Self Pardons and the pardons of anyone connected to a crime or action a POTUS might be implicated in need to be tested in the SC.

The latter far tougher to define but important none-the-less. Trump has established here that a POTUS being investigated has a huge weapon, in the form of 'promised pardons to those who do not cooperate' and without definition put around that, it remains problematic.

What I find most interesting is that if Trump does pardon himself and a prosecutor does decided to challenge that 'Self Pardon Power of the POTUS' it would be Joe Biden's White House and his POTUS lawyer staff that would be the ones forced to defend that power and right.


Understand that before you get to what ever the Prosecutor may want to prosecute Trump on, the issue must be resolved by the SC of 'is it lawful for a POTUS to pardon himself'? So the actual issue of what Trump is accused is put aside to start because the first issue 'Can a POTUS pardon himself' has to be resolved before moving to that step 2.


And if the SC is taking on the issue of 'Can a POTUS pardon himself', then whoever is the POTUS at the time would be the one to have his WH lawyers defend that right and power. It is not Trump or Obama or Bush or Clinton, who would be defending it. It would be Biden's WH lawyers.

Now Trump may seek intervener status in the case but it is not assured he would get it as this case is theoretical and constitutional and not tied to any specific actions, even if the implications of an verdict may trigger implications for a former POTUS.

Rococo, do you see that the same way as I do?

I do not see it the way you do. I am not a criminal lawyer, but I assume that a pardon would be treated as a defense. Absent criminal charges, there would be no basis for asserting the defense and no reason for a court to rule on the validity of the defense.

In other words, I think charges are Step 1, not testing the validity of the pardon.

Also, Biden's DOJ is free to take whatever position it wants w/r/t to the validity of a self-pardon. Biden's DOJ doesn't have an obligation to defend the actions of a previous administration. The DOJ represents the interests of the United States government in the courts. But Trump doesn't get to decide what the interests of the United States government are after he leaves office.

None of this matters, of course, if we are talking about a prosecution in state court.

No I think you misunderstand me.

Of course if a POTUS pardons himself a prosecutor somewhere has to charge him with an offense related to that pardon to test the validity of it. That is Step 1.

But what I am saying is that Step 1 then gets set aside. There is not an attempt to litigate THAT charge but instead a separate action challenging the Pardon power would have to proceed and be litigated.

So it moves in front of the other issue.

So now the SC must determine 'Can a POTUS who has pardoned himself actually be charged with an offense related to the pardon?'

That is not a question to Trump or any POTUS specifically and is in fact challenging the inherent power of the Office of the POTUS.

This decision will affect all POTUS's current and future and thus why it is not a question to be defended by Trump, based on his self interest but rather the defender would be the current inhabitant POTUS and his Office on behalf of all current and future POTUS.

Trump may ask for intervener status but it really is not his argument after Biden is sworn in.

So the question i am asking is 'do you agree that it would be Biden and his office of POTUS that would be arguing in the SC what powers and rights that office should have?'

Now I understand. I think you are mostly but not entirely correct. If Trump self pardons and then is charged with a federal crime, he would move to have the charges dismissed on the basis of the pardon. If the court dismissed on the basis of the pardon, then the protection would be free to appeal immediately.

If the court refused to dismiss, then the case would move forward, potentially all the way to trial. It's such a novel issue, and the stakes are so high, that I guess it's possible that the court would stay the proceeding and allow Trump to take some sort of interlocutory appeal. But it's also possible that the court would allow the case to go to trial. If Trump were convicted, he of course would be able to argue to the appellate court that the conviction should be vacated on the basis of the self pardon.

Biden's DOJ would be responsible for representing the interests of the United States and would be free to take whatever position it wanted. But i don't think that means Trump would be prohibited from arguing his case to the appellate court. After all, he is the guy who goes to prison if he is convicted and the self pardon is not effective.

Let's try another angle in this discussion: What's the fastest way to lock Trump up?

Interesting food for thought. Thx Rococo.

I do think the order of events you put forth seem strange as you are basically suggesting despite the pardon that Trump might be charged and those charges might proceed all the way through the system and then only if found guilty Trump would use the pardon as a way to appeal or to seek to vacate the finding. Do I have that right?


That seems strange to me as it would be such a waste of resources and if Trump beat the prosecution it would not address the question of 'is the pardon valid'?

I see this more like Texas trying to sue Georgia and other States and losing.

They did not lose based on the suit they brought forth being evaluated. No. That was pushed to the side as the issue of 'jurisdiction' and standing' were addressed. That makes far more sense. Why let the case go through the court to a finding FIRST only to then have the supreme court say 'none of that matters as they did not have standing'.


I think in a case like this the prosecutor would first want resolved the question of 'can this prosecution proceed or is it prohibited by the Pardon'.

The results of that case being an imposition of limitations (from non existent to confining) on the 'Office of POTUS' go forward forever.

Thus why I say that case is not about Trump.


Yes it will have implications for on his trial but that is a separate action. A strong consideration for Trump but not one the SC should even consider in the question of 'should a POTUS have the power to pardon himself'. That is a question of constitutional powers and limitations and not specific jeopardy.

Thus why whoever is POTUS at the time and his WH Lawyers and maybe the DOJ would be the main defendants. As they are defining or protecting a power for the OFFICE.

SO I am still unsure if the SC would grant Trump intervener status as his personal jeopardy, as a result of the finding, would really have no bearing and his arguments would all be noise related to his personal jeopardy and not the constitutionality.

I hope this does get litigated as i find it fascinating and I think some bounds need to be defined to stop future POTUS like Trump feeling impervious and thus recognize some boundaries or jeopardy. Or potentially not if the SC makes them basically a King.

I think the only realistic path to locking Trump up is an aggressive AG under the Biden regime going after him on all fronts, Pardons or not. I have no confidence Biden will let his AG pursue that.

I give the State actions less than 10% chance of ending in jail time. States do not like prolonged multi year expensive trials and you are guaranteed that if you go after Trump. State do like getting big settlements that for political optics they can hold up as a win for the people, will settling all charges with maybe some prohibitions against committing 'future offenses'.

A group of lunatics snatch and grab him like those proud boys or whatever tried to do with Big Gretch.

I wouldn't be so sure that the Manhattan DA's office or the New York state AG lack the stomach for a protracted fight.

I could see NY going for both punitive and jail time. I recall this argument being made that it probably makes more sense to charge him at the state level vs. federal level.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.new...rd-to-lose/amp

The waste of resources you are describing literally happens all the time. For example, imagine the scenario in which, on a close evidentiary issue, a judge decides that a confession is admissible. Then imagine that the defendant is convicted at trial, largely on the basis of the confession. The appellate court rules that the confession was inadmissible and vacates the conviction. Now we are back at square one, with the prosecutor deciding whether to retry the case without the benefit of the confession. You could have a similar situation with a Batson challenge or a defense based on whether the statute of limitations had run.

I suggested the possibility that the court would allow some sort of interlocutory appeal. But after further review, I don't believe that interlocutory appeals are permitted in federal criminal cases, which is the only sort of case in which a self-pardon would be relevant.

I believe that interlocutory appeals are permitted in criminal cases in a few state jurisdictions. But I'm sure they are highly disfavored even in jurisdictions where they are a theoretical possibility.

Even if an interlocutory appeals were permitted, you can be sure that the prosecutor would oppose the request.

Prosecutors are political animals. You don't indict Donald Trump unless you are looking forward to the scrutiny, the book deal, the fame, the huge expenditure of resources, etc.

That article touches on why I have said in past that the NY Prosecutors should literally be waiting outside the White House to charge Trump and get him to surrender his Passport and ensure he will appear in court to face his charges.

Some may think that seems petty and political but Trump has stated on numerous occasions if he loses he may just leave the country and not come back.

Any other rich guy with a private jet would be forced to surrender the passport and to take other measures to ensure he could not flee the jurisdiction. Trump should not get special treatment on that.

OK maybe waiting outside the WH would be too aggressive but they should be in touch with his lawyers and demand he immediate attend the Prosecutors chosen location to do the surrender and accept the other measures.

I do think this is different than the type of 'appeal' you mention.

To me this is more like the SC first determining if Texas has standing before even hearing a single fact on the case against Georgia and other States.

They could have instead listened to the entire pleadings and ruled saying the suit was garbage and Texas loses and thus not need to determine 'standing' or 'jurisdiction' but they did not. They put the horse before the cart and first looked at 'do you even have a right to argue this' and that answer determined they did not need to hear the pleadings.

Similarly I think the first question here is 'Does the Constitution afford the POTUS the power to pardon himself' which then determines if the pleadings need to be heard or not.


I mean imagine the furor if they listened to the pleadings first, found against Trump on the merits 'GUILTY' but then held Constitutional hearings on the greater question and found 'yes he can pardon himself so that guilty verdict is meaningless'.

That path has far more problematic outcomes which the other does not.

I am hoping that we actually see this as I am pretty sure Trump will pardon himself. If he is smart he will step down, and let Pence do it, but I think Trumps narcissism would not allow him to ever surrender the presidency. Not even one day before. He would still be harboring hope that somehow he was going to maintain power.

But hey you know he’s a celebrity and spaceman bruce wants to star**** him

Much better if he is prosecuted for financial crimes/etc committed before office.

The political stuff will be messy and will quite likely fail to meet the standards required. If it proceeds it better be solid in law.

This very much the right way to be thinking about it. Also far better if he is prosecuted for the financial crimes/etc that predate his presidency and which are being investigated properly.

Those who have a **** em attitude will as per usual more likely end up ****ing the rest of us.

I've solidified in my view that Trump needs to be prosecuted.

I agree with the basic sentiments that it should not be political. I think he simply has just transgressed far too many laws.

And prosecution is not always about being 'clear' that you can get a win. Prosecution is sometimes about 'testing limits of protections in the law when someone is truly is pushing them'.

When the first person posed the 'you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre' type challenge to Free Speech certainly these questions and doubts were raised as to whether it would succeed but it NEEDED to be tested to see if within law we could define what would be seen as 'fair boundaries'.

Trump clearly tried to over turn the election and use the force of gov't to do so. That is undeniable now. Pressure campaigns and threats of being fired that if it were sexual harassment would be more than enough to act upon.

Can the US system tolerate such things in the future? Should it? If this is not tested in a Court then it becomes a very clear 'Why not try? What do we have to lose when we lost the election anyway" type scenario.

If Trump is not prosecuted I think the US needs to do away with any pretense that the 'Law is Blind' and 'Justice is Blind'. And while i know everyone knows that has never been strictly true I think there is zero chance that, for instance, if this was a lower official at the State level or Municipal level doing the same type of things to try and change their loss in an election to a win, they would be prosecuted.

Hands down I believe that to be fact. If they were pressuring other gov't agency to throw out votes, find votes, and all the things Trump tried, they WOULD be prosecuted.

And i am of a belief that law makers need to be held to higher standards than normal citiznes and not less. Meaning that what you might not prosecute a normal citizne due to it being on the mariginal line, you then DO prosecute public officials for, as they have the added offense of betraying their public trust.

Thus the higher up the political line you go, the higher the expectation should be and thus the transgression should get prosecuted at a lower bar.

So despite me thinking there should be no law prosecutor John's and Prostitutes for consensual sex, I absolutely think Elliot Spitzer should have been prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law. If you are law maker who pushes to have average citizens jailed for prostitution then the law should have zero mercy on you when you break that law. None of the first time offender allowances or other system mercies should be available to you as the offense is that much higher, imo.

I was thinking to re-run this poll as my view is yes to charges, more so now than prior and i am curious to see if others have changed in either direction??

I understand there is 'Trump fatigue'. I understand he tends to be bullet proof and the true manifestation of a 'Teflon Don'. And I know that some fear and argue that if the gov't cannot convict and Trump is acquitted that just gives him the validation to say it was a witch hunt.

All that considered, I believe not indicting destroys whatever remaining belief many of us might have had that the law has any ability to be blind and fair. I think that no other public official avoids being charged with a fraction of the offenses committed by Trump.

It is absolutely clear, in the emerging evidence, that Trump exerted an ongoing campaign of pressure, coercion and even threat to public officials (State officials and his own AG, and DOJ) to manufacture for him enough doubt to allow him to use that to try and commit a coup and over throw the election results and the legitimate US gov't.


The fear should not be 'what if we cannot convict', that is the wrong fear. The fear should be 'if we do not send a signal to any future leaders they WILL face prosecution if they walk this same ground in the future and if they want to gamble on beating it, go ahead. But understand the jeopardy will be there and it will be real'.


Trump is emboldened when he thinks he controls the levers of power and he will face no jeopardy. Make no mistake, sitting as a defendant in a case like this, win or lose, would make Trump and those who follow him hesitant in the future in being so blatant and handing the Prosecutors the case against them.


New Testimony Reveals Trump Pressured The DOJ To Falsely Question Election Results


Trump to DOJ last December: 'Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me'


Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General
Trying to find another avenue to push his baseless election claims, Donald Trump considered installing a loyalist.

Inside Trump’s pressure campaign to overturn the election
No president has ever made such expansive and individualized pleas.

Absolutely not. If this was the standard, every President would be in prison. It amuses me that you think it should start with President Trump. The TDS is glaring.

I agree with nick.

It's not like elections are important in democracies.
All elected leaders try to manipulate the system to stay in power despite the will of the people.

Poor Mr Trump, he honestly can't catch a break.

From your previous posting in this forum I had thought that most of the views you put forth were your genuine beliefs rather than deliberate contrarian trolling but nobody sane can seriously believe that it is standard for a President to ask his Attorney General to "just say the election was corrupt".

There are reasonable arguments that could be made against him being prosecuted but exactly 0% of them involve arguing that what he did was normal Presidential behaviour after losing an election.