- 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?
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.
Really? You know Trump is being sued for that so called metaphor.
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.
Do you agree with the President that he can pardon himself?
That's not the argument I made.
OMG, You are loosing it.
Just imagine... Ancient Aliens.![]()
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!
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!
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.
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 have wondered about the system of Presidential pardons and the reliance on impeachment as the only means to deal with law-breaking Presidents.
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.
And if someone broke those rules, who would enforce them?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.
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.
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 saidGawd. 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.
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.”
You need to unfuck this situation ASAP.
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.
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?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.
