• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could a pardon itself be considered obstruction of justice?

JANFU said:
So no crimes convicted of then pardoned.
If he was not pardoned, could Congress still impeach after he resigned?
If so, what penalty could they assign?

Now to Trump- no convictions as you noted was needed, and for the sake of discussion he pardons himself.
My opinion- Off to SCOTUS.
Though I have another opinion that if such arose, similar to Nixon, he resigns and Pence pardons him.
Click to expand...

Pence can only pardon him for federal crimes. Any charges brought against Trump and company by the NYS AG are not pardonable, because they are state crimes and not federal.
 
Superfly said:
And the NYS AG has already prosecuted him (and won) for his Trump University debacle. And the NYS AG is not a fan of Herr Trump. Pretty sure that if not for federal crimes, Trump will go down for state crimes.

Will Eric Schneiderman Take Down Donald Trump? - POLITICO Magazine
Click to expand...

There was no criminal prosecution it was a civil lawsuit only.

But we know that Schneiderman is part of the resist movement. He says they are not out to get Trump! Well then what do you call it?

“We’re not—you know, we’re not out to get Mr. Trump. We’re just out to enforce the law. And if he’s broken New York law, we will enforce the law.”
 
Common Sense 1 said:
There was no criminal prosecution it was a civil lawsuit only.
Click to expand...

Did not imply it was anything but! The point that I was making is that Herr Trump has a history with Schneiderman, and not a good one.

But we know that Schneiderman is part of the resist movement. He says they are not out to get Trump! Well then what do you call it?

“We’re not—you know, we’re not out to get Mr. Trump. We’re just out to enforce the law. And if he’s broken New York law, we will enforce the law.”
Click to expand...

You people think anybody that disagrees with Trump is out to get him. It's actually kind of comical. Is Comey part of the Resist movement? Is Mueller? *crickets* Nope.

And why wouldn't the AG enforce the law if Trump has broken the law? Isn't that kind of his job?
 
Absentglare said:
The pardon is a power used to reduce or expunge the punishment of a federal crime.

In the case that one is convicted of being in contempt of court for violating the constitutional rights of citizens, one could make the case that pardoning such a conviction would constitute an attempt by the executive branch to prevent the judicial branch from upholding constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

While anyone can argue whatever it is they want, the argument you make holds no water because of the fact of Separation of Powers and that the power to pardon Federal crimes being absolute.
 
bearpoker said:
Right. Trump can only pardon federal not state crimes. A Trump pardon would not prevent prosecution in a state court.
Click to expand...

Not to mention Trump pardoning them would be more proof of guilt then they could even ask for.
....That is if they can even get to ****ing prosecuting them within this decade...

Not holding my breath though, especially with their current track record.
 
Superfly said:
You people think anybody that disagrees with Trump is out to get him. It's actually kind of comical.
Click to expand...
You people? iLOL
What is actually comical here is that what you say speaks far more to your own bias than the person you are speaking of.


Superfly said:
The point that I was making is that Herr Trump has a history with Schneiderman, and not a good one.
Click to expand...
You mean Herr Schneiderman also, right? Or was that just further confirmation of bias?


Superfly said:
Is Comey part of the Resist movement? Is Mueller? *crickets* Nope.
Click to expand...
Wtf does such a comment have to do with this thread?
I am going to guess that it is just more irrational bias.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Pardons don't protect one from impeachment.
Click to expand...

You're probably right, but I think some believe that a President would even consider trying to pardon himself. I don't think that's going to happen.
 
JANFU said:
So no crimes convicted of then pardoned.
If he was not pardoned, could Congress still impeach after he resigned?
If so, what penalty could they assign?

Now to Trump- no convictions as you noted was needed, and for the sake of discussion he pardons himself.
My opinion- Off to SCOTUS.
Though I have another opinion that if such arose, similar to Nixon, he resigns and Pence pardons him.
Click to expand...

Yes, as someone pointed out that a pardon can't stop an impeachment, since impeachment is a political move to remove someone from office, not put them in jail.
 
American said:
Yes, as someone pointed out that a pardon can't stop an impeachment, since impeachment is a political move to remove someone from office, not put them in jail.
Click to expand...

Thank you
 
MrWonka said:
I understand that the President has pretty much no limits on his ability to pardon someone for a crime, but if it's used specifically to pardon people that may be able to testify against the president for crimes he has committed in order to prevent prosecutors from turning another criminal against the president where is anywhere could a line be drawn. If Mueller says to someone like Manfort I'll let you off easy in exchange for testimony against Trump, Manfort can just say, "Why? Trump will pardon me of anything you convict me of anyway. So who cares?"

What if anything prevents the president from using his ability to pardon someone else to keep turncoats from testifying against his own crimes?
Click to expand...

I only see one thing preventing the use of a presidential pardon in the scenario you describe: Manafort saying, "Why? Trump will pardon me of anything you convict me of anyway. So who cares?" That would be an unlikely, stupid thing for Manafort to say to Mueller. It's more likely Manafort would say nothing...and just not flip.

So...let's say Mueller charges Manafort for a crime to get him to flip. Manafort doesn't flip. Mueller then takes the Manafort case to trial. That trial convicts Manafort. And then, Trump pardons Manafort.

Okay?

Unless Trump comes right out and tells the world he and Manafort had a deal...and that's why Manafort didn't flip...any accusations of Trump using his pardoning power for obstruction of justice are just that...accusations. Without any proof.
 
American said:
You're probably right, but I think some believe that a President would even consider trying to pardon himself. I don't think that's going to happen.
Click to expand...

Just point them to Article 2, Sec 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution where it says

he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Click to expand...
 
Mycroft said:
I only see one thing preventing the use of a presidential pardon in the scenario you describe: Manafort saying, "Why? Trump will pardon me of anything you convict me of anyway. So who cares?" That would be an unlikely, stupid thing for Manafort to say to Mueller. It's more likely Manafort would say nothing...and just not flip.

So...let's say Mueller charges Manafort for a crime to get him to flip. Manafort doesn't flip. Mueller then takes the Manafort case to trial. That trial convicts Manafort. And then, Trump pardons Manafort.

Okay?

Unless Trump comes right out and tells the world he and Manafort had a deal...and that's why Manafort didn't flip...any accusations of Trump using his pardoning power for obstruction of justice are just that...accusations. Without any proof.
Click to expand...

I believe that sort of scenario was why Scooter Libby did not have his sentence commuted until Bush was ready to leave office, it prevented further entanglements with the case by the President.
 
MrWonka said:
I understand that the President has pretty much no limits on his ability to pardon someone for a crime, but if it's used specifically to pardon people that may be able to testify against the president for crimes he has committed in order to prevent prosecutors from turning another criminal against the president where is anywhere could a line be drawn. If Mueller says to someone like Manfort I'll let you off easy in exchange for testimony against Trump, Manfort can just say, "Why? Trump will pardon me of anything you convict me of anyway. So who cares?"

What if anything prevents the president from using his ability to pardon someone else to keep turncoats from testifying against his own crimes?
Click to expand...

Ordinarily their own moral foundation. Or so it has been for about 43 presidents so far. Ford is the only one I excepting.
 
Superfly said:
You people think anybody that disagrees with Trump is out to get him. It's actually kind of comical. Is Comey part of the Resist movement? Is Mueller? *crickets* Nope.

And why wouldn't the AG enforce the law if Trump has broken the law? Isn't that kind of his job?
Click to expand...

Schneidernan is politically opposed to Trump. That in and of itself is not a problem. However, the AG is supposed to be neutral when it comes to whom he investigates and prosecutes. He can't use his office to go after political opponents.
The AG should recuse himself from these prosecutorial decions when it comes to Trump. Let somebody else in Albany decide.
 
MrWonka said:
I understand that the President has pretty much no limits on his ability to pardon someone for a crime, but if it's used specifically to pardon people that may be able to testify against the president for crimes he has committed in order to prevent prosecutors from turning another criminal against the president where is anywhere could a line be drawn. If Mueller says to someone like Manfort I'll let you off easy in exchange for testimony against Trump, Manfort can just say, "Why? Trump will pardon me of anything you convict me of anyway. So who cares?"

What if anything prevents the president from using his ability to pardon someone else to keep turncoats from testifying against his own crimes?
Click to expand...

I'd have a hard time imagining the Supreme Court ruling that exercise of an explicit executive power can be punished as a crime. I have an even harder time imagining what posture the case would have to be in to meet the A3 case & controversy requirement.
 
Mr Person said:
I'd have a hard time imagining the Supreme Court ruling that exercise of an explicit executive power can be punished as a crime. I have an even harder time imagining what posture the case would have to be in to meet the A3 case & controversy requirement.
Click to expand...

The Governor of Illinois had the power to appoint a replacement Senator for Obama. He is in prison because of it.
 
haymarket said:
The Governor of Illinois had the power to appoint a replacement Senator for Obama. He is in prison because of it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand how that lines up with charging the President with obstruction of justice for issuing a pardon, if you're thinking of the governor I am.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges



It sounds like that even though you know that the subject is the idea of charging Trump with obstruction of justice for hypothetically using his federal constitutional duty of pardon, you decided to move the goal post over to any sort of executive power vested in any individual simply because of the wording of my post. Yet I quoted what I was responding to, which contained the subject, and my post should have been read in that contest.

At any rate, what Blago did is nothing like the hypothetical involving Trump.
 
Mr Person said:
I'm not sure I understand how that lines up with charging the President with obstruction of justice for issuing a pardon, if you're thinking of the governor I am.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges



It sounds like that even though you know that the subject is the idea of charging Trump with obstruction of justice for hypothetically using his federal constitutional duty of pardon, you decided to move the goal post over to any sort of executive power vested in any individual simply because of the wording of my post. Yet I quoted what I was responding to, which contained the subject, and my post should have been read in that contest.

At any rate, what Blago did is nothing like the hypothetical involving Trump.
Click to expand...

The point is a simple one: one can use a legal power for illegal purposes.
 
Mycroft said:
I only see one thing preventing the use of a presidential pardon in the scenario you describe: Manafort saying, "Why? Trump will pardon me of anything you convict me of anyway. So who cares?" That would be an unlikely, stupid thing for Manafort to say to Mueller. It's more likely Manafort would say nothing...and just not flip.

So...let's say Mueller charges Manafort for a crime to get him to flip. Manafort doesn't flip. Mueller then takes the Manafort case to trial. That trial convicts Manafort. And then, Trump pardons Manafort.

Okay?

Unless Trump comes right out and tells the world he and Manafort had a deal...and that's why Manafort didn't flip...any accusations of Trump using his pardoning power for obstruction of justice are just that...accusations. Without any proof.
Click to expand...

Does it have to go to trial??
I would say no, and use Ford's pardon of Nixon as precedent
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/freq... a federal offense against the United States?
 
Mycroft said:
If Manafort isn't tried and convicted, there is no need for Trump to pardon him.
Click to expand...
Nixon was not tried, not convicted, yet Fords pardon prevented any legal actions after his resignation.
Question is a guilty plea, as In Gen Cartwright lying to the FBI, required or can he pardon on a blanket basis, best term I can think of referring to Nixon's pardon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom