so can't the incoming DOJ just dust off the cases for those "other crimes" including any wrongdoing by Flynn's son. They probably have evidence or an admission of guilt directly from Flynn when he was cooperating. The deal to not charge with those crimes must be off as soon as he tried to withdraw his guilty plea for the lesser offence. .

It'll make a really interesting Supreme Court case if that happens.

I think it'd take some pretty interesting mental gymnastics for it to hold up. Legally allowing a President to commit any Federal crime he wanted while in office. Or prior to office. That's really the intent of the Constitution?

I feel certain that that was what the founders intended.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I agree with you but Trump's lawyers have argued that a President's crimes are what impeachment is for. And impeachment is what the constitution says he can not pardon.


he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

That doesn't bring up the issue of the self, though. Impeachment covers far more than just the President. Federal judges, cabinet members, Veep, etc.

Also impeachment is not "justice" for crimes. It's merely a removal from office.

Edit: Also doesn't bring up "pre-emptive-ness". If there is no charge of offense, can you pardon yourself against future charges? We were told over and over while in office that a President couldn't be charged while in office. If you let him future-pardon for what happens after office, becoming President is a blank check for Federal crime for life after office.

Understood and agree. I was only giving the argument of Trump's lawyers. They also argued he could not be impeached because it was "overturning the will of the people" which is an even more stupider argument.

Also, I'm pretty sure I heard Preet Bharara say a pardon can be made for "whatever crimes were committed while in office." Like Ford gave Nixon.

I think that's pretty clearly Constitutional (in my lay understanding). I don't see a crime in office being any different than a crime out of office. And another President can pardon a former President. That's pretty straightforward. Slimy, particularly in the case of Ford/Nixon where the pardon was probably part of the negotiation for resignation. And elites-pardoning-elites. But straightforward.

Like others here and there have stated, I believe we will see a queue of deplorables outside of the Oval Office in the coming weeks. I am tempted to check the Vegas line in order to see who's next. If I may surmise, the queue will not have Social Distance X's on the floor, and masks will not be worn; however, the line will probably contain a few switchbacks.

I believe most, if not all Federal criminal activity committed will never see a courtroom due to DJT pardons, i.e. Ford/Nixon. I am waiting with bated breath (masked) for Cyrus Jr. in NY, to start taking large bites. Mouthfuls so large that we will not be required to endure years of the Hitler youth, or their sister.

As I understand it, the general assumption is the pardon can only extend to past conduct, though that includes past conduct that has not yet resulted in criminal charges. So, you can’t pardon someone for a future crime.

If I were a betting man, I would bet the house on him pardoning Kyle Rittenhouse.

Maybe, but murder is a state law crime.

Interesting article re: the word "grant" and how it pertains to pardons.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/one-word-bars-trump-pardoning-himself/617170/

I think you can pardon against future charges - just not future acts. I think johsnon pardons nixon for everything that may have occurred.

I'd heard that argument as well. I also heard the argument that even if his lawyers believe he will lose on the self-pardon, he will likely do it anyway to further complicate any legal action against him. If the DOJ charges him with a crime, they'd first have to resolve the self-pardon question. He'll make a big show of how he didn't want to self-pardon, but he has to because of those nasty democrats.

I think you mean Ford rather than Johnson . . . since Johnson was dead. ;-)

you sir are 100% correct.

Are you implying that dead people can’t influence policy? Herman Cain would like a word. From the grave.

Made me think. Johnson died on Jan 22, 1973 (a Monday), while I was a cadet at the USAF Academy. I was probably more concerned with a calculus quiz or something else, so I didn't give his passing a lot of thought. But then we found out there would be some sort of a federal holiday (it might have been the day of his funeral, Jan 25?), and classes would be canceled that day. Who knew you could get a day off for something like this.

I don't remember having a day off after Nixon died in 1994. I was no longer in the USAF (I was teaching in a public school) when Reagan, Ford, and Bush passed away, and I don't remember if we had a day off for any of them. Is there normally a holiday scheduled to respect the passing of a US President?

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

Depends on what the pardon actually says. trump could have pardoned Flynn for everything. Of course those cases were not as

There is also an outside chance to charge him with perjury in his case. He made a bunch of materially conflicting statements before the judge. Especially after he hired the conspiracy nut lawyer, so it would not be totally insane to pursue that.

I am much more interested in the shenanigans that went on at DOJ, lots of things that went down there that should be unearthed.

The important thing was that Flynn was given a sweetheart deal and even that was not good enough. He was not going to serve any time and trump could have pardoned him, why the hell did DOJ sully themselves trying to help him even more?

maybe he wasn't supposed to be pardoned when the plan for the DoJ to intervene was conceived. Now he has a pardon he can't plead the 5th if asked to testify against others.