No, Trump can't pardon himself. The Constitution tells us so.

[DonViejo]

By Laurence H. Tribe, Richard Painter and Norman Eisen July 21 at 7:58 PM

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, was chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007 and is vice-chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2011 and is chair of CREW.

Can a president pardon himself? Four days before Richard Nixon resigned, his own Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opined no, citing “the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case.” We agree.

The Justice Department was right that guidance could be found in the enduring principles that no one can be both the judge and the defendant in the same matter, and that no one is above the law.

The Constitution specifically bars the president from using the pardon power to prevent his own impeachment and removal. It adds that any official removed through impeachment remains fully subject to criminal prosecution. That provision would make no sense if the president could pardon himself.

The pardon provision of the Constitution is there to enable the president to act essentially in the role of a judge of another person’s criminal case, and to intervene on behalf of the defendant when the president determines that would be equitable. For example, the president might believe the courts made the wrong decision about someone’s guilt or about sentencing; President Barack Obama felt this way about excessive sentences for low-level drug offenses. Or the president might be impressed by the defendant’s subsequent conduct and, using powers far exceeding those of a parole board, might issue a pardon or commutation of sentence.

Other equitable considerations could also weigh in favor of leniency. A president might choose to grant a pardon before prosecution of a person when the president believes that the prosecution is not in the national interest; President Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon in part for this reason.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-trump-cant-pardon-himself-the-constitution-tells-us-so/2017/07/21/f3445d74-6e49-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

1. A self pardon is an admission of guilt.

Trump would never admit to making a mistake. I don't mean this as a snark. He is a narcissist of the first class. Mistake making would never come into play in his mind. I believe, though I may be wrong, that he has even said that he never makes mistakes.

[Chemisse]

6. He would just say he needed a pardon because he was being persecuted.

It's a witch hunt, Mueller's people are all Dems, etc.

Some of his people would buy into that.

[rock]

9. It doesn't matter

The receiver of a pardon must be contrite and confess to the crime and say he's sorry.

[Igel]

10. We've been through this.

People may have forgotten, or, if they're too young, never learned about it, but it was discussed long and hard. It was before DU was established. It was a bit of a partisan scandal, to be honest--yet another (R) attack on a Clinton. But the facts are pertinent.

The presidential pardon of somebody who (a) had not been tried and (b) who never confessed guilt but only ever said he was innocent was issued and it stood. It didn't matter that the alleged offender was behind a rather large campaign contribution and the pardon looked mercenary. It was valid. No court ruling on its validity and it wasn't rescinded.

In that case, there was no "second judge" or judge at all. Charges were filed, I think, but the pardon voided any chance of a trial. Courts don't do moot things. Except moot courts, but they're not real courts and service a purpose--training or some other academic purpose.

If the pardon had been issued earlier, it would have made any investigation. "I'm investigating this suspect." "Well, if you dig up evidence he's guilty, it doesn't matter. He's pardoned." Prosecutors have better things to do than conduct investigations that are moot. In fact, if they continue to investigate that particular person for that particular offense there'd be a good chance it would be taken as a personal vendetta and their ethics could be properly impugned.

It was argued at the time that by accepting the pardon the alleged offender was admitting guilt. Those who accepted the argument mostly sought the conclusion that argument would lead to and already believed it. Most of those who rejected the argument didn't like the conclusion. In other words, most people chose their opinion as to the argument's validity based upon their pre-existing beliefs about the alleged offender: The argumentation wasn't reasoned, it was rhetorical. (I'd never heard of the guy. Strikes me that there's no official acceptance of an pardon. It's issued, it's filed, and you're notified about it. The implication of guilt made by the pardoner isn't obligatorily true just because the receiver fails to deny it. The pardoner can assume one thing, even just provisionally, and says nothing veridical about the status of the pardonee. Silence in this case is just silence.)

[onetexan]

2. That's correct, no it isnt

Agent Orange isn't going to get away with it

[MoonRiver]

3. I sure hope he tries though, maybe in a tweet!

[Gabi Hayes]

4. If it looks really bad all he has to do is pardon

Bullet head, then resign

Pence then pardons him

Doc Savage is deep in this, too, so he needs that deal as much as DT

[BainsBane]

5. The court would have to uphold that interpretation

And if Trump gets desperate enough, he may risk it. He knows the GOP lacks spine, something they are demonstrating yet again by failing to denounce ithe trial balloon Trump floated.

[Gothmog]

7. I agree with Prof Tribe

[Cicada]

8. Judge Richard Posner has a great answer

He says it likely wouldn't work. He pardons himself, later leaves office, and a prosecutor indicts him. The judge must rule on the validity of the pardon. Posner, an original creative genius, argues that judges do what they think is best and write down legal reasons to reach that result. He says judges don't really give a fuck what the law is, that their opinions are make believe. He said Scalia had that original intent lingo only because that lingo usually lead to the conservative results he liked, etc. he says a judge of Trump will think - Christ I don't want to write an opinion saying OK future Presidents you are free to break any laws you want. ALSO Posner says granting yourself a pardon is also obstruction of justice, even if your pardon for urinating on private property works.

Posner writes on a huge range of topics. It seems like he can write a new book every lunch hour. He is transcendently brilliant.

[grantcart]

13. The question is will 5 justices of the Supreme Court agree.

[workinclasszero]

11. What do you make of this then?

Yes, Trump Could Pardon Himself. Then All Hell Would Break Loose
It’s never been tried. Here’s how it could blow up his presidency, or blow up the system.
By RICHARD PRIMUS July 21, 2017

This week’s eye-popping constitutional question: Can President Trump pardon himself for criminal wrongdoing? With the Russia scandal swirling more intensely around the White House every week, the Washington Post reported Friday morning that the president might be considering pardoning himself and members of his family as a way of fending off legal consequences for whatever special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation turns up.

A self-pardon would be something new in American history — and just the kind of departure from prior norms that typifies Trump. The Constitution doesn’t specify whether the president can pardon himself, and no court has ever ruled on the issue, because no president has ever been brazen enough to try it.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/21/yes-trump-could-pardon-himself-then-all-hell-would-break-loose-215405?lo=ap_d1

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029358409

[H2O Man]

12. Recommended.

Though he can't, it will be interesting to see if he tries to.