Posted on 08/16/2023 9:38:29 AM PDT by Vendome
President Trump can, in fact, pardon himself from the GA charges if he is elected president.
1. The Constitution's silent about whether a president can be indicted.
2. The DOJ has taken the position under both parties that you cannot indict a sitting president because it would cripple the executive branch and make his ability to defend himself effectively impossible.
3. Given the DOJ's position, and the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, I would argue strongly that the idea that a president cannot be indicted at the federal level because it would cripple the executive branch, but can be indicted by local DAs, would have exactly the same effect as a federal indictment, except there are thousands of local and state prosecutors making the crippling of a president even more likely.
4. FURTHERMORE, if indicted and even convicted, the idea that a president cannot pardon himself from state charges is absurd, again, not only because of the Supremacy Clause, but the same considerations that apply to a federal conviction would obviously apply to a state conviction.
Therefore, I disagree with Jonathan Turley's view and others who keep repeating it.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
the southerns states should of filed charges against Lincoln apparently!
Wishful thinking, Presidents cannot pardon state charges, nor have they ever tried.
No precedent for this, and separate sovereigns.
I still laugh at anyone that thinks the establishment is going to let Trump get elected. It’s not going to happen. They control it all now.
If five million people descend on the Washington Mall to protest the conversion of our country to the USSA, then I'd believe Trump could get re-elected. But the populace is strangely and eerily quiet about all the travesties of injustice heaped on Trump. It will take a HUGE populist uprising to put a stop to the communist take-over of the former USA.
The leftists got a half-million people to show up in Washington DC on November 15, 1969 for the largest antiwar protest in United States history. We need ten times that number to show up to save the country.
A president or former president has never been charged with a crime before.
So no precedent for indicting a former president exists, yet. But, wait for SCOTUS to change all that when they docket the appeals from President Trump’s show trials.
The democrats have deemed questioning stolen elections Illegal
Lack of precedent has no bearing on this.
The supremacy clause is specific to preventing this very thing and the legal argument which has been supported in many cases is the state cannot override federal jurisdiction.
This is very much a legal question unanswered and has a strong legal argument.
As for trying, how about you first find where it was ever an issue in the US where is was required to remedy a constitutional conflict or prosecutorial misconduct?
The premise is simple, your logic would allow any local DA to arrest and disrupt the presidency, obviously a situation rife with potential abuse. The constitution was written to prevent such conflicts and has remedies written into it specific to the house and senate to exercise.
I still laugh at anyone that thinks the establishment is going to let Trump get elected. It’s not going to happen. They control it all now.
Tuning out and laughing as it will collapse around everyone. That is a little different than giving up.
If you go to a protest, by all means drive there, park a good distance away from that protest. Use cash for all transactions and avoid toll roads.
They would have allowed time for tempers to cool while the legality of succession made its way through a friendly supreme court and quite possibly avoided the bloodiest war in American history.
And, more important, if you take a cell phone at all, buy and use a burner phone like Tracfone.
Levin’s argument is more subtle. State charges for the actions of a sitting president would indeed invoke the federal supremacy clause, although it might not technically be a pardon. Look for more explanation from Levin.
The Southern states should have bargained with Lincoln over several new Constitutional Amendments as part of their deal to end the war early.
Tuning out and laughing as it will collapse around everyone. That is a little different than giving up.
I'm not decided yet on Levin's position on this but your rebuttal is not a factor.
Precedent doesn't matter and the Constitution and the Supremacy clause state that states aren't a separate sovereign.
If the establishment controls it all, why did Hunter Biden’s sweetheart deal fall apart? The establishment should have told the judge to not ask any questions.
On the other hand, a lot of unprecedented $#!+ is going down lately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.