You must log in or register to comment.
100% sure they can try and one will.
The vast majority of US legal common sense would indicate “no”, but at the same time, in a functional sense, the answer is actually “idk”, because there is no precedent for the situation that’s ever been ruled on by any court here. And, you know, who fucking knows what the Tribunal of Six will do.
Edit: wait, so most constitutional scholars think this would fly…? That honestly makes me take most constitutional scholars a lot less seriously.
I have a feeling this one’s gonna try
God damn it whenever I see a question like this it immediately is thought up by the GOP too
Yes, but only for federal crimes, not state charges. It’s kind of a moot act for official acts, because the Supreme Court already stated presidents are immune to prosecution for official acts, so they’d have to pardon themselves for personal criminal acts. Most of those can be charged by a state or on a local level, non federal, so it would be risky. However, practically the US doesn’t have a great appetite for charging and prosecuting Presidents.
That bud needed to be nipped at Nixon.
I don’t know about the US not having a great appetite for prosecuting Presidents. Just those who make the decisions don’t have that appetite.
I for one would love if every person in government were held to at least the same standards as their constituents, ideally higher standards.
The most notorious criminal president before Trump was Nixon, and only about 57% of polled citizens wanted him prosecuted. That’s not a lot, considering how serious his crimes were for that time in politics and the nation.
The breakdown:
By Political Party (Sept 6–9, 1974 Gallup poll):
- Democrats: 68% to 70% favored a trial (25%–27% opposed).
- Independents: 55% to 60% favored a trial (34%–36% opposed).
- Republicans: 33% to 38% favored a trial, while 56% to 59% opposed it
When was that poll taken? We’ve learned a whole lot more about Nixon’s shenanigans since then, and I know he still had overwhelming public support for a very long time even after the Watergate scandal broke. The information landscape in the early 70s was a lot different than it is now.
It says when it was taken in the post I made, always was there from the moment I posted it
Whoops, sorry, I am bad at reading.
Yeah, at that date, I’m not surprised at those results. He’d already resigned, Ford pardoned him on Sep 8 1974 (right in the middle of that poll) with a “healing the nation” message.
To be an American President, is to be a criminal. Every last one of them.
Edit: Ok downvoters, lets play a game. You name the president and I will name their crimes. Anyone is free to join. By crime, I mean where the rule of law was bent and ignored, thus neither blind nor just, and only tolerated legally due to the corruption and double-standards of the powerful at the time.
I could use some schooling this morning. What was Carter’s crime?
The Carter doctrine was just an expansion and intensification of militarily defending their “national interests” in other people’s countries. More US imperialism.
Arming and training the Afghanis against Russia, who would later become the Taliban. Because the shaw of Iran’s CIA operations blowback didn’t teach anyone any lessons.
Arming the North Yemeni against the Marxist south during the south Yemeni war.
The Camp David Accords that settled the fighting between Egypt and Israel by settling palestinian lands without involving the Palestinians. It was condemned by the UN for not involving the palestinians and for egypt acting on behalf of the arab league without their agreement. It divided the arab league. Denied palestine statehood and avoided international consensus. Look where this lead us today.
There is more, but I have errands to run.
What crime are you referring to? Giving weapons is not a crime. You could argue it backfired.
What did John Quincy Adams do? I thought he was cool :(
Seminole War.
He oversaw 30 “treaties” with natives as part of America’s systematic removal of people from his lands.
History writes him as being an advocate who fought for voluntary removal, not the forced relocations, but he was still responsible for stolen native land and colonialism. Bit of a whitewash here as colonialism is colonialism, and he only differed in degree, not principle.
He signed the Treaty of Indian Springs and later admitted the natives were under duress and it was not in good faith. Later treaties added compensation, but was a pittance of the lands true value and Quincy did not believe in Native property rights to begin with, or understand the native concept of land stewardship.
Every human is a criminal. Every baby, a criminal. Even plants? You guessed it. Criminals.
I knew I got bad vibes from my succulents.
They’re the worst criminals of all!
They horde and monopolize water!
See, this is how Judge Death got his start.
Hasn’t been tested but apparently most constitutional lawyers say yes.
What about calling shotgun when he can’t see the car yet?
It’s an unanswered question, but the SCOTUS immunity ruling makes it mostly moot anyway. A President can’t be charged with crimes related to “official business.” Which specific acts count as official vs unofficial depends on the interpretation of a judge/justice, and probably gets extremely messy and inconsistent, which is why the ruling is considered problematic by most.
They can NOT pardon to protect themselves from impeachment.
Neat.
Next non-fascist president, having a monkey-paw moment, gets the Tribunal of Six in the same room and locks the door
There are now six Supreme Court vacancies. This is an official act. We can do this the easy way or the hard way
Alito begins to speak
BAM
Any other objections?
Hopefully it can be established that granting favors and adding to their personal wealth are not official business. Really is any criminal act official business, I think not.
I would like to see this immunity tested thoroughly very soon
Not going to make a top level comment since this may be considered sort of a tangent, but there is chatter about lots of White House staff asking for pardons, since they aren’t necessarily immune. The thing is, once someone gets a pardon, and they no longer face prosecution, there is no danger of self-incrimination, and the 5th Amendment right to not speak largely disappears. I.e. they could be compelled to testify against Trump.
So does Trump throw all these people under the bus by making them face criminal prosecution for his crimes, or does he make them immune and increase the risk (even if only reputational) to himself? Investigators could easily offer immunity in exchange for testimony even without a pardon. I think we know which he’ll choose, but it leaves both sides pitted against one another.
The snake may be about to eat itself.
deleted by creator
We don’t know. Nobody has ever tried it before. Common law would suggest no, but really it’s anyone’s guess with the current make up of the supreme court.
Don could pardon JD for all crimes on their last day in office. Then Trump resigns and JD becomes President and pardons Don.
Asking for a friend?
I think it’d go 7-2 no. The midrange Republicans aren’t going to go for something so obviously unfounded in history that would just lead to lawlessness.
They can certainly try
Not from a next president’s executive order.
