Pardon Me? While Trump Has Questions, There Are Few (Solid) Answers
President Donald Trump is reportedly mulling the scope of his power to pardon everyone around him—and possibly himself—in the Russia investigation that Special Counsel Robert Mueller III leads. (His lawyers said that talk wasn't happening.) All of this means questions remain about pardon power. Here's a snapshot of some of the commentary from around the web.
July 21, 2017 at 02:34 PM
4 minute read
President Donald Trump is reportedly mulling the scope of his power to pardon everyone around him—and possibly himself—in the Russia investigation that Special Counsel Robert Mueller III leads.
“This is not in the context of, 'I can't wait to pardon myself,' ” an adviser told The Washington Post. Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Trump, denied that they're discussing pardons. Another Trump lawyer, John Dowd, told BuzzFeed News on Friday: “There is nothing going on on pardons, research—nothing.”
Still, all of this means questions remain about pardon power.
Lawyers to the rescue! Here's a snapshot of some of the commentary from around the web. For more information on presidential pardon power, check out the National Constitution Center.
Daniel Hemel and Eric Posner, University of Chicago Law School: “If it could be shown that President Trump pardoned his family members and close aides to cover up possible crimes, then that could be seen as acting 'corruptly' and he could be charged with obstruction of justice. If, as some commentators believe, a sitting president cannot be indicted, Mr. Trump could still face prosecution after he leaves the White House. There is strong support for the claim that the obstruction statutes apply to the president.” [The New York Times op-ed]
Brian Kalt, Michigan State University College of Law: “I have been studying self-pardons and writing about them for over 20 years now (including in Chapter 2 of my book), and I have thoroughly convinced myself that any court faced with the issue should rule against self-pardons' validity. But 'should' and 'would' are two different things, and it is so hard to predict just what the Supreme Court would do that I can't say with any precision. I'll just say that I think it's less than 50 percent, but not close to zero percent.” [CNN]
Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School: “Memo to Trump: Anyone you pardon can be compelled to testify without any grant of immunity, and that testimony could undo you.” [Twitter]
Keith Harper, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton: “The real hesitance on pardon for Trump is that afterwards 5th Amend[ment] protection evaporates. But future perjury doesn't.” [Twitter]
Andy Wright, Savannah Law School: “While some doubt remains about whether the president has the authority to pardon himself, a self-pardon is most likely legally ineffective from shielding a president from future federal prosecution.” [Just Security]
Samuel Morison, formerly of the DOJ's Office of the Pardon Attorney: “My opinion is that in theory that he could [self-pardon]. But then he would be potentially subject to impeachment for doing that.” He added: “There are no constraints defined in the Constitution itself that says he can't do that.” [The Washington Post]
P.S. Ruckman, Rock Valley College professor who runs the blog Pardon Power: “The conventional wisdom, or the Supreme Court jargon to date, suggests that a president can pardon someone before, during or after conviction. Is it possible Trump could pardon for crimes he may have committed in some period of time? Absolutely, yes.” [The Washington Post]
Related Articles:
|- The Washington Wrap Podcast: Episode Two
- FBI Nominee to Senate: Trump FCPA Probe Not Off-Limits
- Jamie Gorelick Retreats From Russia Probe, Will Counsel Kushner on Ethics, Disclosures
- Former US House Lawyers Tee Up Likely Legal Issues on Mueller's Long Road
- Mueller Bolsters Russia Team's Appellate Readiness in New Hire
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Financial Services Has a Trust Problem. Can GCs Help Right the Ship?
Covington, Steptoe Form New Groups Amid Demand in Regulatory, Enforcement Space
4 minute readDOJ Files Antitrust Suit Against Visa Alleging It Thwarts Payment-Processing Rivals
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250