Trump Can't Be Indicted No Matter What

[Opoponax]

https://nypost.com/2018/06/03/giuliani-trump-couldnt-be-indicted-even-if-he-shot-comey/

...Rudy Giuliani argued Sunday that the president could not be indicted — not even if he fired a gun at​ ​his former FBI chief.

The point is that impeachment is a political process. Trump this morning, continued that line of that "reasoning."

As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?

So with this line of reasoning, Mike Pence could blow Trump's brains out himself, have himself sworn in, immediately pardon himself, and then he'd be President. The only way to correct this would be for the House to first impeach, and then have the Senate convict and remove Pence.

If the U.S. survives this authoritarian, would-be tyrant intact, we're gonna need a slew of new laws that clearly define Executive power. But I think that would require changing the Constitution. I'm not sure. If it is the case that the Constitution needs to be amended, then even if we survive Trump, it's only a matter of time before someone more intelligent with a well thought out plan comes to power and really does what Trump is threatening to do.

Consider the language that Giuliani used. Trump could fire a gun at Comey. With Trump echoing that, it should be grounds for removal today.

In the same tweet, Trump called the Mueller investigation "unconstitutional." But Trump himself can commit any act he wants without fear of consequence regardless of the Constitution, notwithstanding the impeachment process. And Trump is not getting impeached and removed.

We're so fucked.

ETA: people who aren't guilty of anything don't say shit like Trump says.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To be able to commit any act and to be able to pardon oneself would be the actions of a King. Our founding fathers were on record about what they thought about kings.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, is he wrong?

If Mueller issues a subpoena and Trump says no, what happens? For anyone else in the country, they get arrested. Are there any actual consequences if (when) Trump does this?

If you didn't want kings, you shouldn't have made a position that's essentially a king.

 

[Elixir]

This needs to be brought to court. But Team Cheato knows they'd lose, so it ain't gonna happen.
"President has absolute power" is NOT a legal argument, it's part of the overall attempt to sway public opinion in the districts held by Rethuglican concresscritters, so that those critters are afraid to side against Cheato on ANYTHING.

If Mueller issues a subpoena and Trump says no, what happens?

I'm pretty sure we'll find out. It would end up at the SCOTUS, and they would laugh Cheato's attorneys out of the room - even with the stolen seats occupied by conservatives.
Trumo would be ordered by the Supreme Court to appear before the Grand Jury. If he refused THAT, I'm don't know what would happen. It's hard to imagine a President being dragged off in handcuffs... or who would have the authority to do that. OTOH, it might just wake up enough of those Rethuglicans to get an impeachment underway...

 

[Copernicus]

The Supreme Court is strongly biased to support Republican perspectives on history, ideology, and government policy. However, it is almost certain to stomp them down, if Giuliani's frivolous arguments ever land up before it. For one thing, the Constitution states that "high crimes and misdemeanors can be grounds for impeachment and that the President could be brought to trial in a court of law after impeachment. The implication is that a President has no power to cancel his own liability to criminal prosecution. Moreover, we already have a ruling that strongly implies a President could be indicted under certain circumstances. See When Five Supreme Court Justices Said a President Can Be Indicted.

To me, the more important thing here is that Giuliani is making a big deal out of impeachment being a political process. I believe that that is correct. What that means is that the President would not be entitled to the same rights he would have in a court of law, so Trump would not be able to weasel out of prosecution and conviction on the same technical grounds that his lawyers are used to arguing. For example, Congress would not need to adhere to a strict legal definition of "treason", although he could make that argument in a criminal trial. Giuliani's argument only applies to arguments about whether Trump could pardon himself from future criminal prosecution, but SCOTUS is unlikely to agree that a President can use his power of pardoning to escape future criminal prosecutions. He is immune from prosecution while in office only because it would interfere with his ability to carry out official duties and functions. It would be hard to argue that he has the functional ability to violate his oath of office by simply pardoning himself for every violation.

 

[Opoponax]

This needs to be brought to court. But Team Cheato knows they'd lose, so it ain't gonna happen.
"President has absolute power" is NOT a legal argument, it's part of the overall attempt to sway public opinion in the districts held by Rethuglican concresscritters, so that those critters are afraid to side against Cheato on ANYTHING.

If Mueller issues a subpoena and Trump says no, what happens?

I'm pretty sure we'll find out. It would end up at the SCOTUS, and they would laugh Cheato's attorneys out of the room - even with the stolen seats occupied by conservatives.
Trumo would be ordered by the Supreme Court to appear before the Grand Jury. If he refused THAT, I'm don't know what would happen. It's hard to imagine a President being dragged off in handcuffs... or who would have the authority to do that. OTOH, it might just wake up enough of those Rethuglicans to get an impeachment underway...

That would be the showdown: SCOTUS orders him to appear, and then he doesn't.

Who does what at that point?

It's utterly unknown in American jurisprudence.

There's no going back to court because the issue would've already been decided. Does the FBI do it? That would seem the most logical choice because he would be in violation of a federal court order. But the Secret Service's job is to protect the President. But does that include protecting him from a lawful arrest? Their orders come from the President. The President is the highest law enforcement officer in the U.S. My guess is that the SS (ugh, what initials) would stand down and the slimy orange turd would be taken away. Probably.

Welp; thanks a fucking pant-load for this looming crisis, Trumptards.

To be fair, on other conservative boards, they're actually not very down with Trump and Giuliani's statements. They don't/can't imagine that Trump's done anything unlawful in the first place, but he shouldn't be saying shit like this. On dedicated Trump forums though, fucking forget it. Places like that are cesspools at the bottom of cesspools, full of bots and nutjobs with nary a reasonable mind to be found. They're unbridled and joyful take on this is that it's glorious because the God Emperor is trolling the media. Apologies in advance... When I have to handle raw chicken at home, I leave the faucet running so that I don't have to touch the faucet handle or anything else with raw-chickeny hands, and so that I can wash as often as needed. Take similar precautions here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/8ogwux/realdonaldtrump_as_has_been_stated_by_numerous/

 

[Elixir]

The President is the highest law enforcement officer in the U.S.

I don't believe that's true. He's CIC of the Armed Forces, but the AG is the top LE official.
At the end of the day, it could possibly come down to an individual USSS officer, and whether he is able to be convinced that he should permit the lawful arrest of Cheato by agents of the FBI or CIA. I supposed Cheato could jump on the horn and order in an air strike...

 

[Ford]

This needs to be brought to court. But Team Cheato knows they'd lose, so it ain't gonna happen.
"President has absolute power" is NOT a legal argument, it's part of the overall attempt to sway public opinion in the districts held by Rethuglican concresscritters, so that those critters are afraid to side against Cheato on ANYTHING.

If Mueller issues a subpoena and Trump says no, what happens?

I'm pretty sure we'll find out. It would end up at the SCOTUS, and they would laugh Cheato's attorneys out of the room - even with the stolen seats occupied by conservatives.
Trumo would be ordered by the Supreme Court to appear before the Grand Jury. If he refused THAT, I'm don't know what would happen. It's hard to imagine a President being dragged off in handcuffs... or who would have the authority to do that. OTOH, it might just wake up enough of those Rethuglicans to get an impeachment underway...

That would be the showdown: SCOTUS orders him to appear, and then he doesn't.

Who does what at that point?

It's utterly unknown in American jurisprudence.

I suspect that this was a trial balloon. Trump tweeted this and waited to see what the reaction was from Republicans in Congress. They're the ones who would be responsible for removing him from office so he could be charged.

So far, not a single one of them has indicated anything but the mildest opposition to Trump pardoning himself.

 

[Elixir]

That would be the showdown: SCOTUS orders him to appear, and then he doesn't.

Who does what at that point?

It's utterly unknown in American jurisprudence.

I suspect that this was a trial balloon. Trump tweeted this and waited to see what the reaction was from Republicans in Congress. They're the ones who would be responsible for removing him from office so he could be charged.

So far, not a single one of them has indicated anything but the mildest opposition to Trump pardoning himself.

DoJ *might* challenge it if he tries to pardon himself. If it is challenged, he will of course lose. But will DoJ challenge it while Sessions is heading up the Department, has committed crimes, and hopes Cheato will pardon him? Not likely IMHO, but Sessions has surprised me before.

 

[Copernicus]

That would be the showdown: SCOTUS orders him to appear, and then he doesn't.

Who does what at that point?

It's utterly unknown in American jurisprudence.

I suspect that this was a trial balloon. Trump tweeted this and waited to see what the reaction was from Republicans in Congress. They're the ones who would be responsible for removing him from office so he could be charged.

So far, not a single one of them has indicated anything but the mildest opposition to Trump pardoning himself.

DoJ *might* challenge it if he tries to pardon himself. If it is challenged, he will of course lose. But will DoJ challenge it while Sessions is heading up the Department, has committed crimes, and hopes Cheato will pardon him? Not likely IMHO, but Sessions has surprised me before.

Sessions is still technically recused from taking an action in matters that relate to the Mueller investigation, and Rosenstein would almost certainly challenge any attempt by Trump to pardon himself. Giuliani is generating a lot of smoke these days, and there seems to be a growing sense that he is looking to create enough of it to give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein. That is certainly what Trump wants to do, but he doesn't want to do it in a way that would turn Republican office holders against him. Hence, I doubt that Giuliani is being serious here, but he may be trying to create a crisis by leading Rosenstein to issue a subpoena against Trump. At that point, Trump might fire Rosenstein and get away without losing too much Republican support. Trump's congressional fanbase could then start claiming that Rosenstein had exceeded his authority, and Republican politicians would be afraid to offend their base. With Rosenstein gone, Mueller would either be reigned in or fired.

 

[ZiprHead]

The question of a president being able to pardon himself was asked to the Justice department under Clinton. The answer was no, under the principle that a person cannot judge themselves.

Sorry, it was under Nixon, not Clinton.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/776888/doj-ruled-44-years-ago-that-president-cannot-pardon-himself

 

[Copernicus]

The question of a president being able to pardon himself was asked to the Justice department under Clinton. The answer was no, under the principle that a person cannot judge themselves.

Sorry, it was under Nixon, not Clinton.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/776888/doj-ruled-44-years-ago-that-president-cannot-pardon-himself

That would seem to settle the matter, but this President shows no sign of respecting past DOJ rulings. He seems to believe that those rulings are mere matters of opinion and not binding.

 

[Opoponax]

The President is the highest law enforcement officer in the U.S.

I don't believe that's true. He's CIC of the Armed Forces, but the AG is the top LE official.
At the end of the day, it could possibly come down to an individual USSS officer, and whether he is able to be convinced that he should permit the lawful arrest of Cheato by agents of the FBI or CIA. I supposed Cheato could jump on the horn and order in an air strike...

Via the "Take Care" clause he has the duty to see that the laws of the nation are enforced. He's the head of the Executive, which is responsible for federal law enforcement. For example, Congress makes laws, but has little to no power to enforce the laws they make because that's the job of the Executive, and would be an infringement on that branch. Further, through the POTUS appointment power he can hire the AG, and he can fire the AG and replace him (for (given) reason). He can appoint the head of the FBI (law enforcement), the head of the CIA (law enforcement), ATF (etc.).

Therefore, the POTUS is the land's highest law enforcement officer.

 

[SLD]

Even if he can pardon himself, or refuse an order from the Supreme Court, he can't escape impeachment for doing so. Of course the Rethugs wouldn't vote in favor of it.

Andrew Jackson famously said that John Marshall has made his decision and he can enforce it - effectively nullifying the decision. He didn't get impeached.

SLD

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Even if he can pardon himself, or refuse an order from the Supreme Court, he can't escape impeachment for doing so. Of course the Rethugs wouldn't vote in favor of it.

Andrew Jackson famously said that John Marshall has made his decision and he can enforce it - effectively nullifying the decision. He didn't get impeached.

SLD

Yeah, this is where we apparently are... granted, the Constitution has shifted a bit since then. The ultimate question becomes, does the Government allow the President to become a king?

 

[bleubird]

When Dolt 45 says "Pardon Me" he is just being polite.Right?

 

[Patooka]

When Dolt 45 says "Pardon Me" he is just being polite.Right?

That's Trumps' defining quality. How polite he is.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipy36wmY8iE[/youtube]

 

[lpetrich]

How Trump's Legal Defense Mimics Christian Apologetics by Godless in Dixie.

1. The Divine Command Theory

Like what King Louis XIV of France once allegedly stated: "I am the state" (L'état, c'est moi.)

2. Compulsive Control of the Terms of Debate: "Looking to the Trump administration, once again it is Giuliani who keeps issuing demands before his client will appear for an interview before Mueller."

3. Diversionary Tactics/Changing the Subject: "You cannot mention Trump’s abuses of power without immediately triggering a knee-jerk deflection to Hillary Clinton, which is a change of subject."

i. Special pleading: "Because he is president, his lawyers argue, he is the ultimate determiner of what is and isn’t “legal,” so it’s not possible for him to break the law. He’s a special case." Like how Xianity is very unlike any other religion.

ii. Ad hominem attacks: everybody but them has big conflicts of interest.

iii. Tu quoque: "You do it too", like Hillary Clinton.

iv. Argument from authority

v. No true Scotsman: Republicans who oppose President Trump are Not True Republicans, and are shut out just like Democrats.

 

[Underseer]

Trump's arguments make it clear that he considers himself a dictator and that he has absolute contempt for the rule of law.

The fact that he has not been impeached yet proves that the vast majority of Republicans are OK with all of this.

 

[Underseer]

As long as we're talking about Trump's nakedly authoritarian arguments, here's another op-ed:

http://prospect.org/article/normalization-corruption

Yeah, it's mostly Republicans, but there are some Democrats who helped.

Until we have publicly-financed elections, none of this is going away. Our politics will become more and more corrupt until we either have something like the French Revolution in which all the rich people get lynched, or else the country and our economy will collapse into a third world authoritarian nightmare.