Secret Pardons? My Wrinkled Old Ass!

[MineralMan]

If Trump pulls those out, especially for himself, the question will make itself very quickly to the SCOTUS. Since the topic of secret pardons is not addressed in the Constitution, the court will have to dig into things like recorded writings by the authors of the Constitution. It will also look at Common Law, which it has done in the past.

The key question is "Can someone judge him or herself for a crime?" The answer to that in Common Law is a clear no. Even on a purely logical basis, the answer is simple. If that were possible, any judge could commit a murder and then declare himself innocent. That would never stand.

A criminal cannot expunge his own criminality. If that were OK, every criminal would attempt to do so. That's obviously not permitted in our legal system, no matter who the criminal is. If Trump broke federal laws, the idea that he could pardon himself is so patently invalid that the discussion in the SCOTUS would be brief, I believe. Of course he cannot.

Such a thing is not mentioned in the Constitution because it is ridiculous on its face, just on logical grounds.

It is a ridiculous idea on its face.

[liberalmuse]

1. I agree. The pardoned official would have to prove the crime was committed before the pardon.

A pardon shouldn't be given to cronies, oneself or used like a get out of jail free card for future crimes. It is indeed ridiculous and is a slap in the face to rule of law and justice.

[dawg day]

2. How can he even do a "secret pardon"? Where is it recorded? When would it be revealed?

Has there ever been such a thing?

[Disaffected]

16. Sure, it's sort of like

Double Secret Probation.

[Ferrets are Cool]

3. Your use of the word "quickly" is the part that most are contesting.

While I agree with every word you said in your post, the "quickly" part may be wishful thinking on our part. Many scholars are saying that this can be drug out in the courts for a long time. Who knows, they could be very wrong.

[MineralMan]

7. I doubt that it would wend its way slowly through the courts.

It is too fundamental a question.

[MineralMan]

4. For a discussion of the Supreme Court and Common Law, see:

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

The article is a good start.

[exboyfil]

5. If he can then the President can have personal hit teams

to prevent any impeachment vote. He is a king for four years. Any political opponent can never be in the District of Columbia under the threat of being executed. The fact that the legislators in the GOP aren't moving towards rapid impeachment means that they consider party over the Constitution. That night instead of fighting the vote count the House should have been voting on impeachment articles with Roberts and the Senate ready to receive them the next morning.

Trump's only mistake was not going big earlier. The next GOP President is learning that lesson.

The Legislative branch was attacked, and the GOP doesn't give a shit. Next it might be the Judicial branch too.

[BrightKnight]

10. A Trump political Schutzstaffel is exactly what he wanted.

He was not even subtle about it. That sounds like wingnut hyperbole but unfortunately it is not.

[Pantagruel]

6. Having an unscrupulous scoundrel

as POTUS is exposing a lot of ridiculous flaws in both the Constitution and our governing protocols.
Was the "emoluments clause" ignored because it was unenforceable? Does the Hatch Act have no teeth? The Electoral College is also "ridiculous on its face". Just a few examples. We need to "fix" a lot of stuff.

[intrepidity]

8. So much this

but how do we fix it?

[exboyfil]

13. Secession

I don't see any other alternative. We are quickly moving towards two countries. They are going to reinforce gerrymandering where they can by splitting the Electoral College vote by District for battleground states. Next election could have a 10 million popular vote deficit and still see a GOP President.

[Cartoonist]

9. He thinks he's a secret emperor. nt

[PJMcK]

11. A question

Here's a hypothetical. Trump gets indicted for a criminal act and he reveals that he granted himself a pardon for any crimes he may have committed while president.

How does he prove that it was granted when he still had the authority to grant pardons? Is it notarized? If so, there would be a Federal record, I believe.

Your argument that it's illogical to be able to grant oneself a pardon is another hurdle. It would never pass judicial review.

When he faces criminal indictments and civil suits, he'll do the same shit he's always used. I don't think his old games will work out for him this time.

[dsc]

12. I wonder that as well

I don't see how such pardon would work as a practical matter. If iron clad proof weren't required then he could just write the pardon anytime but if it is required, it can't be truly secret.

[RockRaven]

14. If a pardon is "secret" and then only produced when the criminal is charged, how is the court

to know that it wasn't just written in response to the arrest/indictment? If there's no record of it anywhere else, it could be a recently made document. In other words, a forgery. A fraud. Bogus.

If there's no record of this so-called pardon in the possession of the federal government (either executive or judiciary) right now, then it should never in the future be acknowledged to legitimately exist. If Trump goes into a courtroom and waves around a piece of paper of unknown provenance, that piece of paper should carry no weight with the courts.

[obamanut2012]

15. BOOM!

What MM said.