Search results for query: *

The idea that you cannot pardon someone of a crime that they have committed but which they have not yet been charged with is absolutely false. Pardons can preempt charges; what they cannot do is preempt the crime itself; i.e. you cannot pardon someone in anticipation of the crime being...

Hypothetically, just as an innocent man might accept a plea deal for fear of a wrong verdict, an innocent man might accept a pardon. However, in this case I think pardoning oneself would be challenged, IMO rightly. And then you'd be in trouble for implicitly accepting guilt. Oh, sorry, I...

Naturally, a pardon is normally issued when there is some belief that a crime has been committed. But I don't think there has to be certainty on this topic. And if for example a prosecutor was getting ready to press charges against someone I'm quite sure the pardon doesn't have to wait for the...

Let's say someone kills someone in self-defense. I would argue that the president could say "I pardon you for any and all crimes related to killing Freddy Krueger" even though it was self-defense (unless, I argue, he was the one who killed Freddy Krueger in self-defense). Maybe that's not how it...

There is no need to wait for a charge. As soon as a crime has been committed (or, I'd argue, as soon as an action has been taken that a person could potentially be prosecuted, rightly or wrongly, over), a pardon can be issued. Yeah, I think we could use a fair amount more willingness to...

So do you take the position that a president can legitimately pardon himself? I don't. I admit scholars seem divided on the question, but the very concept is an assault against equality under the law—I know, it's mangled often enough already, but explicitly giving the POTUS the power to be above...

Impeachment is not the same as potential criminal prosecution. Trump did not pardon himself, which I believe was both proper and smart.

Sorry, Ohio? You're talking about senators who voted to convict, right? The senator from Ohio up for re-election in '22 is retiring, and voted to acquit anyway. Or did you mean the Democratic senator from Ohio, who's up for re-election in '24, who obviously voted to convict?

Honestly, the thing that baffles me most about the last four years is how some people still manage to believe the uniparty myth. Even if they are both establishment, that doesn't mean they are on the same side. Or if they are on the same side in some fights it's a very situational thing, like...