He cannot pardon himself, but the first thing he said to Pence is, "Pardon me?"
The Ford Standard.
The Ford Standard.
Kim Jong Un gives Trump a Yuge Envelope.
Pretty sure the contents of said envelope is something like....
...that.
Pretty sure the contents of said envelope is something like....
...that.
This is a constitutional question. The president is the head of the executive branch - executor of the law. It’s this that gives him power to pardon.
Constitutionally the president is not beholden to the law.
The only power above that is the check and balance of impeachment.
We’ve been through this song and dance before with Nixon and again with Clinton who lied under oath.
Legally, constitutionally they cannot “break” the law and cannot be punished by the justice system for doing so.
Impeachment is the only process available to punish them for any given action or inaction.
The Russia collusion investigation can punish those below him(which he can pardon) but it cannot have any direct effect on him. It will inform Congress, just like the Starr investigation did for Clinton, and they will choose to act or not on that information.
Whether he can be compelled to testify or not is still a question to be answered by the Supreme Court. There are reasonable arguments on both sides regarding compelling an elected official to do anything, nevermind the president. They can’t jail him if he refuses. They can’t even force a clerk to provide a marriage certificate signature, so meullers team may be out of options if they decide they want to force the issue.
I don’t know about Nixon off the top of my head, but Clinton chose to testify. If he hadn’t, or if he chose not to purjure himself, the impeachment probably wouldn’t have succeeded.
Going by history, testimony is more dangerous than stonewalling.
If you’re really interested there are a lot of articles on this subject from many standpoints.
Constitutionally the president is not beholden to the law.
The only power above that is the check and balance of impeachment.
We’ve been through this song and dance before with Nixon and again with Clinton who lied under oath.
Legally, constitutionally they cannot “break” the law and cannot be punished by the justice system for doing so.
Impeachment is the only process available to punish them for any given action or inaction.
The Russia collusion investigation can punish those below him(which he can pardon) but it cannot have any direct effect on him. It will inform Congress, just like the Starr investigation did for Clinton, and they will choose to act or not on that information.
Whether he can be compelled to testify or not is still a question to be answered by the Supreme Court. There are reasonable arguments on both sides regarding compelling an elected official to do anything, nevermind the president. They can’t jail him if he refuses. They can’t even force a clerk to provide a marriage certificate signature, so meullers team may be out of options if they decide they want to force the issue.
I don’t know about Nixon off the top of my head, but Clinton chose to testify. If he hadn’t, or if he chose not to purjure himself, the impeachment probably wouldn’t have succeeded.
Going by history, testimony is more dangerous than stonewalling.
If you’re really interested there are a lot of articles on this subject from many standpoints.
Why did you choose to expound upon Clinton but not Nixon?
Because I don’t remember his case as well.
It's almost loss.jpg
Guiliani says Trump can probably pardon himself, which tells me he probably can't because Guliani probably doesn't know which thing he's not supposed to say today.
Probably.
Probably.
I find it funny that they no longer argue his innocence and instead just argue that he can't be prosecuted for being guilty of something.
And by funny I mean boiling with rage.
And by funny I mean boiling with rage.
It really is just the ultimate expression of the privilege of old, white men. "So what if he did it? You can't do anything about it and I don't care."
We know the real answer to that, don't we?
Yes, it’s quite obviously my horrifying bias and not that I was born two years after Nixon’s impeachment and was a newly minted adult following politics when clinton was impeached.We know the real answer to that, don't we?
Your assumptions only hurt you, not me.
You go right on telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
(Not that it matters, but I was all of five years old the day Nixon resigned.)
ADMIT IT! You focus on Clinton and not Nixon because you find it easier to type C than to type N and let autofill do the rest. YOU'VE BEEN SECRETLY LEFT HANDED THIS ENTIRE TIME!
Trump: I CAN PARDON MYSELF!
DOJ: Not so fast, my friend!
tl;dr: first, can't under the "no man can be a judge in their own case" standard. Second, pardoning himself would be an admission of guilt, and since pardons don't apply to impeachable offenses, he would need to be impeached.
DOJ: Not so fast, my friend!
tl;dr: first, can't under the "no man can be a judge in their own case" standard. Second, pardoning himself would be an admission of guilt, and since pardons don't apply to impeachable offenses, he would need to be impeached.
Yeah, those uppity negroes should be thankful they've been allowed any success.
(I'm not saying this is what you mean, but this sort of statement is the most common dogwhistle for that idea)
You don't actually think this is about the anthem do you? Just like when the Warriors didn't go, this was "you can't fire me, I quit!"
figmentPez
Staff member
The one's that were doing the kneeling weren't going to the event anyway. They Eagles were only going to send part of the team, and Trump decided "well, if it's not everyone, none of you can come!" They've gotten exactly the platform that they wanted, to not be at the White House, and to have everyone know exactly why they aren't at the White House. Trump has denied them nothing, and shown himself to be a spoiled toddler in the process.
Trump: "Players should proudly stand for the National Anthem, hand on heart, in honor of the great men and women of our military."
No. Bad.
The Anthem (such as it is) is a song about a flag, but it is NOT intended as a warning "keep out" song about how that flag indicates possession of an area defended by the might of our wonderful military, it is supposed to be a celebration of how that flag indicates a strong level of commitment to values of freedom, justice, fairness, etc., and the lengths to which the people who live there are willing to go to maintain that environment.
--Patrick
No. Bad.
The Anthem (such as it is) is a song about a flag, but it is NOT intended as a warning "keep out" song about how that flag indicates possession of an area defended by the might of our wonderful military, it is supposed to be a celebration of how that flag indicates a strong level of commitment to values of freedom, justice, fairness, etc., and the lengths to which the people who live there are willing to go to maintain that environment.
--Patrick
Next he'll help protect the freedom of our nation by outlawing the burning or otherwise desecration of the flag.
TIL there's this piece of artwork:
It is available for sale from AAF Nation as a throw blanket (pictured), or as a tank tee, canvas reprint for your wall, or a flag, and is a rip-off of this image from DeviantArt with the artist's name cropped out of the lower left corner. I think my favorite part is the eagle brandishing an AA-12.
...so banning desecration of the flag wouldn't be all bad.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
Every time someone brings up the possibility of banning flag burning, two thoughts come to my mind:
1. The proper disposal of a US flag involves burning it.
2. I'm very tempted to make a flag that looks like this:
and then burn the inverted color flag.