TDS: Washington Post Settles Question As To Whether Trump Can Pardon Himself

It’s a given in anti-Trump World that he 100% colluded with Russia and Putin to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. There’s no doubt in their minds that he was involved, despite absolutely no evidence having materialized in an investigation that has gone on for over a year at this point. The media has not found anything. The government has so far found nothing. All sorts of Democrats, including some of the loudest TDS sufferers, have noted that there is no evidence. Nothing will stop those suffering from TDS, including the Washington Post’s Elizabeth Holtzman

So, could Trump pardon himself?

Can President Trump pardon himself? Can he pardon his close associates and family members?

These questions have begun to simmer as special counsel Robert S. Mueller III ramps up his investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in its interference with the 2016 presidential election. Mueller is also, undoubtedly, looking into whether the president obstructed justice by firing FBI Director James B. Comey. Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, is reportedly under investigation as well.

The only place they’re simmering are in the fever swamps of Liberal World, where the nutjobs are obsessed with this, rather than truly considering why it is they lost well over a 1,000 federal and state seats during Obama’s presidency, ending with the loss of the White House.

So it’s a live question: Infuriated by these investigations, will the president try to short-circuit them by pardoning himself and others caught up in the Mueller investigations? And, if he did, would those pardons be valid?

The Constitution’s pardon provision gives the president the power “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” Some argue that because the language is broad and there is no explicit prohibition, presidents may pardon themselves.

But this is simplistic and specious. Presidential self-pardoning would violate the basic structure of our Constitution, and the whole history of the pardon power strongly weighs against the concept.

So, you can stop hyperventilating now, Leftartds. Rest easy. Trump can’t pardon himself. You can continue with your impeachment fantasies without worrying that he could be convicted of…..what? Even if he did collude, there is no law broken. There is no law against this. But, hey, that doesn’t matter in Nutter World, because of derangement.

It bears repeating that Putin interfering was more about hurting Hillary than helping Trump. No matter who the GOP candidate was, Putin was going to hurt Hillary. Even James Comey noted this. We know that Putin had a grudge against Hillary. Heck, he hated her. Obama didn’t really do anything to stop the interference. Heck, what if Obama didn’t want Hillary to win? She sure didn’t seem to want to win, what with blowing off a few states, fainting on 9/11, denigrating a large section of the American people, and so forth. Regardless, the Democrats have fallen into the trap laid by Putin by allowing themselves to become unhinged nutjobs, diving the country even more.

Nothing, though, will dissuade Leftist from their obsession with Russia.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “TDS: Washington Post Settles Question As To Whether Trump Can Pardon Himself”

  1. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: he could be convicted of…..what? Even if he did collude, there is no law broken. There is no law against this.

    Colluding with hackers against the DNC could very well be illegal. Obstruction of the investigation could also be illegal, even if there is no evidence Trump was involved in any underlying crime. For instance, evidence of Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate break-in was never found, but there was substantial evidence that he obstructed the investigation of the break-in. Furthermore, even if there is no legal crime, Trump could be subject to impeachment if Congress found that he imperiled U.S. sovereignty for his personal gain.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      That’s a lot of “ifs” and “could be’s”, for one comment, kidz, along with an absence of any “evidence” or “proof”.

      • Zachriel says:

        drowningpuppies: That’s a lot of “ifs” and “could be’s”, for one comment

        The conditional was introduced by William Teach, “Even if he did collude, there is no law broken“, which was incorrect. Collusion could be criminal depending on the facts of the matter. In addition, William Teach asked “he could be convicted of…..what?” We noted that obstruction could constitute a crime, even if Trump was not involved in the underlying acts being investigated.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          More “could be’s” and “if’s” but it’s Teach’s fault.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: More “could be’s” and “if’s” but it’s Teach’s fault.

            It’s not a matter of fault, but the nature of the question William Teach posed, “Even if he did collude, there is no law broken“. Hence, the answer involves accepting the conditional and answering arguendo.

            William Teach was wrong on this. Collusion with a criminal act may very well constitute a crime in itself.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            So now it’s “collusion with a criminal act” along with a “may very well be”…

            So y’all get to add on more “conditionals”?

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: So now it’s “collusion with a criminal act” along with a “may very well be”…

            The claim was that collusion is not against the law. However, collusion may be against the law, depending on the facts of the case.

        • david7134 says:

          z,
          Known fact, Soros went over board to elect Hillary. Is that a crime? I think so as Soros is a foreign entity, just like the Russians. Hillary lied as found numerous times, Obama ran a very corrupt administration, don’t you think this should be taken on. You will never ever be able to find any intent by Trump to collusion with the Russians. To think that you would is nuts, even for a lawyer.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: Known fact, Soros went over board to elect Hillary. Is that a crime? I think so as Soros is a foreign entity, just like the Russians.

            Soros is a U.S. citizen.

            david7134: You will never ever be able to find any intent by Trump to collusion with the Russians.

            Trump did call upon the Russians to release Clinton’s hacked emails during a political campaign. A more likely legal vulnerability is obstruction. There’s an ongoing investigation, so we’ll have to wait and see.

  2. Jeffery says:

    Following a cyber attack by Russia on the US, trump accepts Putin’s claim that the Russians didn’t meddle in our election. Putin grabbed trump by the pussy and trump liked it.

  3. Jeffery says:

    The lying, conniving Putin preferred that the groveling fan-boy trump be elected, knowing that trumpski would be easier to roll over.

    We’ve seen this time and time again, petty bullies (like trump) strut like banty roosters until they are faced with a bully they fear (like Putin). Deep down, trump is insecure and nurtures his fragile ego with transactional dealings – money, suits, women, trappings, airplanes, buildings, bullying the weak.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10220 access attempts in the last 7 days.