Preet Bharara: The president pardoning himself is 'almost self-executing impeachment'

[DonViejo]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/former-us-attorney-preet-bharara-president-pardoning-almost-self-executing-impeachment/

[Me.]

1. Self Executing

sound good to me

[unblock]

2. Second point, of course they're contemplating it

“The second thing is, when Rudy Giuliani says… the president is not contemplating [pardoning himself],” the former U.S. Attorney continued, “I have no faith in that whatsoever.”



Of course they're contemplating it. Why would they bring it up if they're not?

[bitterross]

5. Exactly right. They are considering. It requires admission of guilt though - Impeachment.

The admission of guilt is probably where he gets the idea of self-executing impeachment.

If he pardons himself and accepts it, he has to admit guilt. At that point, it is incumbent upon congress to impeach. He will have admitted to high crimes and misdemeanors.

[unblock]

7. No, it doesn't.

Pardons can be used to free innocent people wrongly convicted, for example. Obviously there's no admission of guilt there, that would make no sense.

The notion that accepting a pardon implies admission of guilt comes from dicta in a specific case involving the government trying to give someone a pardon against their will in order to get around 5th amendment protections and to compel self-testimony.

I don't think any Supreme Court would hold that all pardons imply an admission of guilt.

[bitterross]

8. Seems the admission of guilt part is not as clear-cut as I thought. You could be correct.

I did some more research based on your post. Opinion is quite divided on the subject.

In this specific case, I'd just make the argument that given pattern of behavior, public and private statements that have come to light it would be hard to conclude the pardon is anything other than an admission of guilt. A way to prevent actual prosecution.

My argument that it would not be just necessary, but compulsory, for congress to impeach and convict still stands.

On edit: I must admit I never understood why people who were pardoned for being innocent would have to admit guilt. As you say, that makes no sense. It seems that some opinions are that the pardon is worded in a way to convey the innocence and in other cases it is not.

[unblock]

9. I agree with the need for impeach, though for different reasons.

I think even the attemp at self-pardon is a high crime and misdemeanor. Whether it stands or not, it's clearly an abuse of power. Not because of any admission of guilt, but because it's an effort to put himself above the law.

Separately, I think he's made many public statements that collectively amount to an admission of guilt. He's sure not behaving like an innocent man....

[duforsure]

3. I agree

He's desperately probing for ways out of this now, trying anything that'll stick and allow him to escape justice.

[Wellstone ruled]

4. This Guy knows of what he says.

And this is a Man who has had to deal with the Trump Crime Syndicate as well as Rudy the Mob Lawyer.

[Gothmog]

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

From Prof. Tribe and others 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?utm_term=.a066d8b411f4

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.....

President Trump thinks he can do a lot of things just because he is president. He says that the president can act as if he has no conflicts of interest. He says that he can fire the FBI director for any reason he wants (and he admitted to the most outrageous of reasons in interviews and in discussion with the Russian ambassador). In one sense, Trump is right — he can do all of these things, although there will be legal repercussions if he does. Using official powers for corrupt purposes — such as impeding or obstructing an investigation — can constitute a crime.

But there is one thing we know that Trump cannot do — without being a first in all of human history. He cannot pardon himself.