Trump should Pardon his family, friends, and himself as soon as possible.

[Russ]

Trump should Pardon his family, friends, any high-profile supporters, and himself. And he should do it as soon as possible.
Not because any of them did anything. Because the Dems clearly want to prosecute him, and they don't care is they have a good case or not. They want to prosecute him for anything they can think up.
If they can't get at him, they will go after his family and friends. Maybe they will do that either way. Its like the purges that Stalin or Saddam Hussein did after taking power. Eliminate opposition, make everyone afraid to even voice different opinions.
Trump better do it soon, too. If they impeach him, it's too late.

[Kathianne]

Trump should Pardon his family, friends, any high-profile supporters, and himself. And he should do it as soon as possible.
Not because any of them did anything. Because the Dems clearly want to prosecute him, and they don't care is they have a good case or not. They want to prosecute him for anything they can think up.
If they can't get at him, they will go after his family and friends. Maybe they will do that either way. Its like the purges that Stalin or Saddam Hussein did after taking power. Eliminate opposition, make everyone afraid to even voice different opinions.
Trump better do it soon, too. If they impeach him, it's too late.

Pence could, same reason as Ford. Our

[Russ]

Pence could, same reason as Ford. Our

Good point. Trump could pardon everyone but himself, resign, and then count on Pence to pardon him. That would also stop the impeachment rabblerousers.
Or if he's not sure that Pence would pardon him, he could pardon himself, resign, and then ask Pence to also pardon him.

It's not that I want Trump to get away with anything. It's just that I can tell that the Dems will be out to get him whether there's a case or not. Better for everyone that it doesn't happen.

[NightTrain]

I'm not sure, but doesn't a pardon have to be very specific?

He may as well. He's ruined politically, so has nothing to lose.

Can't wait to see what kind of radical leftist shit is going to be churned out in the next 2 years. We can thank our lucky stars for the Supreme Court, they're the only set of brakes we have.

[SassyLady]

I'm not sure, but doesn't a pardon have to be very specific?

He may as well. He's ruined politically, so has nothing to lose.

Can't wait to see what kind of radical leftist shit is going to be churned out in the next 2 years. We can thank our lucky stars for the Supreme Court, they're the only set of brakes we have.

Dems are pressuring Thomas to retire. And, I wouldn't put it past the Dems to try and impeach Kavanaugh.

[Kathianne]

Dems are pressuring Thomas to retire. And, I wouldn't put it past the Dems to try and impeach Kavanaugh.
I'm pretty sure that only Thomas is pushing himself towards retirement. He's stated several times that he wants time to spend with his family.

They are pressuring Bryers, who's in his 80s and consistently liberal, with a very rare move towards moderate. They want someone very liberal, in their 40s.

[SassyLady]

I'm pretty sure that only Thomas is pushing himself towards retirement. He's stated several times that he wants time to spend with his family.

They are pressuring Bryers, who's in his 80s and consistently liberal, with a very rare move towards moderate. They want someone very liberal, in their 40s.

You're right! My mistake.
;)

[pete311]

Innocent people don't need pardons. Could you imagine Obama pardoning himself and family?

[SassyLady]

Innocent people don't need pardons. Could you imagine Obama pardoning himself and family?
He would have if Republicans had treated him the way democrats have treated Trump. Plus, he was the puppet of the deep state and they shielded him.

[Abbey Marie]

He would have if Republicans had treated him the way democrats have treated Trump. Plus, he was the puppet of the deep state and they shielded him.

Exactly.

[gabosaurus]

Some believe the president's power to pardon is absolute. Whether that is true is open to interpretation. Nixon considered pardoning himself in 1974, but was dissuaded by a ruling by the Justice department that stated "Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself." At the same time, there are other legal opinions that state otherwise. For the complete discussion, go here ----------->https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2021/can-president-trump-pardon-himself-the-answer-may-be-hidden-in-a-grammar-lesson/

[Russ]

Innocent people don't need pardons. Could you imagine Obama pardoning himself and family?

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not looking for Trump to get away with anything, but his situation is like no President in history. The opposing party has been a virtual lynch mob out to get him, his family, and people that work for him.
The evidence of this is simple - the Dems literally impeached him with no solid evidence of anything. No one in US history has had a lynch mob on his heels when leaving office like Trump. The pardons are necessary just to get the lynch mob back to houses in the village and put the pitchforks back in the barn.

By the way, Dems should be careful what they wish for. Using the impeachment option so lightly could come back to bite them in 2 years. How will they feel if Republicans have a majority in both houses in 2023 and they decide to impeach Joe Biden based on Ukraine, China, or on nothing at all? It would be ironic justice.

[fj1200]

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not looking for Trump to get away with anything, but his situation is like no President in history. The opposing party has been a virtual lynch mob out to get him, his family, and people that work for him.
The evidence of this is simple - the Dems literally impeached him with no solid evidence of anything. No one in US history has had a lynch mob on his heels when leaving office like Trump. The pardons are necessary just to get the lynch mob to back to houses in the village and put the pitchforks back in the barn.

By the way, Dems should be careful what they wish for. Using the impeachment option so lightly could back to bite them in 2 years. How will they feel if Republicans have a majority in both houses in 2023 and they decide to impeach Joe Biden based on Ukraine, China, or on nothing at all? It would be ironic justice.

They can impeach him just because they don't like him. Doesn't mean any crime occurred. But I would assume that to pardon anyone you would need to identify the crime, or potential crime, that was committed.

I find this interesting:


After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States), a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) decision that stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that its acceptance carries a confession of guilt.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon#cite_note-shadow-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon#cite_note-5)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon

What is he guilty of?

[gabosaurus]

I don't understand why Trump would think about pardoning himself anyway. Trump has been telling us for the last four years that he is guilty of no wrong doing. As for " the opposing party has been a virtual lynch mob out to get him, his family, and people that work for him," right wing media did that to Obama for eight years. It goes with the territory.

[Abbey Marie]

How about some logical reasoning here?
If you can impeach, as Fj says, “just because [you] don’t like him”, then you can certainly pardon “just because you feel like it”.
Apparently no guilt required on either side.

[fj1200]

How about some logical reasoning here?
If you can impeach, as Fj says, “just because [you] don’t like him”, then you can certainly pardon “just because you feel like it”.
Apparently no guilt required on either side.

Some legal and/or constitutional reasoning might be more appropriate. A crime is not necessary for impeachment. A crime is necessary from which to be pardoned.

I asked someone earlier; what is he guilty of?

[SassyLady]

Some legal and/or constitutional reasoning might be more appropriate. A crime is not necessary for impeachment. A crime is necessary from which to be pardoned.

I asked someone earlier; what is he guilty of?
Pissing off democrats, media and deep state.

[Kathianne]

Some legal and/or constitutional reasoning might be more appropriate. A crime is not necessary for impeachment. A crime is necessary from which to be pardoned.

I asked someone earlier; what is he guilty of?

I don't know 'what' he's actually guilty of, but I think:

1. Encouraging state officials to commit fraud to change results-seems pretty well documented in GA, but PA, AZ are also questionable.

2. Encouraging violence against the Capitol building, possibly against the VP, and attempting preventing Congress from completing a constitutional duty.

[Kathianne]

I don't know 'what' he's actually guilty of, but I think:

1. Encouraging state officials to commit fraud to change results-seems pretty well documented in GA, but PA, AZ are also questionable.

2. Encouraging violence against the Capitol building, possibly against the VP, and attempting preventing Congress from completing a constitutional duty.


While I've always found the person unacceptable, during the course of his presidency, the democrats went further than he with the unacceptable. Couple that with his accomplishments in spite of their behaviors, I chose him over any alternatives. When he lost, I supported his right to challenge, but all challenges failed. Meanwhile he went totally psycho imo. The 6th was just the culmination of all the insane machinations since 11/3.

[fj1200]

Pissing off democrats, media and deep state.

Those aren't criminal and therefore not pardonable.


I don't know 'what' he's actually guilty of, but I think:

1. Encouraging state officials to commit fraud to change results-seems pretty well documented in GA, but PA, AZ are also questionable.

2. Encouraging violence against the Capitol building, possibly against the VP, and attempting preventing Congress from completing a constitutional duty.

Those are specific and very discouraging and would be seen as incredibly self-serving.


While I've always found the person unacceptable, during the course of his presidency, the democrats went further than he with the unacceptable. Couple that with his accomplishments in spite of their behaviors, I chose him over any alternatives. When he lost, I supported his right to challenge, but all challenges failed. Meanwhile he went totally psycho imo. The 6th was just the culmination of all the insane machinations since 11/3.

I'm right there with you on top of thinking Biden the doddering fool and my belief that Harris should be nowhere near the powers of any executive branch. The Democrats successfully elected Joe "every major crime bill" Biden and Harris who used exactly those laws to abuse her position IMO.

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article245213680.html

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-24/kamala-harris-california-crime

https://level.medium.com/why-black-men-dont-like-kamala-harris-and-how-it-can-stop-4d0b34a5415c

[gabosaurus]

By any standards, attempts to impeach Trump with a week left in his tenure smacks of political grandstanding. It is merely throwing gas on a fire. Allow Trump to leave office and face whatever legal cases await him as a private citizen.

[Russ]

Some legal and/or constitutional reasoning might be more appropriate. A crime is not necessary for impeachment. A crime is necessary from which to be pardoned.

I asked someone earlier; what is he guilty of?

FJ, here's my answer to both sides of your post:

"A crime is not necessary for impeachment" - Technically true, but if we are being reasonable, then false. The Constitution says a President can be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors". The term High Crimes and Misdemeanors was intentionally worded vaguely to give Congress some leeway, since no one knows what a High Crime or High Misdemeanor is. However, it clearly implies that there should at least be a misdemeanor involved, and it should be a big one since it is a "high" misdemeanor.
I know that Nancy and Chuckie tried to say Trump's call with Ukraine asking them to investigate Hunter Biden was a bribe, but reasonable people wouldn't call it a bribe. Trump didn't pay them, and Presidents call other countries all the time and ask them to do things. Even Vice Presidents like Joe Biden sometimes ask Ukraine to do things and threaten to withhold tons of money if they don't. I'm pretty sure Nancy and Chuckie would never consider Joe Biden to have bribed anyone.

"A crime is necessary for which to be pardoned" - False. This would have been arguable before the Nixon pardon, but it is settled precedent now. Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he "committed or may have committed" in office. It could have been challenged then, but it wasn't, and now it is legally settled. No list of possible Nixon crimes was ever created, and no specific crime was ever stated by Nixon, the media, or anyone else. The blanket pardon got everyone to drop the whole thing and move on with running the country.
Which is just what Biden and the Dems should do now, if they don't want the whole thing to backfire on them a few years down the line.

[Kathianne]

There were discussions on your first response:

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-the-founders-thought-about-impeachment-and-the-president

[Russ]

There were discussions on your first response:

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-the-founders-thought-about-impeachment-and-the-president

Thanks, Kathianne. I checked out the linked, and particularly liked this paragraph:

“The Framers meant for the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officer’s ability to continue. If the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, it could allow Congress to influence and control the President and the courts,” said Kinkopf (https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii/the-scope-of-the-impeachment-power/clause/49).

The Dems actually impeached Trump for his phone call with Ukraine. (Many Dems suggested impeachment during Trump's first month, for nothing at all) I'm sure the Framers never meant for the impeachment process to ever be used so frivolously or so politically.

[Kathianne]

Thanks, Kathianne. I checked out the linked, and particularly liked this paragraph:

“The Framers meant for the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officer’s ability to continue. If the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, it could allow Congress to influence and control the President and the courts,” said Kinkopf (https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii/the-scope-of-the-impeachment-power/clause/49).

The Dems actually impeached Trump for his phone call with Ukraine. (Many Dems suggested impeachment during Trump's first month, for nothing at all) I'm sure the Framers never meant for the impeachment process to ever be used so frivolously or so politically.
I think any honest person would have concluded the first impeachment was a farce, probably based upon several crimes.

Now this isn't that. Whether or not it should go forward is debatable, but the bottom line is that this time it's not frivolous, though still heavily political.

[SassyLady]

Because the Dems frivolously impeached him once doesn't give this one as much weight as if was the first time. It just makes them look like they're piling on.

Congress couldn't pass covid relief in over 8 months but they can impeach a president in a week makes me wonder if they even know what their job is. To the constituents it seems as if they think their job is to overthrow a duly elected president. Oh wait, that's what Trump supporters are accused of doing.

[fj1200]

FJ, here's my answer to both sides of your post:

"A crime is not necessary for impeachment" - Technically true, but if we are being reasonable, then false. The Constitution says a President can be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors". The term High Crimes and Misdemeanors was intentionally worded vaguely to give Congress some leeway, since no one knows what a High Crime or High Misdemeanor is. However, it clearly implies that there should at least be a misdemeanor involved, and it should be a big one since it is a "high" misdemeanor.
I know that Nancy and Chuckie kept tried to say Trump's call with Ukraine asking them to investigate Hunter Biden was a bribe, but reasonable people wouldn't call it a bribe. Trump didn't pay them, and Presidents call other countries all the time and ask them to do things. Even Vice Presidents like Joe Biden sometimes ask Ukraine to do things and threaten to withhold tons of money if they don't. I'm pretty sure Nancy and Chuckie would never consider Joe Biden to have bribed anyone.

"A crime is necessary for which to be pardoned" - False. This would have been arguable before the Nixon pardon, but it is settled precedent now. Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he "committed or may have committed" in office. It could have been challenged then, but it wasn't, and now it is legally settled. No list of possible Nixon crimes was ever created, and no specific crime was ever stated by Nixon, the media, or anyone else. The blanket pardon got everyone to drop the whole thing and move on with running the country.
Which is just what Biden and the Dems should do now, if they don't want the whole thing to backfire on them a few years down the line.

First. No, it's not reasonably false. Constitutionally speaking there is no requirement for a criminal act to occur. High crimes and misdemeanors hundreds of years ago did not have the same meaning as misdemeanor today. Besides it doesn't take a criminal act for the following:


“The Framers meant for the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officer’s ability to continue. If the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, it could allow Congress to influence and control the President and the courts,” said Kinkopf (https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii/the-scope-of-the-impeachment-power/clause/49).

A non-criminal phone call to a leader of a foreign country could harm the country and compromise the POTUS. He wasn't impeached for making a phone call, he was impeached for what he said during the phone call.

Second. It may be a stretch to call it settled because it wasn't challenged but that's neither here nor there when Democrats get a bug up their butt. Nevertheless it was a very blanket pardon but as you point out it was for crimes he may have committed against the country as POTUS. It wasn't a blanket pardon for other things he may have done. He's got problems in the state of NY that aren't related to this latest impeachment push, is that something he should pardon himself for?

[Russ]

First. No, it's not reasonably false. Constitutionally speaking there is no requirement for a criminal act to occur. High crimes and misdemeanors hundreds of years ago did not have the same meaning as misdemeanor today. Besides it doesn't take a criminal act for the following:

A non-criminal phone call to a leader of a foreign country could harm the country and compromise the POTUS. He wasn't impeached for making a phone call, he was impeached for what he said during the phone call.

Disagree. It is reasonably false. I already gave you the 'technically true' designation. Britain may have been loosey-goosey about the meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", but the intention of the Framers was to have it include crimes that damage the country or the Presidency. What crimes? Unclear. But crimes.

I understand that the impeachment was about what Trump said during the Ukraine phone call, which is why I mentioned VP Joe Biden and his threatening meeting with Ukraine. Anyone who has a problem with Trump's phone call you ought have a problem with Biden's meeting. The hypocrisy is surreal.



Second. It may be a stretch to call it settled because it wasn't challenged but that's neither here nor there when Democrats get a bug up their butt. Nevertheless it was a very blanket pardon but as you point out it was for crimes he may have committed against the country as POTUS. It wasn't a blanket pardon for other things he may have done. He's got problems in the state of NY that aren't related to this latest impeachment push, is that something he should pardon himself for?

Granted. The word "crimes" was used in the blanket pardon, so you can say the the pardon implies a crime. But the pardon doesn't have to specify a crime or make an accusation. Semantics.

My main point is that the pardon would hopefully shut down the Dem lynch mob theatrics and force them to at least pretend to be working on legislative progress that actually helps one of two of their constituents.

And you are correct that the State of NY can still go after him regardless of any Federal pardons.

[fj1200]

Disagree. It is reasonably false. I already gave you the 'technically true' designation. Britain may have been loosey-goosey about the meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", but the intention of the Framers was to have it include crimes that damage the country or the Presidency. What crimes? Unclear. But crimes.

I understand that the impeachment was about what Trump said during the Ukraine phone call, which is why I mentioned VP Joe Biden and his threatening meeting with Ukraine. Anyone who has a problem with Trump's phone call you ought have a problem with Biden's meeting. The hypocrisy is surreal.

But "technically" is the key word. The framers were also loosey-goosey about the meaning and I think rightly so. There could be thousands of scenarios where a crime did not occur but a POTUS should be removed. BJ Clinton could have been impeached for diddling interns that led to his being blackmailed by the Russians; no crime but a high crime nonetheless damaging to the country.

I was referring to the pull quote in the link. :) I'm not going to argue against hypocrisy; there's plenty to go around.


Granted. The word "crimes" was used in the blanket pardon, so you can say the the pardon implies a crime. But the pardon doesn't have to specify a crime or make an accusation. Semantics.

My main point is that the pardon would hopefully shut down the Dem lynch mob theatrics and force them to at least pretend to be working on legislative progress that actually helps one of two of their constituents.

And you are correct that the State of NY can still go after him regardless of any Federal pardons.

I'm not sure a self pardon would shut down any lynch mob at this point. It would take Biden to pardon him to shut them down. My best hope is that they happily impeached him twice and then for it to die in the Senate because they can no longer remove him from office. There are some who will scream for the next 2 or 4 years that he should be convicted to ensure he can't run again and/or remove any post presidency benefits.

[Kathianne]

But "technically" is the key word. The framers were also loosey-goosey about the meaning and I think rightly so. There could be thousands of scenarios where a crime did not occur but a POTUS should be removed. BJ Clinton could have been impeached for diddling interns that led to his being blackmailed by the Russians; no crime but a high crime nonetheless damaging to the country.

I was referring to the pull quote in the link. :) I'm not going to argue against hypocrisy; there's plenty to go around.



I'm not sure a self pardon would shut down any lynch mob at this point. It would take Biden to pardon him to shut them down. My best hope is that they happily impeached him twice and then for it to die in the Senate because they can no longer remove him from office. There are some who will scream for the next 2 or 4 years that he should be convicted to ensure he can't run again and/or remove any post presidency benefits.
The reason I went to primary source is the arguments regarding maladministration, which we know eventually dropped, too bad if we're going to impeaching presidents every turn.

[Abbey Marie]

I think any honest person would have concluded the first impeachment was a farce, probably based upon several crimes.

Now this isn't that. Whether or not it should go forward is debatable, but the bottom line is that this time it's not frivolous, though still heavily political.

A low bar, to be sure.