Presidential Pardons

From FoxNews: (Well... FoxNews reporting on the Washington Post so maybe this is fake news...though Trump did bring up pardons in his tweeting...)

Trump, Lawyers Discussing Pardons...

President Donald Trump and his legal team are discussing his authority to grant pardons a...according to a Washington Post report late Thursday Opens a New Window.



Trump isn't the 1st President to use and/or consider using pardons. Bill Clinton pardoned some people (his brother if I'm not mistaken). Ford pardoned Nixon.

So the questions are (well, my questions... I suppose there are many questions...):

What do "you" think about Presidential Pardons in general...good things, bad things, depends, etc.?

What about relative to this Russia interference and/or collusion issue...appropriate, inappropriate, sane, insane, etc?

What does the pardon say about the person being pardoned...does it suggest guilt, it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, etc?

What does the pardon say about the president giving the pardon, if anything?

What about a President pardoning himself?

What if Hillary had won, and was pardoned by Obama before her inauguration?

Perhaps "you" think this is a tempest in a tea pot, if so, why would Trump bring it up in the 1st place.

Etc...?

Note: I don't know if other countries leaders have the power to pardon. If your country's leader has the power, think of my questions relative to your country's system.

Also, I do have an opinion, but withhold it for now...

i never quite understand the logical with the politically pardons, seen to have to do with saving face than else. that i think of. these pardons are covering up to protect the blame of the crime, than enforce. these so-called political convicts serve their time or not serviced time. like they are above the law, and anyone get pardon.

with watergate, people, who were gulity were pardons or serviced in prisons were mostly, living in penhouses with bars on them. where is the justice for a crime that stole from millions of americans?

all, they get is a slap on the hand.

It Depends!

In the case of pardoning non-violent offenders of some arcane or over-zealous law, I call it compassion. In these cases, often times the Gov't pardoner only really knows them via paper.

Then there is pardoning those who took part in a crime by direction of a superior. That's kind of a "You got caught up in some s***, so here's some kudos"

Then there is pardoning those who directly took part in a crime, on their own volition. Unless there's some altruistic motive behind it, it's gotta be because of someone you know.

What about a President pardoning himself?


sound tacky.

it depends on the crime. if george bush, sr. ordered the bombing of the town that had what-his-name buried under the ground. the bombing of the whole town bits killed everyone in the town.

how would a normal human being, if he is potus, could not blame himself act of murder. he is a mass murder. what excuses could the government have for him to cover up for him. if the mission was failure, and the bombs couldn't reach what-his-face. these innocent people was sentence to their death to protect their ruler.

What about a President pardoning himself?

there is no excuses for potus have that right!

I've always just kind of found it odd that it's a Presidential Pardon instead of a DOJ Secretary pardon. Like, you'd think that if it involves pardoning someone, that power would be in the hands of the DOJ, not the president. As for what I think about the tool in general? It's like most others. You don't necessarily need it to do your job but it's a tool that has it's place and uses.



Well, personally, if I were facing a problem, no matter what it is, I'd prefer to know all of my options and tools, even the ones that might raise eyebrows with others. In that light, I can't really blame Trump for looking into options.



Not necessarily. Although it certainly implies that either the person giving the pardon believes that they are guilty, or that there is a reasonable chance that said person could be convicted. I was trying to figure out if someone had to be convicted in order to be pardoned, but then I remembered that Richard Nixon was never actually convicted of a crime and Ford still pardoned him, so I guess not.



I suppose that depends on circumstance and what you already believe about the person giving the pardon already. For instance, Ford pardoning Nixon could either be seen as Ford agreeing to cover Nixon's ass, or it could be seen as Ford just wanting to bury everything in the hopes that it doesn't end up becoming a giant sideshow distraction for his own administration. The same could be argued about Obama refusing to actively follow up on war crime allegations against Bush.



I believe that specifically might end up being a hard sell to the Supreme Court, provided one crucial detail. A president seemingly has free reign to pardon anyone he or she wishes with a single exception. A President can pardon anyone except in cases of impeachment. This is also probably why Richard Nixon could not pardon himself and Ford had to do it instead after Nixon had already left office.

Assuming no impeachment proceedings, which seems pretty likely as long as Republicans control Congress, than the same rationale provided above would apply here. Namely, either Trump, or any other president, would either believe they are about to get caught and cover their own ass, or they would believe they are innocent and just want to put this whole thing to rest and move on.



Honestly, Hillary was probably going to have an uphill battle regardless of if she had won. Those allegations and all the other s*** that came out around her, even though most of them were unsubstantiated, would definitely had followed her through her term(s). Pardoning her would have definitely thrown more wood on the fire, and only would have actually helped her if she were guilty.



My main question after hearing this was, 'If Trump pardoned himself, would the investigation end?'

I don't believe a president (or governor) should pardon themselves. Pardoning family is disturbing, but technically ok

I also stand by that a pardon means admitting being completely guilty. You don't pardon the innocent. Pardons are about reducing the punishment.
If someone is innocent, then you fight to get the conviction overturned. Which makes it a judicial issue not an executive one.

As a side note, I'm not really down with pardoning or reducing sentences on treason. Every where it's been done, it brings about a whole new set of problems.

it might interesting that another county, like paliament in england. that comply bias by our laws. that they have the right to pardon potus.

I'm not a fan of pardons. I don't see much good coming from them.

I sort of get the idea of commuting a sentence, particularly a death sentence.

If I were a prosecutor and thought that a president might pardon the subjects of my case, I might try to wait out the president...that is wait until the President was no longer president, and then file the appropriate charges. (Of course some crimes come with statues of limitation, so its not a 100%)

As to a president pardoning himself, I find this to be an absurd idea.

Still the fix is "easy"... impeach the president 1st, kick him out of office, then press criminal charges...i.e. wait until the president no longer has the power to pardon.

Trump won't have to pardon himself,

as long as he gets rid of Sessions, Mueller and the Russian Investigation