be especially angered by word that Mueller may be working with the IRS to investigate his financial dealings with foreigners, as that might include looking at his tax returns.
Look, if you are a corrupt, mob-connected rich fuck, that's your business. But deciding to be that necessarily limits your options when it comes to things like getting caught by law enforcement or running for the presidency.
He seems to believe himself to be an exception to this, and he's not. Whether he gets away with it is an entirely separate question.
But considering his pardon power is not something a president would do if he didn't think there might be something he needed to pardon folks for. Even Richard Nixon balked at the idea of pardons for himself and his crew.
And spare a moment for Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III... The most loyal of the loyalists, he was excoriated by the boss he has been so loyal to for obeying the damn law. He is an awful, racist prick, but he's from Alabama where that doesn't hinder one's statewide office ambitions (see also: Moore, Roy) so even though he was rejected as a judge, he was elected as a senator.
He was the first senator to back Trump, and his policy shop was the mechanism that transformed Trump into a Republican from the ideological mess he was when he announced his candidacy. But now his recusal is standing in between president four-year-old and his ability to fire Mueller, so all of that other stuff is instantaneously forgotten in the construction of a case for firing him.
-Doug in Oakland
Thanks, Comrade, I wasn't clear on the exact extent of a Presidential Pardon and it's consequent impact.
ReplyDeleteI do think that, barring specific allegations (or investigations that lead to a need to see those Tax returns), that it is wrong and unlawful for Mueller to be able to go into his finances. If there is a real, supportable evidence that would lead to a reason to do so, then I have no issue with it. Barring that, it is indeed wrong to do so.
ReplyDeleteAsking for proof that you are, indeed, a citizens and therefore legally eligible and able to be President is the same as this witch hunt? Really? Barry could have made that go away in seconds if he'd just have produced his Birth Certificate. Which he didn't for months. (and it was, IMO, a poorly done document)...but the press covered for him. No press covering for TheDonald. Same regarding the Benghazi debacle. People DIED because of decisions made by Ms. Pantsuit, yet she had enough power to avoid any repercussions. Barry should have fired her for that, but he didn't. Not saying there was any criminal act there, just incompetence. Again, the Press chose not to cover it. Without the internet we'd never have heard anything about it. We won't for brevity, discuss the Fast and Furious mess either.
Sessions is, despite your (unfounded) accusations here, a pretty law abiding citizen, and a decent guy who, despite your claims, follows the law. He prosecuted folks who broke laws, no matter what their race, when he had enough evidence to prove a case. He did recuse himself from any investigations of The Donald, even though he didn't have to, and despite his boss being unhappy about it, just to be clean. He is, probably, the most decent, moral person there is in the administration, and you can include Barry's administration also.
Reread what I wrote in the comment before this. Find something REAL and get back to me.
You do realize that the ATF began its "Project Gunrunner" in 2006, I hope? And that the only reason that "Fast and Furious" got that name was because one of the people involved was in a car club?
ReplyDeletePresident Obama had no duty to respond to right-wing racist conspiracy theories, just because you thought that he should.
B, in light of your condemnation of Hillary during the Benghazi attack... Please give us a counter-example. Tell us which Secretary of State did it correctly and launched a successful military attack on foreign soil to save an exposed CIA operation.
ReplyDeleteB., your heroes in Congress have held multiple investigations into Benghazi, resulting in zip, zero, nada, nil, nothing. Find something real and get back to us.
ReplyDeleteCP:
ReplyDeleteI never said Hillary did anything illegal (you should read for comprehension and not let your emotions get in the way of comprehension there). I said she was incompetent and Barry should have fired her for decisions she made regarding security and other such that led to the debacle (that she later blamed on a filmmaker, remember?).
President elect Obama DID have a duty to prove he was a US citizen.... Which he did not do...prior to taking the office.
ReplyDeleteIt was only months and months later that his people were able to produce a document that resembled a Birth Certificate.The Press gave him a pass on the whole thing. Was it real? I dunno, depends on which fanatic you listen to. I do find it suspicious that he could not produce one when he should have been legally required to do so. I do know that the Press covered for him....which makes me suspicious.
However, that is all moot now. Barry has had his reign, and the country survived. Just as it will survive Trump.
Benghazi!? Again with the Benghazi!? The highly successful coverup reaching into the highest halls of Congress of Romney and the Retards spectacularly failed attempt to stage a Reaganisq hostage taking/rescue October Surprise and TAKE BACK THE WHITE HOUSE from the not-white duly elected president that tesulted in the deaths of four Americans abroad Benghazi!? Is that what you're talking about, again?
ReplyDeleteOk, B., so to be clear, then you have no wrongdoing by Mrs. Clinton, siince the running of the email server wasn't her direct actions either, but those whom she hired?
ReplyDeleteYou have ranted often about Benghazi, and I've never read a statement by you clearing Mrs, Clinton. You see, if you to say bad decisionmaking is a consideration, let's cover Donnie's bankruptcies and such.
As for proving citizenship, he did so to the relevant authorities, who so stated. It was the birthers who refused to accept their statements that he was qualified. He had NO obligation to provide anything to the public.
CP: One was incompetence in her decisionmaking, The server was at her direct orders...and was used (by her and her staff) to get around laws so they could talk more freely. Then there is the attempt to cover up the crime (see also: Martha Stewart) after the fact.
ReplyDeleteI like how you conflate the two, even you aren't that foolish...neither are most of the rest of us that comment here.
Nice try though.
Ok, B., let's rum through this once. GWB's people were running a similar server, and not one peep from the R's about that. So she followed protocol, and for that SHE'S the guilty one? Attempt to cover up, hummmmmmmm, that's called Obstruction of Justice and the FBI cleared them on that one. So, nice try.
ReplyDeleteNope: Comey SAID she was guilty of mishandling the documents but there was no "intent". and the investigation never went further. so she was never charged with anything, ncluding trying to cover it up, even though she DID use BleachBit, did destroy phones, did try to hide all the laptops..... She *was* guilty. Look at the evidence. Had she not been a DNC candidate for president, she'd be in jail. Lots of other folks are for similar crimes.
ReplyDeleteBut don't let those double standards get in the way of the truth here. Your babe was tarnished. Badly.
No, B., she is not my candidate. She is the candidate I voted for in the General Election, not the Primary.
ReplyDeleteB., if they could tie that stuff to her, they would have proceeded. Ergo, they lacked evidence of the alleged crime after investigating. The evidence you so blithely spout is a mishmash of Republican fever dreams and fourth hand hearsay. Now, you stay tuned, because Donnie's about to test the proposition that a President can pardon himself.