As the most criminal, corrupt regime in American history winds down, the head of the crime family,
Donald "Mango Mussolini" Trump, is being urged to
pardon not only himself but members of his family. Those potential pardons would be at the top of a long list of cronies, felons, and other Trump criminal associates looking for a get out of jail free pass. All of this, of course, begs the question, "Why do people who've not violated the law need preemptive pardons?" (Answer: They don't).
By the way, even if a pardon would absolve the person(s) being pardoned, the Supreme
Court has ruled that accepting a pardon carries an imputation of
guilt and acceptance carries a confession (Burdick v. United States). Trump, of course, would ignore this and treat it the same way he falsely treated his partisan impeachment acquittal as "total exoneration."
Taking the possibility of a Trump self- pardon first, as a president preemptively pardoning himself has never been tested, it's very much an open question whether it's Constitutional. Mark Greenberg, law professor at UCLA, raises some important issues with Trump pardoning himself and family members:
Greenberg,
through his best interpretation of the law, told The Post that the
Constitution doesn’t give Trump the power to pardon himself and his
family. He added that the presidential pardon clause has restrictions,
just like the majority of laws in the Constitution. By potentially
offering a self-pardon, Trump would violate fundamental principles of
American law, which includes conflicts of interest.
“The
pardon power would also have unacceptable consequences if the president
could pardon himself,” Greenberg said. “He’d be able to essentially
commit extremely serious crimes and immediately pardon himself, which
would effectively put him above the law.”
Additionally,
a president can’t use his executive powers for corrupt purposes, such
as making decisions that would enrich or benefit himself and his family.
If Trump pardons himself and his family, the action could fall under
those categories, Greenberg said.
The
president also has a duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully
executed,” Greenberg said. “For him to interfere with the execution of
those laws by, say, pardoning a family member seems it would clearly
violate that duty,” Greenberg said.
Such pardons, or the dangling of a pardon, could also be an obstruction of justice (which certainly came into play in the case of convicted felon Michael Flynn). Whether or not this would apply to Trump pardoning himself and his family members would largely come down to a call by the incoming Attorney General and the Justice Department, based on facts known or investigations underway.
Layered into this is reporting by the Washington Post of a bribery- for- pardon scheme being investigated in August:
The Justice Department in August investigated a potential “bribery-for-pardon” scheme
in which a large political contribution would be offered in exchange
for a presidential pardon by the White House, according to court records
unsealed Tuesday.
The
documents show that U.S. prosecutors were scrutinizing whether two
individuals approached senior White House officials as unregistered
lobbyists, and a related scheme in which cash would be funneled through
intermediaries for a pardon or reprieve of a sentence for a defendant
apparently in Federal Bureau of Prisons custody at some point. The
status of the investigation is unclear. [snip]
A
government review of the evidence identified emails “indicat[ing]
additional criminal activity” after scouring more than 50 digital media
devices, including iPhones, iPads, laptops, thumb drives and computer
and external hard drives, Howell wrote.
The
ruling offers glimpses of the underlying investigation, stating at one
point, for example, that the government alleged at least one person
“requested [redacted]’s assistance, ‘as a personal favor,’ to use his
political connections [redacted].”
It
continues, “This political strategy to obtain a presidential pardon was
‘parallel’ to and distinct from [redacted]’s role as an
attorney-advocate for [redacted].”
In
a footnote, Howell’s opinion added, emails submitted by the government
as exhibits “do not show any direct payment to [redacted] by [redacted]
or [redacted] and instead indicate that [redacted] expected [redacted]
to assist in obtaining clemency for [redacted] due to [redacted]’s past
substantial campaign contributions [redacted] and [redacted]’s
anticipated future contributions.”
We're not alleging anything, but isn't there something redolent of incompetent Roy Cohn Rudy "Hands in Pants" Giuliani here ("attorney- advocate"?), though any number of Trump- orbit sleazebags come to mind as well. It could be a reason why Rudy was reportedly angling for a pardon for himself recently. That would be a real nesting doll of pardon abuse ("pardon me for a bribery- for- pardon scheme please"), and would be totally in character with this collection of crooks and charlatans.
BONUS: Others speculate.
(Photo: A fool and a fool lawyer.)
No comments:
Post a Comment