Trump has expressed concern — and a legitimate concern it is! — that, should he be defeated, he will become the focus of countless probes, investigations, and criminal proceedings on several levels. So if he DOES go down to defeat ....
1) as a lame-duck president, can he grant himself a presidential pardon prior to leaving office?
2) if not, can he resign and let Pence serve out the last 'x' number of weeks, and then let PENCE do a bro a solid and issue the pardon — like Ford did for Nixon?
3) if a pardon is granted under either of these circumstances, can the pardon be declared fraudulent (or something) and negated, voided, or otherwise nullified by the incoming administration?
4) or can Trump, in his last act as president, run for the border and try to get himself to someplace from which he cannot be extradited ... like Putin's guest bedroom? -"BB"-
Re: Silly question, but ....
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2020 2:49 am
by Burning Petard
1. I don't think so.
2. Sure. Nixon and Ford both stated over and over that there was no quid pro quo. But things happen and life goes on.
I don't think a pardon would get Trump off the hook in civil court cases.
3. absolutely not.
4. Sure. probably his best out.
All the above is IMNSHO. I am not a judge, a lawyer, a politician. I have never played one on tv. I have never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
snailgate
Re: Silly question, but ....
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:03 am
by Joe Guy
Trump has claimed that he has the power to pardon himself. There's no doubt that if he tries, it will be challenged in court. A legal pardon can't be undone by another president.
The above is based on a discussion on this subject that I heard on a local radio station between a lawyer and the talk show host.
ETA:
Re: Silly question, but ....
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:12 am
by BoSoxGal
He can’t pardon himself for state crimes - nor can Pence - and the New York State AG is building a major case against him.
Putin would probably be happy to give him asylum if he brings a few thumb drives full of our national security secrets with him. I hope they’ve been careful about what they let him see.
Re: Silly question, but ....
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:08 am
by liberty
If anyone had any evidence that Trump had committed any crime, it would have been used during the impeachment trial, but it wasn’t. There was clear evidence that Clinton had committed a crime, but Democrats wouldn’t convict him. Democrats are liars and hypocrites and proud of it. No one should be charged with a crime just because they are not liked, but that is not the way the Democrats see it. Too many Democrats have a Stalinist mentality.
Re: Silly question, but ....
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2020 11:15 am
by Darren
I doubt any of the state cases go anywhere based on the lack of IRS interest over the years.
The real question, if he loses, will he run in 2024? That might be preferable. The GOP gained House seats. That may point to enough of a gain in 2022 for control. I
If you consider the SCOTUS, Trump returning in 2024 might provide more of an opportunity to replace justices.
If anyone had any evidence that Trump had committed any crime, it would have been used during the impeachment trial, but it wasn’t. It wasn't because the impeachment trial was on very specific issues. There was plenty of evidence that he had committed those specific crimes (Ukraine) and it was presented but of course the jury was biased. No evidence was presented about, for example, Trump's financial crimes or his assaults on women. There was clear evidence that Clinton had committed a crime, but Democrats wouldn’t convict him. I won't disagree there (re his possible attempts to impede the investigation into his conduct) but in the end the behavior (having an affair with Ms Lewinsky) dd not threaten democracy or steal money from taxpayers. Democrats are liars and hypocrites and proud of it. Any D lying or hypocrisy is minuscule compared to Trump's world class efforts. No one should be charged with a crime just because they are not liked, (Agreed) but that is not the way the Democrats see it. Er, no. Too many Democrats have a Stalinist mentality. An assertion is not proof.
I doubt any of the state cases go anywhere based on the lack of IRS interest over the years.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha etc.
Oh, you think New York just forgot?
U.S. Legal News October 7, 2020 Manhattan prosecutor can obtain Trump's tax returns, court rules
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Wednesday said Manhattan’s district attorney can enforce a subpoena seeking Donald Trump’s tax returns and other financial records for a criminal probe into the U.S. president and his businesses.
In a 3-0 decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan rejected the Republican president’s claims that the subpoena was overly broad and amounted to political harassment by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, a Democrat.
***
The Supreme Court has already ruled once in the bitter, yearlong dispute, having in July rejected Trump’s argument he was immune from criminal probes while in the White House.
***
Vance’s probe began more than two years ago, and had focused on hush money payments that the president’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen paid before the 2016 election to two women who said they had sexual encounters with Trump.
The district attorney has suggested in recent court filings that his probe is now broader and could focus on bank, tax and insurance fraud, as well as falsification of business records.
***
Even if Vance gets Trump’s tax returns, grand jury secrecy rules make it unlikely he will reveal their contents unless criminal charges were brought. If that happened, it would likely occur after the Nov. 3 election.
Attorney General James Takes Action to Force Trump Organization to Comply with Ongoing Investigation Into Financial Dealings
Motion to Compel Filed After Trump Organization Fails
to Produce Subpoenaed Documents and Witnesses
Eric Trump Refuses to Show Up for Scheduled, Subpoenaed Interview
NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James this past Friday took legal action in an ongoing civil investigation into the Trump Organization’s financial dealings. Attorney General James opened an investigation into Donald Trump and the Trump Organization in 2019, after Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress that Trump’s annual financial statements inflated the values of Trump’s assets to obtain favorable terms for loans and insurance coverage, while also deflating the value of other assets to reduce real estate taxes. At dispute are seven subpoenas which would provide the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) with thousands of documents and testimony from multiple witnesses regarding several, specific Trump Organization properties and transactions. Among other things, the action seeks to compel the testimony of Trump Organization Executive Vice President Eric Trump, who was intimately involved in one or more transactions under review, as well as the production of thousands of documents wrongly withheld.
“Nothing will stop us from following the facts and the law, wherever they may lead. For months, the Trump Organization has made baseless claims in an effort to shield evidence from a lawful investigation into its financial dealings,” said Attorney General James. “They have stalled, withheld documents, and instructed witnesses, including Eric Trump, to refuse to answer questions under oath. That’s why we've filed a motion to compel the Trump Organization to comply with our office’s lawful subpoenas for documents and testimony. These questions will be answered and the truth will be uncovered, because no one is above the law.”
For months, the Trump Organization has acknowledged the OAG’s authority to investigate the matters alleged, and has professed cooperation, but has refused to produce documents on invalid grounds. In recent weeks, Eric Trump has refused to appear entirely to give testimony pursuant to a subpoena, despite his being an important character in certain transactions.
These events led Attorney General James to, last Friday, file a motion to compel testimony and documents in New York County State Supreme Court. Attorney General James asked the court to order the Trump Organization to furnish witnesses for interviews and to provide documents regarding specific Trump Organization properties and transactions.
"Too many Democrats have a Stalinist mentality" I suppose one is too many. But as a significant minority (more than one percent) no way.
However, if you want to say Trotskyism, I would be happy to talk.
snailgate
One percent, how can you say that we have three here on this little board? Imagine the horrors that Shithead would do if he had the power.
I challenge you to find ANYTHING that ANYONE here has ever said that expresses approval of Stalin or anything* he ever did.
*(except for helping us defeat Hitler)
Re: Silly question, but ....
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2020 6:52 am
by dales
Imagine the horrors that Shithead would do if he had the power.
He lost by several million votes.
Re: Silly question, but ....
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 6:51 pm
by ex-khobar Andy
NY has announced that they are now looking at the Trump Organization as a criminal, not civil matter.
NY AG Letitia James has not covered herself in glory in the Daniel Prude killing by police (Rochester NY, March 2020) where she failed to get a grand jury indictment; and I must admit that if Trump is indicted, I am not convinced that a random jury of 12 will be able to convict. Even in liberal (!!) NY there are enough Trump loyalists who would just never convict regardless of the evidence (they had an example set for them by the US Senate, no less) and he will of course crow that he has been found innocent. That would be worse than no trial.
