Dumb question about presidential pardonings. Bear with me here.

[smirkymonkey]

I know the president can't pardon anyone for a state crime, but is there any condition under which he would be unable to pardon someone for a federal crime (such as his own impeachment, the nature of his or the accused's crimes, etc.)? Would the pardoning powers be passed on indefinitely? i.e. would the accused just be able to be pardoned by the next republican president in office?

Is there any way that the power of the presidential pardon could be restricted by constitutional law? I think we are finally seeing how - in the wrong hands - this is a power that can be dangerously abused. I think the original intent may have had merit, but it just seems to have gone horribly wrong as we are seeing now.

[DetlefK]

1. IIRC a President cannot pardon somebody for a crime where he himself was involved.

I have heard the speculation that Mueller has sealed indictments on Trump: If Trump tries to pardon Papadopolous, Flynn or Manafort, Mueller unseals the indictment and uses the pardon as an argument to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice. (Don't know if this would work. That's how I understood it.)

[smirkymonkey]

3. That's good to know! Very helpful!

Thank you! So it turns out, this whole crooked bunch could end up in prison if Trump himself was found to be in on the whole racket?

Pleeeeease! Let it be true. I honestly don't think the decent people in this country could survive a crime of this magnitude if these bastards ended up walking away from it with no repercussions.

[CK_John]

4. I do not believe DT45 will give any one a pardon, it's not his nature.

[Eliot Rosewater]

5. He will use pardons the way he does everything else, as bribes and rewards for loyalty

He has no conscience or morals and would pardon Hitler if it gained him somehow.

[dalton99a]

8. Joe Arpaio.

[brooklynite]

7. Not correct...

The Constitution does not limit pardon power for Federal Crimes. What you have heard is the opinion of “legal experts”.

[Cicada]

2. He can pardon anyone except probably himself

These is a long tradition in law that no one can be his own judge. The Supremes would be unlikely to support a self pardon because that would mean the President would be above the law, it would permit him to murder his opponent in a reelection campaign, clearly violating our constitutional system.

And his pardons could constitute obstruction of justice if they were just a scheme to spare himself.

[brooklynite]

6. The Constitution is not built on Tradition,,,

The only limitation is crimes for which impeachment is the remedy.

[Cicada]

9. We get a read on what courts will do by looking at what they have done in the past

The legal traditions when the constitution was written also help us understand what the framers intended.

[brooklynite]

10. Okay; another tradition is non-interference in another Branchs pervue.

[Cicada]

15. I agree, thats why there is a difference in views of jurisprudes

Smart law professors differ on this question because you have a strong argument yet your view can lead to a bad result. And as the frighteningly smart Richard Posner says judges figure out the best results then make up legal reasons to justify that result.

[GeorgeGist]

11. Only SCOTUS knows ...

and they haven't been asked.

[unblock]

12. the only explicit restriction is in cases of impeachment. however, abuse could be impeachable.

so if pence is somehow up for impeachment first, donnie couldn't pardon him to prevent an impeachment.

donnie could legally pardon flynn, manafort, and his whole family (except possibly himself).
*however*, mueller and then congress could decide that doing so amounts to an impeachable offense.

not that impeachable offenses ("high crimes and misdemeanors&quot originally was meant to focus more on abuse of the powers of office, not "ordinary" crimes. in this case, pardoning all your cronies for no reason other than to protect yourself and your inner circle could be considered a "high crime", even though each individual pardon would be legal.

that means all the pardons would stand, even if donnie were to be impeached and removed for abuse of power.


note that there's much about pardons the supreme court has never opined on, because some questions have never formally reached them. no president has ever tried to pardon himself, for instance. obviously the founders did not want to create a tyrant, but you'd have to rely on an interpretation of the word "pardon" and argue that it inherently involves two different people. not clear the supreme court would buy this argument. if they don't, then donnie could even pardon himself.


one would hope that even a republican congress would see this as an impeachable abuse of power, but these are republicans we're talking about....

[smirkymonkey]

13. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Of course you know if there is any way for them to skirt around the law, they will find it. I just hope by the time these charges come down we have a democratic congress.

[unblock]

14. indeed, the republican party is now the party of corruption, not the party of conservativism.

there's nothing they're conserving other than the wealth and power of extraordinarily rich people and their heirs.

they certainly don't believe in the rule of law as they're happy to ignore it for the sake of power.