Trump is certainly going to try it if charges are brought.

His arguments for is inability to obstruct or to pardon himself seem like they fail the checks and balances arguments for government itself. That kind of power makes it seem like he has power that is answerable to no one. That simply doesn't exist in our government.

Melania has been found:


http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...lies-on-monday

Let me be the first to suggest that the next Dem President shoot Gorsuch and replace him with Garland.

#trumplegal

yes yes because according to Rudy that he/she can't be indicted, and Rudy is always right. Right?

Senator Merkley (Oregon) went to inspect a federal facility where they are keeping immigrant families and was denied entry and had the police called on him:


Sen. Jeff Merkley denied entry to immigrant detention center

I don't think this is really the case. Nobody is saying he can't be impeached -- the argument is just about whether that's the only remedy or whether there are others. Clearly the POTUS is answerable to the electorate(2020 elections) and Congress(via impeachment). For situations like the Comey firing, I think the President is legitimately in a unique position. He can't recuse himself a la Sessions because he's the only one with the constitutional authority to take action. It's really a thorny area IMO, because if the President terminates a legitimate investigation that's definitely abuse of his power, but possibly not in that specific case obstruction. On the other hand if he can't terminate what he finds to be a baseless investigation, or fire an inept cabinet member/law enforcement official/etc. because of such accusations then he can't carry out his proper constitutional duties of the office he holds.

Of course I don't trust Trump as far as I can throw him to make the proper ethical call on any of these issues, but it's quite interesting as a matter of constitutional law.


I'm curious what this argument is. I've never ready anything in the Constitution that limits in the slightest who the president can pardon and who he can't.

There's definitely nothing in the constitution that expressly forbids a self-pardon, and nobody's ever tried it so there's no caselaw. But law professors who have weighed in talk about how the constitution has to be interpreted in the context of the common law, a fundamental tenant of which is that one cannot stand judgment of themselves. And, the concept of a pardon, as traced back through the common law, going back to England, assumes a grantee and a grantor, and that they must be different people.

And there's a few examples of this kind of thing scattered throughout the constitution. Like the Vice President presides over impeachments, unless it's the president being impeached, then the Chief Justice presides. So if a Vice President is impeached, could he preside over his own impeachment? It seems like that's a no - if he can't preside over the president's impeachment, it's hard to argue that the constitution permits him preside over his OWN impeachment, even though the constitution does not expressly forbid it. It would just be contrary to the legal world as the framers understood it under the common law. That general concept is why most of Nixon's lawyers thought he couldn't self-pardon.

There's also historical evidence that there was a lot of debate about the pardon power generally when it came to the constitution. Specifically, whether anyone should have that power, and if so, which branch should have it, and should there be any checks by other branches. There was some documented argument that the president alone should hold the power, and the check on that power is impeachment and prosecution. Which was sold as a crazy new idea in the U.S., as the British pardon power upon which our pardon power is based didn't even conceive of a self-pardon because the King by definition could not commit a crime in the first place. So, if there was no self-pardon in England, then there could only be a self-pardon in the U.S. if the framers ADDED that provision. And there's no evidence that they intended to do that. Especially considering how we know that they did not view a president like a King, it was a much more limited position, so presumably the pardon power would also be, if anything, more limited than it was in England - but definitely not a STRONGER power.

So obviously it's all a little convoluted and based upon historical sources, but, that's the only way to analyze a constitutional provision which has never been weighed in on by the appellate courts.

That was great. Thanks, molson.

Yep, that was a fantastic breakdown, molson.

Howard Schultz to step down as executive chairman at Starbucks - reportedly considering a 2020 presidential run. Now that would be interesting, IMO.

Uh what?

As part of the absurd assertion to the lack of any limits on Presidential Power, Rudy Giuliani said that President Trump could shoot James Comey and not be prosecuted for it.

Trump and Giuliani are a good match for each other. Do you think he comes up with this stuff on his own or Trump tells him to say it.

Absurd stuff for anyone to say.

So the Eagles have been disinvited to the White House tomorrow. So as not to disappoint their fans, they are going to hold a ceremony for them instead, "one that honors our great country, pay tribute to the heroes who fight to protect it, and loudly and proudly play National Anthem."


https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/polit...nfl/index.html

That moron really needs to go.

Good. I'd rather they not go anyway.

Rumor is that only about 10 were going to go anyway.

Don't have a link yet, but Mueller has asked a judge to raise Manafort's bail or put him in jail over using "encrypted messaging apps to tamper with witnesses


Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/u...tampering.html

...and now it makes sense why Trump drudges up the ol’ anthem stuff on a Monday evening.

And tweeted about Manafort too.

Unless Brady is there to suck him off, Trump isn't inviting a professional football team to the White House while he's there.

They're all soooo damned stupid.

Can't wait to hear what a great American Ovechkin is when the Caps visit the White House.

None of the Eagles kneeled last year.

DOLA:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/w...imes&smtyp=cur

Wait, did the Eagles win the Superbowl or fend of an Invasion by NK ?

But there was one guy who did it in the preseason (eventually got cut) so this is still totally justified.

/sarcasm

No problem though, Fox News has just decided that they'll show Eagles kneeling in prayer when spinning this for Trump.

Like Donald Trump, Fox News gets caught lying about Eagles | NJ.com

Now that they realize how badly they've been played, now would be a fantastic time for the owners to come out and say "you know what? We messed up. The players can do whatever they want."

I think it's pretty clear he decided to cancel after he figured out how few people were actually planning on showing up. They didn't quit, I fired them!

I think they bought a hotel somewhere in California?

Sadly we now have to wait 10 days for the hearing on revoking Manafort's bail.

So Trump bungles God Bless America at his celebration of patriotism or whatever the hell he called it.

Dennis Rodman will be attending the summit in Singapore.

Summary of the Trump Presidency: I have NO idea if this is serious or a joke. I have to go check it.

This whole Eagles thing is so bizarre ... It is exactly the sort of thing you see in dictatorial regimes.


Excluding how weird it is that Rodman essentially seems to have made it his life choice to do a Hasselhoff here (well, only real), the guy likely has infinitely more knowledge on North Korea and Kim than Trump will ever (bother to) aquire.

Alan Dershowitz: “The President wasn’t wrong when he said I want loyalty from my Attorney General. It’s the constitution that’s wrong for allowing that kind of a division to occur.”

The White House aide who mocked John McCain and never apologized for it publicly was let go from the White House:


https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/polit...use/index.html

TBF she did try to apologize to daughter.

It was certainly dis-respectful and unprofessional but don't think that rises to a termination (unless there's a pattern). But those are the breaks in a Trump WH.

I actually like this.

Rodman has had the relationship with the crazy kid for now so I think it helps and not hurt.

Plus, he's likely smart enough not to think of him as crazy.

Touche ... or he is getting all the NK women he wants from a fan who happens to be the supreme leader of NK.

yeah that's what I meant by publicly. Apparently she was told her job was safe. Oh look another lie coming from this White House.

Something big must be coming down the pipe VERY soon from Mueller and team. Trump’s twitter fingers are all over the place and in abundance the past few days. Even more so than usual.

That Rodman story is built on a single anonymous quote. Maybe it's true, but there isn't much there.

About 120,000 names were somehow left off voter rolls in LA for the primaries tonight. They are given people provisional ballots and calling for polls to stay open past closing. Going to be an extra-long week or two to get those results. Cue a Trump voter fraud tweet in 3,2,1,,,

Looks like Ivanka's trademarks went through.

EXCLUSIVE: ZTE has signed an agreement in principle with U.S. that would lift Commerce Department ban; U.S. will claim penalty of as much as $1.7 billion - sources pic.twitter.com/GGgWnqsWl9

— Reuters Business (@ReutersBiz) June 5, 2018

The Dems just flipped another seat in Missouri, a State Senate District Trump won in 2016 by 5%, the Dem tonight won by 20%. For all those saying blue wave was dwindling, this is evidence to contrary. 42nd red to blue flip since Trump elected.

— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) June 6, 2018

Ithink that is related more to the Grietens controversy than Trump

Mitch McConnell eliminating the August recess means that he thinks that it is at least possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that the GOP will lose the House or Senate in November.

If the GOP internals were showing that they'd lose seats but keep the chambers, I think he'd be more likely to let his people off to campaign.

It's just one data point, but I do find it telling.

On the flip side, you look at House seats in CA and under pressure incumbent republicans like Nunes were still well over 50% on the primary and I didn't see any indication of a blue wave happening.

I still think it's typical Dem smugness that will come back to bite them, unless there's a big hit the economy takes between now and then.

It seems that as long as a celebrity speaks out for you, you can get a pardon.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/polit...nce/index.html

ETA: Actually it's commutation.