The Constitution gives the president the power to grant a pardon to anyone, including himself, for offenses against the United States; therefore, the current investigation is a waste of time and taxpayer's money.

It has never happened and been litigated. However, the majority view is that a president can pardon himself (assuming he does so prior to impeachment). Art. II Sec. 2 of the Constitution states, in part, that the president "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Furthermore, there is no foolproof evidence that President Trump or anyone in his cabinet is guilty of a capital offense. A not guilty outcome will shame the Democrats and guarantee a second term for President Trump.

Marion C. Medwedeff

Friendswood

Locations

(48) comments

Jim Forsythe

He could still be impeached.
The problem is, there is no precedent as to whether a president’s pardon of himself would pass the constitutional test simply because no president has ever tried it. During the Watergate scandal of 1973 and 1974, there was discussion in Washington legal circles that Nixon could simply pardon himself — though under the Constitution even a pardon would not get a president out of impeachment proceedings against him.

Why did the 25th Amendment come about.
The original constitution was a bit vague and kept causing problems when presidents or vice-presidents died or got ill. Congress finally amended it after President Kennedy was killed, and the rules have been used several times since: when Nixon resigned, Reagan was shot, and various people had surgery.

Will  it be used? Unless thing change , more than likely  not.
Section 4 of the 25th Amendment has never been invoked.  As a practical matter, it won’t be happening any time soon--it would require the consent of Vice President Pence and over half the cabinet, and it’s hard to imagine any of them would go along with it.
Even if somehow the President’s enemies could get Mike Pence to go along, and bypass other requirements, kicking President Trump out of office for being unfit, while Trump himself is loudly disagreeing, would create a crisis so great it could imaginably lead to civil war.

Carlos Ponce

For the good of the country this impeachment nonsense has to stop. There are no legitimate grounds for impeachment.
Collusion is a delusion fabricated by a team of anti-Trumps in a made up dossier. And legally is collusion an impeachable offense?
"Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law)"
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366
"....if Donald Trump Jr. sought 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any 'thing of value' to an electoral campaign."
The meeting was such a non-event, DT Jr. immediately dismissed and forgot about it so nothing came of it. That's why he forgot about the specifics of the meeting. The meeting had "nothing of value" as Politico suggests.
Natalia Veselnitskaya had met with several Congressmen and was in the front row of a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing at which witnesses discussed U.S. sanctions against her country as pictured in The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russian-lawyer-who-met-with-trump-jr-has-long-history-fighting-sanctions/2017/07/11/05e2467c-65b1-11e7-94ab-5b1f0ff459df_story.html
Are the Congress Members being investigated for meeting with her? No.
Is hoping the investigation of General Flynn would go away even considered obstruction of justice. Not really.
Is the firing of Comey an "obstruction of justice"? Even Democrats were calling for his dismissal long before it happened. Did Comey's firing stop any investigation? No it did not. Comey headed the FBI but had no role in the actual investigation.
Unless there are legitimate reasons for impeachment this is nothing but vengeance for Trump being elected and not Hillary. Are Democrats that vengeful? Seems so.

Carlos Ponce

About Natalia Veselnitskaya: Why did the DOJ under Obama allow her into this country without a Visa?
"The Russian lawyer who penetrated Donald Trump’s inner circle was initially cleared into the United States by the Justice Department under “extraordinary circumstances” before she embarked on a lobbying campaign last year that ensnared the president’s eldest son, members of Congress, journalists and State Department officials, according to court and Justice Department documents and interviews. This revelation means it was the Obama Justice Department that enabled the newest and most intriguing figure in the Russia-Trump investigation to enter the country without a visa."
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump
"WASHINGTON - Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, asked the US administration on Tuesday how the Russian lawyer who met President Donald Trump's son in New York in June 2016 was allowed to enter the United States. Grassley, in a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, said U.S. permission for the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, to travel to the United States had been set to expire on Jan. 7, 2016, and her request for an extension had been denied, Grassley's office said in a statement. "
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-visa-idUSKBN19X029

isleshire
Curtiss Brown

Maybe they were setting her up. Maybe they had security reasons that you can't see. Maybe DOJ was influenced by the FBI and the CIA for their purposes. Why do you think it is a good idea to question these guys who are on the scene at ground zero working on these issues and you are sitting in Texas City just making things up.

Casey Alan

There's an old saying where there's smoke there's fire. No one is saying Trump is guilty of anything yet. That is why there is an investigation. Either to find out if he is guilty or to clear his name. If indeed he did know and was involved in a foreign government changing the outcome of an election that is treason. Surely you do not want a president in office that is guilty of treason to this country. Just pretend that they are still investigating Hillary Clinton's emails. I'm sure you had no problem with that.

Kelly Naschke

Hey Casey....smoke and mirrors is the more applicable connotation as it directly correlates with the demb demb strategy of resistance and obstruction.

Casey Alan

This is why investigations are good. To make sure there is no obstruction. If indeed Trump is guilty of breaking any laws set forth by this country he should be dealt with accordingly. I know it's hard to follow the program with all the alternative facts and denials. And then according to the investigations truth comes out. If it wasn't for the lies there would be no need for investigation.

Carlos Ponce

"There's an old saying where there's smoke there's fire."
Trump didn't start the fire
It was already burning
Since the world's been turning
Trump didn't start the fire
No he didn't light it
But he tried to fight it
Whitewater, Travelgate, Loretta Lynch's plane,
Benghazi cover-up, Comey's claim,
Uranium deal, emails, Bimbos in the front gate........

Casey Alan

All of the above has nothing to do what's going on now in the White House. Fight it?! That was then, this is now. His people lit the fire that is smoking now. Is he guilty? We won't know until the investigation is over. The lies surrounding him and his tweets, these are the matches. Emails were investigated Benghazi was investigated. And investigated it in detail. But again that was then this is now. Now is what is most important. And now is what America should be concerned about.

Carlos Ponce

" His people lit the fire that is smoking now. " WRONG! And the Cover-up of Bengazhi and all the Hillary scandals continues!

Doyle Beard

has everythingto do with it, its call enforce the law equally. your starment is a copout.

Doyle Beard

Boy was that an investigation of Hillary. if one believes she was investigated then go buy some ocean front property in Arizona

Josh Butler

Agree, but fat chance. The Left will not stop.

Jim Forsythe

If any of the following were found to be true, would you be in favor of  impeachment of Trump? If so, which one would cause you to say yes to impeachment ?
if not, what would it take for you to be in favor of impeachment of Trump or any other President?
(1)
If Trump indeed fired Comey because he believed that the FBI investigation was getting too close to the truth on the Trump-Russia scandal, then it would be hard to argue that the move was defensible.
There are still big questions as to whether this could count as full obstruction of justice, which would be an impeachable offense. It was, of course, the sort of obstruction of justice that opened Nixon's impeachment proceedings, instead of any of the other crimes that he committed as president.
(2)
If any of the multiple investigations into the Trump campaign's dealings with the Russians lead to the finding that he did, in fact, actively collude with Russia in order to win the 2016 election, then Republicans in Congress would have little choice but to call it treason and impeach him on that count
(3)
Everyone learned what the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution was even before Trump's inauguration, just because so many people were saying that his decision not to disassociate himself from his business would put him in violation of it.
It has become crystal clear that he does not want anyone getting ahold of his tax returns. There are any number of things that he could be hiding there, like mob ties, scant charitable donations, or a low net worth, but bribery through business dealings could certainly show up, and it would definitely be an impeachable offense.

Carlos Ponce

Jim,
(1) Comey asides from heading the FBI has NOTHING to do with the ongoing investigations.
(2) Treason-Legal definition:
"The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies."
Has Trump waged war against the United States? No. And when did the United States declare war on Russia or Russia declared war on the United States? Russia does not fit the legal definition of "enemy".
(3) The government (Treasury Department) HAS Trump's tax returns.You can tell if what you are alleging is there based on his FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE which he did turn in.
So as far as your three arguments: "It's one, two, three strikes you're out
At the old ballgame". Jim, you're OUT!

Jim Forsythe

What would it take for you to be in favor of impeachment of Trump, or any other President?
If a President did a combination of acts , at the level of Nixon , would you be in favor of impeachment and them being removed from office, Would this be enough, or would it take more for you.

Investigation was already started.
"Trump abruptly fired predecessor James Comey during its investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election and potential coordination with the Trump campaign. 
The probe was later handed to special counsel Robert Mueller" Facts will come out later, maybe.


Carlos Ponce

Impeachment for impeachable offenses. So far NOTHING fits the Constitutional requirement. It was not Comey's investigation - it was the FBI's investigation. Firing Comey did not stop any investigation so claiming it was an example of obstruction is seriously and legally flawed.

Jim Forsythe

Trump’s public statements and tweets, may come back and haunt him.

"the obstruction law says that intervening in the proceeding is only a crime if it is done “corruptly.” The big issue, then, is Trump’s intentions.
What did he mean when he allegedly told Comey in February, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go”? Why did he allegedly force everyone else out of the Oval Office before he did so? Why did he fire Comey in May?
Akerman, a lawyer who served as an assistant special Watergate prosecutor, said Trump’s public statements — such as his declaration on NBC that he was thinking about the Russia probe when he fired Comey — offer an “unbelievable” amount of evidence of a corrupt intent, far beyond what a prosecutor would normally be able to obtain."

George Croix

The 'truth' cam out of the FBI Directors own mouth on national TV about Hillary Clinton's offenses, yet despite him saying that she did several orders of magnitude more than what would have sent Joe or Jane Blow to the penitentiary, that same Director took it upon himself to unhook her and throw her back...which was especially interesting because it was not HIS place to decide at any other time or similar situation.
They're the Federal Bureau of Matters, uh, Investigation...not susbstitutes for a Grand Jury or an Attorney General.....
Except twhen the 'truth' is being dictated from the White House.....

If that was Okey Dokey to so many a year ago, why not far less and zero actual evidence to date being OK now...??

Steve Fouga

My opinion, stated here before, is that the Republican-led Congress is simply waiting for the best time to remove Trump and install either Pence or, if he doesn't survive Trump's removal, Ryan. Either of these gentlemen would give the Republicans a better chance of holding both houses of Congress, if before the mid-terms, and/or holding the presidency, if after.

Carlos Ponce

Nonsense.

Casey Alan

This is about a Russian-Trump connection. His people lied about not being in contact with them when indeed they had been. And you are forgetting Trump is the president not Clinton. This is about the president of the United States possibly doing something against the United States and its rules and laws. I am assuming you didn't vote for Clinton because you thought she was a liar and broke rules and laws. So why would you want to keep someone like Trump who also broke rules and laws in office assuming he is found guilty.

Carlos Ponce

Take a chill pill, Casey. There is nothing there.
"I am assuming you didn't vote for Clinton because you thought she was a liar and broke rules and laws." WRONG! It did not vote for Hillary because of her stance on views.
"assuming he is found guilty" That's an UN-AMERICAN take on jurisprudence. A person in this country is INNOCENT until proven guilty. No evidence of guilt to date.

Jim Forsythe

Casey, said that if proven wrong.
"This is about the president of the United States possibly doing something against the United States and its rules and laws."
Carlos said
"A person in this country is INNOCENT until proven guilty. No evidence of guilt to date. "
If this is true, the same standard must be used for all.
" WRONG! And the Cover-up of Bengazhi and all the Hillary scandals continues!"
Why does it continue. Some will not rest until a investigation comes back the way they want it to.
How many needs be done? is it up to 7 ,or is it 8? 
Who would have come to the conclusion that is not accepted by some?
There have been many investigations (of Benghazi) led mostly by Republicans in the Congress.

Carlos Ponce

"Why does it continue." If Hillary would keep out of the spotlight, everyone would be happy. Not saying she should keep silent but maintain proper respectful decorum as other losing candidates have. Even Al Gore wasn't this bad.

Carlos Ponce

Ask the families of the Beghazi dead if they have closure.

Jim Forsythe

What would be maintaining proper respectful decorum be to you. What has she done that is so bad after the election, that has you so upset.
Do you think that when Trump is out office, he will not be in the limelight? Will he not tweet, or this only applies to Hillary .

"Ask the families of the Beghazi dead if they have closure".  As ,I do not know any of the family's, may guess is they have the same things going on with them as the family's of the ones that were a part of the  13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?
Even though I did not know my Uncle, that was killed in WW11 , I still do not have closure.

Carlos Ponce

"What would be maintaining proper respectful decorum be to you,"
Like George HW Bush acted upon his loss, Like Mitt Romney acted upon his defeat, etc

Carlos Ponce

"may guess is they have the same things going on with them as the family's of the ones that were a part of the 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?"
Not really. Thery knew something was going down and asked for support which dod not come. When they learned of the attack, our military was prepped and ready to go in and render aid. Their request was denied.

Carlos Ponce

NO US ambassadors killed during George W Bush administration. The 60 included some Americans, who were contractors. The rest were foreign nationals. While the loss of any life is bad those killed did not anticipate the attacks and did not ask for additional security. The GW Bush administration also did not blame a film for the attacks. HILLARY LIED.

Jim Forsythe

"There have been many investigations (of Benghazi) led mostly by Republicans in the Congress". How many investigations will make you happy? Who do you want to lead them?

"those killed did not anticipate the attacks and did not ask for additional security   " if they did not , they were not prepared  to be at these stations,  60 were killed and in harms way.
"NO US ambassadors killed" only means that they were lucky, as death was at their doorsteps. The non US ambassadors families of those killed may not agree that its ok because they were not US ambassadors

"The 60 included some Americans, who were contractors "included a American student and her husband.
September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months

"What would be maintaining proper respectful decorum be to you,"
"Like George HW Bush acted upon his loss, Like Mitt Romney acted upon his defeat, etc" and they were not running after they loss. Hillary may be!
What has she done that is so bad after the election, that has you so upset?

Carlos Ponce

The findings were like Comey's, she is GUILTY and should be charged.

Jim Forsythe

Who would you want to be on a new investigation team, since you are not happy with the ones lead by Republican's.
The Republican's are in power now, so they could be doing a investigation, if in their option one is needed. 

 

Jim Forsythe

Instead of another investigation of Benghazi , they chose to look at ties to Russia.

Carlos Ponce

"Who would you want to be on a new investigation team, since you are not happy with the ones lead by Republican's."
I was happy with the Republicans investigating the Hillary scandals. Why did those committees choose to do nothing ? The answer is obvious. What would the Democrats have said if they came to correct conclusion of charges against the former First lady? Democrats would have said the Republicans were trying to circumvent democracy with a political coup. And why not after the election? President Trump wanted the nation to heal. Despite cries of "Lock her up!" in the rallies, Trump decided this was the best for the country. Just let it go. But Hillary is back in the limelight trying to undermine his administration. Maybe it's time to "Lock her up". But you know what the Liberals would say if that happened.

Jim Forsythe

I was happy with the Republicans investigating the Hillary scandals"
  if you were happy with them , but not the results, then you expecting result's that they deemed not correct. If you had been in the day to day of the investigation , then you may know why they come up with the results they did.

"What would the Democrats have said if they came to correct conclusion" The right one was, according to the investigating team.

If they were not strong enough to stand up to the Liberals, they have no business being in DC .  Who appointed (the investigating team)  the ones you are calling to weak to stand up for what they thought was right. They were elected by the people that sent them to DC, to govern ,and stand strong with their convictions.
Since  liberals make up 24% of the U.S. population , they are scared of a  small percent of USA voters.

"a political coup": How many coups have happen in the USA?

"Trump wanted the nation to heal". if that was true , why is the divide  larger, even in the Republican party.

"Just let it go". Who keeps bringing up Benghazi?

"But you know what the Liberals would say if that happened."  No I do not, as I do not know a true Liberal.


I was happy with the Republicans investigating the Hillary scandals"
  if you were happy with them , but not the results, then you expecting result's that they deemed not correct. If you had been in the day to day of the investigation , then you may know why they come up with the results they did.

"What would the Democrats have said if they came to correct conclusion" The right one was, according to the investigating team.

If they were not strong enough to stand up to the Liberals, they have no business being in DC .  Who appointed (the investigating team)  the ones you are calling to weak to stand up for what they thought was right.They were elected by the people that sent them to DC, to govern ,and stand strong with their convictions.

Since  liberals make up 24% of the U.S. population , they are scared of a  small percent of USA voters.

"a political coup": How many coups have happen in the USA?

"Trump wanted the nation to heal". if that was true , why is the divide  larger, even in the Republican party.

"Just let it go". Who keeps bringing up Benghazi?

"But you know what the Liberals would say if that happened."  No I do not, as I do not know a true Liberal.

Carlos Ponce

You want to see a true Liberal? Look in the mirror.

Carlos Ponce

"Who keeps bringing up Benghazi?"
People who seek justice, especially the families of the slain.

Jim Forsythe

"You want to see a true Liberal? Look in the mirror."
I'm not a true Liberal. Some of what I believe is Liberal, most is mainstream Democratic, some Conservative Democrat , some far right...

"Who keeps bringing up Benghazi?"
"People who seek justice, especially the families of the slain."
Who is going to give you this outcome? The investigating teams did not, even though most were made up of with more Republicans than Democrats. If they have another investigation and they came back with
the same outcome, you still would not be happy. If you have some new evidence , then the outcome could be different. Facts other than what they looked at. But I have not seen anything new, have you.

Carlos Ponce

"I'm not a true Liberal." Jim Forsythe
Your posts show you are a true, Liberal, Jim.
The Logical Song
"Now watch what you post or they'll be calling you a radical,
Liberal, fanatical, criminal."

Jim Forsythe

A true Liberal dose not have my view about what should be done with
people coming to the USA, that should not.
I true Liberal does not have the view on gun control, that I do.
A true Liberal dose not have the view on some Republicans candidates, that I have.

A true Liberal is liberal, in all phases, I am not.

Doyle Beard

Dream on.

George Croix

So far, the investigations are turning more dirt on the Obama/Hillary cabal than on the Trumps.
As but one example, NOW we learn that Obama's operatives including the Tarmac Secret Meeting Specialist AG Loretta Lynch moved heaven and earth to let the Russian lawyer enter the country for months AFTER being denied a visa...

Reckon why that was...?

"Let me be clear"....it wasn't a coincidence.....

Ryan Holliday

Y'all are really trying to pull the Marion Berry defense?

George Croix

Entrapment is not the same thing as conspiracy.

It's becoming a bit clearer who some of the players were in an active and even planned involvement in 'influencing an election' on this side of the Big Water.
Maybe we should all have taken a clue when our ex-POTUS' followup a year ahead of the election was to tell the Rooskies to "Cut it out".....

Steve Fouga

The Obama administration's actions during the 2016 election were as cowardly as any government actions I've observed, worse than the same administration's "red line" fiasco. They should have outed the Russians' meddling along with anything they had on the Trump campaign and the Clintons, and left it to the electorate to figure out who to vote for. That the administration didn't will taint history's judgment of its accomplishments, good or bad.

That said, I'm betting on criminal indictments of close Trump associates, and the eventual impeachment and removal of the president. If big dirt on other government crooks is exposed along the way, so much the better. I'm not invested in the Clintons or the Democrats. I hope for a house-cleaning, and an even better America.

George Croix

I'm waiting on the criminal indictment and PRISON time for espionage for Hillary Clinton based on the evidence produced by FBI investigation, and OPENLY STATED ON NATIONAL TV by the FBI Director at the time (he's gone, and he punted, although it wasn't his call, BUT there is no statute of limitations on espionage, and there will be a new Sheriff in town soon...) and the known willful destruction of THOUSANDS of documents under subpeona at the time and destruction of devices for same and allowing, ENABLING with a private personal low security homebrew server , the loose handling of top secret materials including some of it ending up on a laptop owned by pervert Weiner who had NO security clearance, along with collusion with the Russians to obtain hundreds of millions for her private Foundation/Global Initiative which investigation needs to be re-started with an honest investigator heading it this time.....ETC.....not even counting because the 4 dead guys in Benghazi deserve better than no consequences for a lifetime political hack dancing in a sarong in Bali eating up travel funds that could have been used instead to answer desperate and multiple pleas for security and help under her command....along with the massive, nationwide REAL 'collusion' by the media to ignore as much of this as possible, so that what passes for a base would be justified in 'not caring what she did'.....

Hope springs eternal...

Steve Fouga

I'll call your Hillary, and raise you a Donald. Like I said, a house-cleaning.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.