Quick poll: should a POTUS be able to use power to protect themselves?

[Prutfis]

No surprise that your reading comprehension is shit tier

And no, the president should not have unchecked power to squash political foes or investigations against themselves. That's literally 3rd world shithole status.

Funny that the usual suspects have no problem adopting strongman dictator policies but refuse national healthcare on 'moral' grounds

He certainly wouldn´t have said the same if a dem had been president. Worthless tribal hackery at it´s finest.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

I love maximum OEUVRE rustle threads about Trump. Not only does he have a Trump AV, but he posts about him 24/7. It's a real syndrome folks...

 

[TheComebackKid]

Normally I would say no but when there is a clear coup taking place I think norms and standards are already out the window.

 

[waiguoren]

Yes I am.

Ok, so you're aware that the pardon power is unlimited. A president can never face legal repercussions merely for issuing a pardon. That's an unfortunate part of our system of government but it can't be denied.

 

[ScottE]

Ok, so you're aware that the pardon power is unlimited. A president can never face legal repercussions merely for issuing a pardon. That's an unfortunate part of our system of government but it can't be denied.

Would impeachment not be considered legal repercussions? Because a President can most certainly be impeached for abusing executive powers, including their ability to pardon. And again the ability of a President to pardon themselves is a dubious proposition at present.

 

[MeatheadMike]

Normally I would say no but when its my guy I think norms and standards are already out the window.

FIFY

 

[Rational Poster]

That's a common misconception among those without legal experience.

A president may pardon anyone for any reason at any time, even before the person is charged.

President Bush pardoned Weinberger before Weinberger was tried*, for example.


*I originally wrote "charged". Honest mistake.

*Tells ones of the few actual lawyers on the forum he doesn't have legal experience while actually having no legal experience besides Dershowitz youtube clips.*

 

[Letssnuggle]

Let’s ask the hidden question: should there be a way to override a presidential election (other than impeachment)?

No.

Hillary lost get over it.

 

[waiguoren]

a President can most certainly be impeached for abusing executive powers, including their ability to pardon.

The proper conditions for impeachment are a matter of debate. Even if there is a right answer, and even if that right answer is "impeachment is only reserved for serious crimes", it's really academic at this point. Congress already screwed up by impeaching President Johnson for violating an unconstitutional law. So in effect, I agree with you even though I think it's unfortunate.

And again the ability of a President to pardon themselves is a dubious proposition at present.

That's also academic at this point, since the likelihood of a sitting president even being indicted is remote.

 

[waiguoren]

*Tells ones of the few actual lawyers on the forum he doesn't have legal experience while actually having no legal experience besides Dershowitz youtube clips.*

The other guy claimed that a president can't pardon until after a conviction. That's just false, and I immediately cited precedent.

Who was right and who was wrong about the legal matter at issue? Try really hard not to let your preconceptions affect your answer. Your honor is on the line here, don't fuck this up.


Prediction: you won't give a straight answer.

 

[Andy Capp]

But he has done money laundering and tax evasion.
IMO if anything will bring him down is that. The whole Russian thing will go nowhere.
But if they are getting close to his money laundering he is going to resign.
Because that is going to put most of his family away for life.

We can only hope.

 

[Rational Poster]

The other guy claimed that a president can't pardon until after a conviction. That's just false, and I immediately cited precedent.

Who was right and who was wrong about the legal matter at issue? Try really hard not to let your preconceptions affect your answer. Your honor is on the line here, don't fuck this up.


Prediction: you won't give a straight answer.

lol my honor.

Like I give a shit what you think dude.

I know I'm in your head, you've tagged me into 3 convos I wasn't involved in.

Thanks for the free real estate kiddo.

 

[waiguoren]

lol my honor.

Like I give a shit what you think dude.

I know I'm in your head, you've tagged me into 3 convos I wasn't involved in.

Thanks for the free real estate kiddo.

Prediction confirmed! The GOAT does not lose. Ever.

 

[ScottE]

The proper conditions for impeachment are a matter of debate. Even if there is a right answer, and even if that right answer is "impeachment is only reserved for serious crimes", it's really academic at this point. Congress already screwed up by impeaching President Johnson for violating an unconstitutional law. So in effect, I agree with you even though I think it's unfortunate.



That's also academic at this point, since the likelihood of a sitting president even being indicted is remote.

Academic enough that the current president inquired into the possibility. Nor is it necessary that an indictment come before a pardon.

 

[waiguoren]

Academic enough that the current president inquired into the possibility.

If the president inquires into the possibility of perpetual motion machines, it's still academic.

Nor is it necessary that an indictment come before a pardon.

I agree with you. @panamaican disagreed in this very thread.

 

[Rational Poster]

Prediction confirmed! The GOAT does not lose. Ever.

Tag me more into your convos you e-peen waving dorkbag.

 

[Dirt Road Soldier]

It would be an awful, awful precedent to set and would lead to complete corruption of the Presidency.

 

[waiguoren]

It would be an awful, awful precedent to set and would lead to complete corruption of the Presidency.

The idea of separating the attorney general from the president is a new idea in our history, not an old idea. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln told their AGs who to investigate and for what crimes. Also, the AG is supposed to be both the president's lawyer and the nation's highest prosecutor, which can lead to conflicts of interest.

Don't you think it would be better to separate the prosecutorial power from the executive branch? Many other nations including Britain and Israel do so. Let's amend the constitution to separate these powers and weaken the power of the presidency.

 

[ScottE]

If the president inquires into the possibility of perpetual motion machines, it's still academic.




I agree with you. @panamaican disagreed in this very thread.

Sure if you want to be deluded enough to act that the president inquiring into his own ability to pardon himself while there are multiple investigations circling him is equivalent to the president inquiring about an unrelated to anything subject.

You would have been better off just citing his lack of understanding of government and his own office.

 

[waiguoren]

Sure if you want to be deluded enough to act that the president inquiring into his own ability to pardon himself while there are multiple investigations circling him is equivalent to the president inquiring about an unrelated to anything subject.

You appear to be a True Believer.

I'll account bet you that Mueller can't secure a conviction on President Trump for even a single charge.