Frustrated by the contrasting views expressed here

[cilla4progress]

about the scope of tRump's pardon power. I suppose it is understandable, as law is more an art than a science.

Wondering if there is a more or less definitive source of authority on the issue?

[leftstreet]

1. Even the experts are disagreeing

It's not something that's come up very often

It'll be interesting to see the points develop though

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. to me, it all sums up that we are simply in uncharted, horrendous territory

[leftstreet]

7. ...

Link to tweet

Paul Musgrave?Verified account @profmusgrave Aug 16
Replying to @profmusgrave
Sometime this year, law student Tiffany Trump will be asked if the pardon power is absolute.

[MineralMan]

3. The only authority that matters is Congress.

The presidential power to pardon is not limited by the Constitution except that it only affects Federal cases and cannot be used to pardon in the case of impeachment.

So, there is no power, other than Congress' power of impeachment and removal, that can make any difference in any pardon Trump might make. And even then, a pardon granted by a President will not be voided, even if that President is impeached and removed, as far as I can tell.

[cilla4progress]

4. Some clarity from Robert Reich

Trump’s pardon to Sheriff Joe Arpaio violates the Constitituion and the rule of law. Add this to the list of Trump's impeachable offenses.

1. Arpaio wasn’t convicted “for doing his job,” as Trump said at his Phoenix rally last Tuesday. He was convicted for doing the opposite of his job. He violated the law and then ignored court orders to stop violating it.

2. The Constitution requires that a president faithfully execute the law. Pardoning a sheriff for disobeying federal law is not faithfully executing the law.

3. Pardons are typically granted either to provide mercy or correct a miscarriage of justice or on more general grounds of public policy. None fits here. Arpaio hasn't even yet been sentenced. And his flagrant abuses of office to search and jail Latinos violated public policy and worsened race relations.

What do you think?

[Voltaire2]

11. It doesn't violate the constitution but it is an impeachable offense.

The constitutional power is not constrained by what the crime was (1), and any pardon would fit under (2) so that doesn't make sense, and "what a typical pardon" (3) is, is irrelevant to its constitutionality, nor does "Arpaio hasn't even been sentenced" matter (3 again,) see Ford's pardon of the uncharged Nixon.

"and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." - that is the entire text that gives the president the pardon power. The only limits are "offenses against the United States" which limits this to federal charges, and "except in Cases of Impeachment".

He violated ethical norms, but not the constitution.

[hlthe2b]

5. The problem is that the limits (if any) have never been challenged in court.

It isn't hard to imagine arguments for that, but without any legal decisions, who knows...?

[CentralMass]

6. In-lieu of a better answer, dirty Don is going to do what ever he can get away with and..

with the corrupt and complicit GOP congress and compromised DOJ there appears that there is nothing to stop him.
The Democrats seem to be."keeping their powder dry" and letting the fool dig himself a deeper.hole.
However I suspect they are also stunned by the lack of more widespread outrage and don't want to stick their necks out. They want to get relected.

[marylandblue]

8. Where this has come before the courts at all

It's generally been agreed that pardon power is virtually unlimited. Everything else is a legal theory that hasn't been tested yet. But it sounds like there are people willing to fight this in court.

[NotASurfer]

9. Then there's the rabbit-hole that this issue is staring into

Generally the pardon power is absolute except if impeachment is in play. There are some untried hail-Mary Constitutional objections, but for the sake of discussion here take that as a given.

The point has been made that the act of pardoning may itself be a criminal act. For the sake of discussion, suppose that a particular pardon happens to be a criminal obstruction of justice.

Now the rabbit-hole: if the President pardons himself for the obstruction of justice that his pardon created, is he causing a new criminal obstruction of justice?

At which point the cycle of pardon-obstruction-pardon loops indefinitely.

What then? A court injunction prohibiting President from additional pardons? A Supreme Court opinion that pardons creating paradoxes are not Constitutional?

Or madness.

[sarisataka]

10. US Constitution,

Article 2, Section 2

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

That is the scope of his pardon power.

[Voltaire2]

12. yeah, he clearly *can* do what he did.

So the remedy is political: impeachment.