Can Donald Trump pardon himself? The raging political debate goes on
By: Jonathan Turley (TheHill)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In the debate over pardons, some Democrats seem to be making the case for Donald Trump and against themselves. Consider Andrew Weissmann. After the recent pardons, he declared that Trump effectively proved the case for an obstruction charge against himself and called on prosecutors to summon those who were pardoned into grand juries with the threat of later perjury charges. It was unfounded and dubious. It was also vintage Weissmann, who made the case against himself as someone who shows bias against Trump that overwhelms all other considerations.
If Trump wants a rationale to pardon himself, he can look no further than Weissmann, who was appointed as a top aide to special counsel Robert Mueller. Trump and numerous Republicans denounced him as a donor to Barack Obama, and he was said to have attended the election night party for Hilliary Clinton in 2016. My objection was not to his affiliations but to his history, which included extreme interpretations that were ultimately rejected by courts. Weissmann was responsible for the overextension of an obstruction provision in a jury instruction that led the Supreme Court to reverse the conviction in the Arthur Andersen case in 2005.
Weissmann is now a media pundit who teaches at a New York University. After he left the office of the special counsel, he fulfilled every account of someone with insane bias against Trump, including his book that attacks prosecutors for refusing to take on his extreme views. Weissmann called on prosecutors to refuse to assist John Durham in his investigation and, after the pardon of Roger Stone, called for Stone in a grand jury.
Now Weissmann voices the kind of extreme interpretations that led many of us to criticize his tenure with the Justice Department. His most recent diatribe is illustrative of this. Many of us called out the recent pardons by Trump, ranging from corrupt former members of Congress to the father of Jared Kushner. However, Weissmann insists that the pardon of figures tied to the special counsel investigation is evidence of obstruction.
But these individuals were not pardoned to stop them from testifying or, with the case of Michael Flynn, from working with prosecutors, nor were they pardoned before they were tried and convicted. Former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for instance, served time in prison before he was released due concerns of the coronavirus. Former campaign aide George Papadopoulos and attorney Alex Van Der Zwaan served sentences. Flynn was convicted and should have been sentenced years earlier if not for a series of bizarre actions by the federal judge who heard his case.
Trump did not pardon his lawyer, Michael Cohen, when Cohen angled for his pardon. Instead, Cohen worked with Mueller, testified against Trump, and was sent to prison. That is a curious pattern for obstruction. Wait until everyone testifies and most are sent to prison before they are pardoned. It did not seem to have been obstruction that Bill Clinton notably pardoned his own friend and business partner in the Whitewater scandal.
Weissmann insists that, when Trump is out of office, there is no barrier to indict him for obstruction and have all these figures appear before grand juries. The problem is the same one Weissmann faced for his disastrous role in the prosecution of Andersen. Weissmann simply misunderstands criminal obstruction. Indeed, he may have the longest learning curve in legal history on this issue. Not even a unanimous rejection of his views by the Supreme Court for the case of Andersen seems to register with him, particularly when the law stands in the way of pursuing Trump.
I testified in the impeachment hearing on the flaws with this obstruction theory. Mueller himself did not find a case for an obstruction charge. He listed the alleged acts of obstruction discussed in the media but did not find the critical element of intent to support the charge. That was also the point that former Attorney General William Barr tried to make in his press conference on the summary of the special counsel investigation. Despite different ideas of obstruction, there was no doubt that it would take intent to prosecute. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also said under oath last year that there was no evidence of obstruction.
None of this matters to Weissmann, who comes across as a legal Captain Ahab, so blinded by rage that he would lay waste to the criminal code to nab his white whale. This same kind of rage could be cited by Trump for a controversial pardon of himself. I believe a president can pardon himself but should not do so. Even if someone had standing to challenge that, the Constitution is silent on any such limitation on the pardon power. That is the same reason I believe a president can be indicted in office.
There are solid arguments on both sides of this debate, which has gone on for decades. From my view, the main obstacle is political rather than constitutional, but Weissman and others are now working to remove that barrier. These critics demand prosecutions of Trump and his associates with the same blind fury as Captain Ahab, who said, "From heart of hell I stab at thee. For the sake of hate I spit my last breath at thee. Ye damned whale." Their rage could be the ironic rationale for the president.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
The problem is that progressives like Weissmann will never stop and this may be the time that a President may have to invoke that never before used privilege. Mr Turley has it right - it is they, via their own obsession, who have made their own worst dream scenario become a reality.
No signs or pictures.
all it takes to defend the US Constitution is one patriotic american with access, opportunity, and motivation.
Be more specific
no
That's the way I'm interpreting it too. Let's hear him say it.
We don't stand for that here.
Yup.
In terms of scandal and criminality, Hillary Clinton is a glass of cold water and Trump is the thing the Titanic hit.
I think you just made Turley's point.
Vic, you have shown time after time after time, that you are not familiar enough with the facts of Trump's various wrongdoings to be able to comment on them dismissively with any persuasive capability.
John, you have shown time after time, that you don't care about facts when it comes to Donald Trump. Most noteworthy was when you said you didn't care if he was guilty of conspiracy with Russia - just as long as it got him removed from office. Do you recall?
I don't like when it gets personal, but you went there.
I have forgotten more facts about Donald Trump's crookedness and unethical and dishonest behavior than you ever knew. You hid your head in the sand about it for YEARS because you approved of his attitudes and actions toward your perceived political enemies and your ideological opponents.
His crookedness? Whatever you call it, he did this nation a world of good.
because you approved of his attitudes and actions toward your perceived political enemies and your ideological opponents.
Although I do think the radical left needs to be eradicated, it was his positive policies that I approved of. It will be up to others to rid the nation of the free roaming vermin.
bring it. it's time to finally take fascist trash to the curb.
Tell me, how, exactly, you picture this happening?
Letting others do your dirty work? How big and moral of you.
The truth will free us all.
Letting others do your dirty work?
It's up to the next generation.
How big and moral of you.
You're the one who is reduced to personal attacks.
The vaccine alone may save my life or yours too.
That's too funny to ignore! Who the hell are they?
Who should we listen to, hundreds of former federal prosecutors , or Jonathan Turley who sold his reputation down the river to please Donald Trump?
"First, as The New York Times noted, “Protect Democracy, a nonprofit legal group, gathered the signatures from Justice Department alumni and said it would collect more.” Here’s what the Times and other outlets failed to report: Protect Democracy was founded in 2017 by Ian Bassin, who was the associate White House counsel for President Barack Obama from 2009-2011, and Justin Florence, who also served in the Office of the White House Counsel as a special assistant to the president and associate counsel of the president.
Bassin is also the president of the liberal American Constitution Society and Florence had also served as a senior counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee for Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). Protect Democracy also boasts a Who’s Who of the Never Trump resistance as advisors , such as failed presidential candidate Evan McMullin and running mate Mindy Finn.
The media also missed the reality that this latest attack on Barr (and in turn Trump) is nothing but a recycling of Protect Democracy’s earlier outrage over the Robert Mueller report. Shortly after the special counsel’s report issued, the same outfit ran the same “we are former federal prosecutors” who “served under both Republican and Democratic administrations” schtick to argue that Trump should have been charged with multiple felonies for obstruction of justice. As the following snippet shows, the signatories, for the most part, overlapped as well.
So, what about those signatories? They spun themselves as apolitical, by stressing they worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations, but a quick visit to the Federal Elections Commission website to search for political contributions, aided by some amazing crowdsourcing , revealed extensive contributions to Democrats and liberal organizations by many of the signatories—so many, in fact, I called off the troops .
Surely the Times, or Washington Post, or NPR could put a research assistant on the project and determine how many of the 1,000-plus names have contributed to Democrats versus Republicans. Or at least sampled 10 percent of the Barr-bashers. But no. They couldn’t even research campaign contributions by the individuals named in their articles!
“The letter’s signatories included Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general under President George Bush, and about 50 former U.S. attorneys,” the Times reported, while ignoring that Ayer has donated to a slew of Democrats —and no Republicans—in recent years.
NPR likewise seemed completely lacking in curiosity about Julie Zebrak’s background when interviewing her and accepted at face value her claim that she “would have the same feeling if there was a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat at the helm of the Department of Justice.” Maybe. Or maybe Zebrak just wants a Democrat back in the White House.
Rubin likewise ignored the easily discovered political predisposition of the signatories she spoke with. Former prosecutor Renato Mariotti told Rubin, “the sheer number of signatures is surprising, given that many DOJ alumni represent clients adverse to the department.” Maybe not so surprising, though, when you consider the proof of a political motive, albeit not so flush in the case of Mariotti.
Then there was Noah Bookbinder, who told Rubin, “the outrageousness of the intervention hasn’t been fully understood by the public yet, and I hope this letter will help the magnitude of it start to break through.” While a search for recent political donations turned up blank for Bookbinder, Rubin reported he heads Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. What she failed to mention was the organization’s anti-Trump bias.
Rubin also buried the bias in quoting former prosecutor Mimi Rocah, the latter of whom called the letter “extraordinary.” “Usually buttoned-up and wary of calling attention to themselves, more than 1,100 bipartisan [attorneys] with hundreds of years of combined service under dozens of attorneys general in a very short time signed this statement calling for AG to resign,” Rocah told Rubin. Rocha’s one-sided political contributions—and those of her comrades—give lie to the apolitical sale’s pitch.
The “bipartisan” bull in the “buttoned-up and wary of calling attention to themselves” line is laughable given that Rocah signed the earlier letter concerning Mueller’s report, as did hundreds of her straight-laced, limelight-avoiding compatriots.
Likewise laughable is that The New York Times continues to hold any cachet in this country when the Old Grey Lady has proven time and again a prostitute will part with her reputation for petty politics. And that is exactly what the attacks on Barr are."
So you found four people who contributed to liberal political causes. Good Boy, Vic! Here's a bone.
I notice the article is from the Federalist, which is a right leaning and rated by MBFC as "mixed" in terms of factual reporting. I also notice that the author of the opinion piece did not state if any of the signatories were, in fact, Republican, except for the one who she says hasn't donated to Republicans in recent history, probably considering him a RINO.
In fact, the article's title should tell us all we need to know about the proclivities of the author and the slant that is going to be put on the article: Campaign Donations Show Letter Demanding Barr’s Resignation Comes From Leftist Hacks Pretending To Be ‘Bipartisan’
What I found is that the same fucking former federal prosecutors who keep sending letters are hard core lefties! What a shock!
Good Boy, Vic! Here's a bone.
Thomas, here's what they call the bird!
I notice the article is from the Federalist
Very observant of you.
which is a right leaning and rated by MBFC as "mixed" in terms of factual reporting.
I rate MBFC as far left. How's that?
the author of the opinion piece did not state if any of the signatories were, in fact, Republican, except for the one who she says hasn't donated to Republicans in recent history, probably considering him a RINO.
That means zip. Remember the Lincoln Project? Never-Trump Republicans who recently became democrats.
In fact, the article's title
It was a great title. I'm glad you are so fond of it.
no american is above the rule of law, no matter what the wannabe banana republicans think.
And nobody is below it, regardless of what hate filled progressives attempt.
Hate filled progressives? Prove that progressives are hate filled.
Just read the comments here.
That one was easy.
But Tess, It wasn't me who burned & looted cities or killed cops or defamed Kavanaugh or filed a faux impeachment or accosted American citizens trying to eat a meal or accosted people in their homes.
It's common knowledge Tess, as a matter of fact we even have a story on our front page today:
You know what they tried to sell us - that right wing groups came in disguised as antifa & BLM!
Which is why Obama needs to be charged the same day any are filed against Trump!
State charges could await Trump on January 21, 2021.
Pardoning murderers of unarmed men, women, and children he deserves whatever fate befalls him.
Then I guess he will be preceded to the electric chair by Barak Obama:
"A convicted crack dealer who left prison early as part of the Obama administration’s mass release of federal inmates has been indicted by a grand jury for fatally stabbing his ex-girlfriend and her two kids in Columbus, Ohio. The gory crime drew national attention because the children, ages 7 and 10, were murdered to eliminate them as witnesses in the brutal massacre of their 32-year-old mother."
[DELETED]
Turley believes a president can be indicted while in office and then pardon himself. That is a bit bizarre.
I assume that Turley also believes a president can pardon himself even if no charges have been brought. Just a general pardon in case the president may have committed a criminal act, even if unknown. If that is the case, all presidents will issue themselves pardons in the future as a matter of course.
I don't see any constitutional impediment to a president being indicted while in office. I do see major impediments under our system of law to a president, or anyone, pardoning himself.
If we had a law criminalizing frivolous lawsuits vs a former president or malicious prosecution I could understand not allowing a self pardon. The animus this man has faced and the unrelenting hatred he faces requires the general pardon you mentioned. Normally when a president leaves office all grudges are put aside, but not in this case, thus we need something for this man and his family to finally live out their lives in peace.
It's important for the nation as well. Any further attempts to persecute this man will only inflame many (if not most) Americans.
Would this so called law include frivolous lawsuits stating election fraud?
Amazes me that you can still only see things as a one way street when at this time donald is attacking the Supreme Court, the justice department and the FBI, even though he put his own people in positions in the institutions.
Most of the animosity comes from him and it is just bizarre when it is turned around just because people react to what he says and does.
We all need closure, peace and security.
When he is out of office and still attacks people and institutions, which is a reasonable assumption, you think people should just sit back and and let it happen?
He will continue his bombastic attacks, name calling and it is unrealistic to think people should just shut up and brush it aside.
It doesn't work that way. Again, not a one way street.
Your comment is merely a partisan political statement.
I haven't seen you calling for a general pardon for President Obama despite the unrelenting bitter hatred Trump displays towards him and Trump's demands that he be prosecuted. In fact, just the opposite. As I recall, you have vigorously advocated for President Obama to be prosecuted.
Nothing "requires" a general pardon for Trump. Besides, the topic is whether Trump can pardon himself, which I believe to be a legally dubious proposition. If President Biden, or some successor president, makes the decision to pardon Trump, so be it.
HA! Malice means with evil intent. When justice is served, it is not evil. Trump is evil, malicious, if ever I have seen evil lift it's angry maw. I know you don't see it this way, but the prosecution of Trump's many crimes will be deliciously slow and painstakingly documented to show the world and future generations how not to be as a president.
Or it could just be a boon to the popcorn industry.
I assume you haven't heard - Obama is not being investigated by John Durham. Whatever Obama did with the FBI or whatever his policies nobody on the right seeks to prosecute him for something. Why do the animals on the left want to criminally prosecute their opponents?
Nothing "requires" a general pardon for Trump.
Oh, I beg to differ. His opponents on the left seek to keep on investigating him long after he's left office - forever N ever! I'm sorry but since progressives have acted like animals we need to teach them decency. I prescribe a bit more from them, but I think you already know what that is.
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”....Lavrenity Beria
What a hypocritical and offensive comment. You can't even address the points raised by my comment.
My response:
How condescending.
Donald Trump does, and has said so repeatedly. And so have you.
Again, reference Donald Trump's push to investigate President Obama FOUR years after he left office.
Using as your avatar the likeliness of a federal prosecutor you dream of bringing charges against your political opponents resoundingly clarifies the hypocrisy in your comment.
The "animals" who want to criminally prosecute their opponents are the Trumpists who have been screaming "Lock her up!" for 4 years.
YOU are going to teach anyone decency? YOU admitted several times in a discussion we had a few months back that you think fascism has good points and it's something you would support. That's YOUR concept of decency.
What does that garbled nonsense mean?
Are you man enough to allow this comment to remain, or are you going to censor it? We will know soon enough.
I have saved this comment for future publication. Many members of NT will be able to read it regardless of what you do with it.
It's too bad you feel that way. The rules allow you to say the comment was terrible. You must love those rules.
How condescending.
Is that how it feels. What else can we say when one wants one President open to constant harassment and another to be an untouchable?
Again, reference Donald Trump's push to investigate President Obama FOUR years after he left office.
No, we are not talking about what Trump says. We are talking about the facts in which one President got investigated without pretext as a fishing expedition and another president, who let's face it - set it in motion, gets canonized as a Saint. I just showed you that even the AG under Trump has no intention of investigating Obama and your pitiful comeback is something Trump said.
Using as your avatar the likeliness of a federal prosecutor you dream of bringing charges against your political opponents resoundingly clarifies the hypocrisy in your comment.
Correct. I don't think people who OBVIOUSLY attempted a coup should go unscathed because they worked at the FBI.
he "animals" who want to criminally prosecute their opponents are the Trumpists who have been screaming "Lock her up!" for 4 years.
The animals are the same people who are happy about what the FBI did, thrilled with the defamation of Kavanaugh & the faux impeachment and are in love with the pandemic which killed 300,000 Americans.
YOU are going to teach anyone decency? YOU admitted several times in a discussion we had a few months back that you think fascism has good points and it's something you would support. That's YOUR concept of decency.
Another personal attack from a progressive. What a shock! Is there any one of you who can discuss anything without resorting to an all out personal attack? Evidently not! It does look like I will have to be the one to teach decency. Obviously teachers haven't done it.
What does that garbled nonsense mean?
And here I thought you were an expert on everything I or the President ever said!
I have saved this comment for future publication.
You do that. Frame it if you like.
There is no such thing as "harassing" Donald Trump, Vic. He is the worst president in the history of our country. He is fortunate that right wing media has been effective enough to prevent his true just desserts, his being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
I'm sure that history will give him his due, provided the nation can survive what the left has done to it.
Oh he's going to get his due. He will be known as the worst president in history and a complete disgrace.
Repeating it doesn't make it so.
Holy fuck ! I've seen everything now .
We are all still trying to figure out how Biden won more votes than any president in history, yet won a record low of 17% of counties?
Miraculously, Joe Biden seems to have raked in record high votes in exactly the counties & precincts he needed them.
I don't that brings us closure Tess.
Maybe to you, but for America it's been divisive.
You ran that banner twice now. Three time gets a ticket for taunting & trolling.
KAAAAHHHNNN!!!
Sorry, could not resist that. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn.
Back in a few