Could Trump Pardon Himself?

Less than two years ago, most Americans would probably have laughed at the suggestion that a president, whether Trump or a previous president, could grant himself a pardon. And in the American experience, very few presidents have even been in the position for the topic of a presidential pardon, let alone a “self-pardon,” to come up. Until recently, too, the idea of a U.S. president having unbounded power in any area was unthinkable. But the Donald Trump presidency continues to test and stretch beyond the bounds of reason.

Recently, the New York Times obtained a confidential 20-page memo written by Trump’s attorneys to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The document argues, in effect, that Donald Trump, as president, has the power to direct the Department of Justice to open or terminate any investigation at any time and for any reason. Consequently, with this authority, it’s not possible for Trump to be guilty of committing obstruction of justice. The memo also asserts that the president has the power to pardon anyone at any time before, during, or after an investigation or conviction.

“Indeed, the President not only has unfettered statutory and Constitutional authority to terminate the FBI Director, he also has Constitutional authority to direct the Justice Department to open or close an investigation, and, of course, the power to pardon any person before, during, or after an investigation and/or conviction. Put simply, the Constitution leaves no question that the President has exclusive authority over the ultimate conduct and disposition of all criminal investigations and over those executive branch officials responsible for conducting those investigations,” the memo declares.

News of the memo and its content has led many Americans to ask, “Does this mean that Trump could pardon himself? And if so, would he?” Trump’s attorneys say that, though it’s unthinkable that Trump would actually pardon himself, he does have the authority to do so.

At this point in the Trump presidency, it shouldn’t require much effort to suspend disbelief and assume that, of course he would pardon himself.

There was a time when many Americans were incredulous that Donald Trump, an unqualified reality TV star, could actually be elected President of the United States. Then, many Americans were flabbergasted when his supporters, many of them evangelical conservatives, continued to support him despite the fact that his actions and words largely went against what they purported to believe.

Many of those outside Trump’s base have learned simply to stop expecting an epiphany as Trump supporters continue to make excuses for Trump, his actions, and his words, no matter what.  With each new preposterous Trumpian tweet or sensationalist-sounding news story of Trump’s antics, we shake our heads in disbelief a little less vigorously.

One might think, though, that this recent declaration of “exclusive authority” that Trump’s lawyers assert belongs to the President of the United States, would be too much even for Trump’s staunchest supporters to stand behind.  This, some of us have assured ourselves, must surely be the last straw. It negates the system of checks and balances set up to prevent the danger of precisely a situation like this – a leader attempting to exert unrestrained authority – from happening. It resembles support for an authoritarian leader a little too closely.

Though many Republicans are troubled by the memo put out by Trump’s lawyers, other key GOP members such as Paul Ryan, stand behind its assertions. Many in the GOP, that party known for its position of “smaller government,” are going along with the idea that a president can, in effect, rule as an authoritarian, at least when it comes to how justice is carried out (or obstructed, as the case may be).

We can only hope that reason (with the help of the U.S. Supreme Court) would prevail if our country landed in a position where Donald Trump were actually poised to pardon himself, or if he would actually get away with acting like a totalitarian ruler. Perhaps we can draw some hope from the Supreme Court case, United States v. Nixon, in which the court ruled unanimously that presidential privilege did not supplant the law. Following the ruling, Nixon resigned. Then again, in the current political landscape, reason and credulity appear to have ever-widening boundaries.

 

Can President Trump pardon himself in the Russia investigation? | Face the Nation [2013-06-03]

Can Trump pardon himself? | Fox Business [2018-06-04]

Mueller Investigation a Real Witch Hunt?

Donald Trump has used the phrase “witch hunt” so often in recent months that the term has lost its potency. Trump casually tosses the term around via Twitter with frequency. His references to Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump campaign’s connections with Russia as a witch hunt appear to have accomplished Trump’s apparent goal of diminishing the legitimacy of the investigation – at least to his supporters.

Of Trump’s supporters, 51 percent disapprove of the Mueller investigation, and just 43 percent support it. Overall, 69 percent of Americans support the Mueller investigation.

The modern definition of a witch hunt is “an attempt to find and punish a particular group of people who are being blamed for something, often simply because of their opinions and not because they have actually done anything wrong,” according to the Collins Dictionary.

The origins of the term, of course, harken back to the days of the Salem witch trials. Today, people are fond of applying the term “witch hunt” hyperbolically when they feel – or want to appear – wrongly targeted or scrutinized, even if the application of the term is ridiculous and has no real parallel.

In the 1692 Salem Village witch hunt, those who were accused of witchcraft were held without a fair investigation. Nineteen accused people were hanged, and one was crushed to death. Their “guilt” was based on hearsay and mass hysteria, and little or no real evidence. Robert Mueller’s “witch hunt,” on the other hand, has been a year-long, careful endeavor, aimed at finding facts and amassing solid evidence.

“…Trump comparing the investigation into his campaign to a crisis that left 20 people dead in the 17th century is clearly ridiculous — there is much more evidence in the criminal indictments, the court-sanctioned wiretaps, and the consensus of Republican and Democratic investigators for Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election than there is for witchcraft — and rather unsavory,” write Dylan Scott and Tara Isabella Burton, of Vox.

In 17th-century Salem Village, the (mostly) women who were charged did not have the option to loudly undercut their accusers. They had no support; those who might have supported them lived in fear of being accused themselves. Regarding Robert Mueller’s “witch hunt,” on the other hand, Trump feels free to speak and tweet his opinion.

“You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people!” Trump tweeted on June 15, 2017.

“It would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened! Witch Hunt!” tweeted Trump on May 1, 2018.

“This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!” he tweeted on May 18, 2018.

“We’ve turned the expression on its head. Traditionally a witchcraft charge amounted to powerful men charging powerless women with a phony crime. Now it is powerful men screeching that they are being charged with phony crimes,” says Stacey Schiff, author of The Witches, a book about the Salem witch trials.

Hyperbole, though, is Donald Trump’s style. Misappropriation of terms is a Trump hallmark, as is good old-fashioned gaslighting. But to Trump’s supporters, the more often he tosses out the phrase “witch hunt” in a tweet, the more they see the idea as truth.

Donald Trump’s ‘Witch Hunt’ | HuffPost [2018-04-11]

Trump slams Mueller probe calling it a ‘witch hunt’ | Fox Business [2018-03-19]