Hypothetical- Trump shoots Comey. Reps don't impeach. Trump can't be touched

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Actually, that too is a metaphor.

Get a grip, OK? The structure of our Constitutional govt is such that Giuliani is correct. It's been that way all along.


Do you agree with the President that he can pardon himself?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackstar7

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
That is your speculation and has no standing in law. Besides firing an individual does not end a prosecution. The SCOTUS would not go with that any more than NIxon was in his claims of "it's not illegal if the President does it".

While it may have been metaphor you argue that Trump could shoot people every hour until impeached and not suffer legal consequences. Again the SCOTUS has some idea about what the Constitution means and what was intended.

That's not the argument I made.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
That's not the argument I made.

The argument hinges on what is permitted and what is not.

Can the President pardon himself? Trump and his side say yes. That means not just saying "I pardon myself" but that it is factual and stands, that he can let himself off.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
OMG, You are loosing it.

Just imagine... Ancient Aliens. :rolleyes:


Aaaaaaand here it is, from the Big D himself :

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1003616210922147841

As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!

Hahahahaha .. at some point you must start to realize what you have done, not only the the US but to the world.... All for the grand price of sticking it to the libs... Why you hate me? I dont hate you!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
You know for a totally innocent guy he spends a lot of time talking about how he can't be indicted or convicted of any crimes.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Aaaaaaand here it is, from the Big D himself :

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1003616210922147841



Hahahahaha .. at some point you must start to realize what you have done, not only the the US but to the world.... All for the grand price of sticking it to the libs... Why you hate me? I dont hate you!


Politics is very much sport as evidenced by behaviors on the forum. Perhaps more like religion in some instances when the protection of the Priesthood and their dogmatic ways are primary to all else. One challenges the Faith as pronounced by the Vatican and one is a heretic. Orthodoxy is pronounced and it is gospel. We will even eat our own, not just others if Faith demands.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
You know for a totally innocent guy he spends a lot of time talking about how he can't be indicted or convicted of any crimes.

He knows what we think of him and does not understand why we don't accept him without question. That feeds paranoia that he will be unfairly targeted and therefore claims immunity as a defense.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
He knows what we think of him and does not understand why we don't accept him without question. That feeds paranoia that he will be unfairly targeted and therefore claims immunity as a defense.

It is pretty much analogous to the system is rigged and only accepting the outcome if he wins... Hence the only way to win is to rig the election your self.
Here he is again, rigging the system, but only cause it is so unfair to him - and that more than justifies it. It is only fair.

edit: If Trump pardons himself right now, wouldnt that mean the special counsel would have to pack up and go home right now too while waiting for the legal stuff around pardons to be settled?
 
Last edited:

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
He's probably right about the legality of bringing a criminal case to a sitting president, although it's never been formally tested. Regardless, I think they would certainly subpoena and indict should something like that happen, and they would make their case in court. If Trump's legal arguments prevail, then Congress would be the only recourse.

However, saying shit like this is really telling about the state of things. If Giuliani has to go on TV to say that, then you know it's because they're fearful of some serious heat. But having these kinds of discussions really deflates the inanity of it all. It's effective at keeping our minds off realizing just how f'd up things are. And it works. I can logically recognize that, but honestly I'm not very emotionally compelled anymore.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
He's probably right about the legality of bringing a criminal case to a sitting president, although it's never been formally tested. Regardless, I think they would certainly subpoena and indict should something like that happen, and they would make their case in court. If Trump's legal arguments prevail, then Congress would be the only recourse.

I think Rudy would be shown dead wrong. The SCOTUS looks for meaning, not just reading by rote from the Constitution. Was the intent in creating the Constitution to allow a Divine Right of Kings type of Ruler to be proper? If they just looked at the Constitution free of context then we'd be in a very different society.

Once an official, even a President, holds himself above the law by virtue of position he has gone against all intent, and the SCOTUS, especially Conservatives like Gorsuch will hand Trump his ass in his hand.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,907
136
Anyone notice how we went from...

"no contact with Russians"

to...

"I can pardon myself"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aegeon

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
I have wondered about the system of Presidential pardons and the reliance on impeachment as the only means to deal with law-breaking Presidents.

The Constitution, although it's not explicit as to whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime, it's probably reasonably how it was intended. The constitution is also not explicit about whether a President can pardon themself, although that seems more reasonable to argue that they wouldn't have intended that, but regardless the President does have broad pardoning powers. Federal pardoning powers. Thing is, back then, the Federal government basically dealt with treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. It was not imagined that the federal government would swell this way and have a broad array of crimes at the federal level. It was likely that they imagined a criminal president would be impeached and then prosecuted at a state level, where not only could they not pardon themselves, no President could.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
I think Rudy would be shown dead wrong. The SCOTUS looks for meaning, not just reading by rote from the Constitution. Was the intent in creating the Constitution to allow a Divine Right of Kings type of Ruler to be proper? If they just looked at the Constitution free of context then we'd be in a very different society.

Once an official, even a President, holds himself above the law by virtue of position he has gone against all intent, and the SCOTUS, especially Conservatives like Gorsuch will hand Trump his ass in his hand.

I would hope that would be the case, but it would have to happen to find out. Regardless, I think this is all a bunch of show to normalize the abuse of power Trump has committed which isn't as concrete as murder.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I'd be willing to bet Trump would make a call out to his supporters and have them surround the White House to prevent that very thing.

Its already current policy a sitting President can't be charged with a crime. Even if Republicans grew a pair It would probably take 3-4 weeks for impeachment and removal. Can't arrest until then. Them's the rules.
And if someone broke those rules, who would enforce them?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I think Rudy would be shown dead wrong. The SCOTUS looks for meaning, not just reading by rote from the Constitution. Was the intent in creating the Constitution to allow a Divine Right of Kings type of Ruler to be proper? If they just looked at the Constitution free of context then we'd be in a very different society.

Once an official, even a President, holds himself above the law by virtue of position he has gone against all intent, and the SCOTUS, especially Conservatives like Gorsuch will hand Trump his ass in his hand.

Gawd. Under Divine Right there is no recourse. Under the Constitution recourse begins with impeachment, which is what Rudy said. He did not say Trump can pardon himself, either.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I would hope that would be the case, but it would have to happen to find out. Regardless, I think this is all a bunch of show to normalize the abuse of power Trump has committed which isn't as concrete as murder.

There's cause for concern I freely admit. The attack against in support of wrongs is strong and resistance largely insists on being futile, assuming a fetal position and occasionally muttering something. While I can be discouraged, I have been and still am, I can also choose to refuse surrender and inaction and support a material and growing resistance our self inflicted evils.

Edited for seriously wrong word.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Gawd. Under Divine Right there is no recourse. Under the Constitution recourse begins with impeachment, which is what Rudy said. He did not say Trump can pardon himself, either.

Murder with immunity from the law is nothing short of that kind of power. That Congress MIGHT act is hardly a mitigation of your defense. Rudy says Trump probably could pardon himself. The letter in January declared that Trump had that power and Trump now did as well. Since you have no more legal basis in suppositions about legal immunity while the Constitution places no explicit prohibition against self-pardon, you have no internally consistent argument here, and defend Trump with less basis for what you say he can't do.

Freedom to kill until impeachment. Astounding claim, one which has considerable opinion against. Those overwhelmingly are supporters of Trump.

It is a good thing that most Dems are not so favorably predisposed to such opinions.

Edit- I'm a registered Dem these days. Suprise! I do so without commitment to any person or thing. I reserve my free will and will disagree when I deem warranted. No party or political ideology will be my master. Having said that the Republicans need to be defeated and any excuses by those in the Dem party are insufficient when no will is demonstrated.
 
Last edited:

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,907
136
Gawd. Under Divine Right there is no recourse. Under the Constitution recourse begins with impeachment, which is what Rudy said. He did not say Trump can pardon himself, either.
Here is what Rudy said
President Trump’s attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani publicly pressed Trump’s expansive view of executive power this weekend, arguing on two Sunday TV shows that the president probably has the sweeping constitutional authority to pardon even himself.

“He probably does,” Giuliani said, when asked on ABC’s “This Week” if Trump has the ability to pardon himself. “He has no intention of pardoning himself, but he probably — not to say he can’t.”
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
You need to unfuck this situation ASAP.

I'm working on it! :D

Alas, if I only could wave the magic wand. No, that's tantamount to the Ring of Power and I have Gandalf's fear about such things. Perhaps, maybe do a tiny part towards a larger whole might be done. We citizens have that power.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Murder with immunity from the law is nothing short of that kind of power. That Congress MIGHT act is hardly a mitigation of your defense. Rudy says Trump probably could pardon himself. The letter in January declared that Trump had that power and Trump now did as well. Since you have no more legal basis in suppositions about legal immunity while the Constitution places no explicit prohibition against self-pardon, you have no internally consistent argument here, and defend Trump with less basis for what you say he can't do.

Freedom to kill until impeachment. Astounding claim, one which has considerable opinion against. Those overwhelmingly are supporters of Trump.

It is a good thing that most Dems are not so favorably predisposed to such opinions.

Edit- I'm a registered Dem these days. Suprise! I do so without commitment to any person or thing. I reserve my free will and will disagree when I deem warranted. No party or political ideology will be my master. Having said that the Republicans need to be defeated and any excuses by those in the Dem party are insufficient when no will is demonstrated.

False premises lead to false conclusions. The Framers plainly saw that a department run by the President cannot be tasked with holding him to account. The concept is absurd. It must be an entirely different branch of govt & they made it Congress. Presidents can even defy the SCOTUS if Congress refuses to act. Reference Andrew Jackson.

None of it is about the way we think it should be but rather about the structure & separation of powers spelled out by the Constitution.

Rudy's remark that Trump could "probably" pardon himself is knowing bullshit on his part. It would violate one of the greatest underlying principles of the Law itself- Nemo iudex in causa sua. If you don't know what that means, use your Google-fu.

So let's play out this fantasy that Trump is indicted, convicted & imprisoned. He's still President with all the power that entails until removed from office by Congress or until his term expires. That renders your whole approach absurd.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,907
136
False premises lead to false conclusions. The Framers plainly saw that a department run by the President cannot be tasked with holding him to account. The concept is absurd. It must be an entirely different branch of govt & they made it Congress. Presidents can even defy the SCOTUS if Congress refuses to act. Reference Andrew Jackson.

None of it is about the way we think it should be but rather about the structure & separation of powers spelled out by the Constitution.

Rudy's remark that Trump could "probably" pardon himself is knowing bullshit on his part. It would violate one of the greatest underlying principles of the Law itself- Nemo iudex in causa sua. If you don't know what that means, use your Google-fu.

So let's play out this fantasy that Trump is indicted, convicted & imprisoned. He's still President with all the power that entails until removed from office by Congress or until his term expires. That renders your whole approach absurd.
So why would one of Trump's strongest supporters knowingly lie? If IYO Trump and his people lie so easily how are we to know when they are lying? How are leaders of foreign countries supposed to know when they are lying?