you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 1 day ago (4 children)

It's an unanswered question, but the SCOTUS immunity ruling makes it mostly moot anyway. A President can't be charged with crimes related to "official business." Which specific acts count as official vs unofficial depends on the interpretation of a judge/justice, and probably gets extremely messy and inconsistent, which is why the ruling is considered problematic by most.

They can NOT pardon to protect themselves from impeachment.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    Not going to make a top level comment since this may be considered sort of a tangent, but there is chatter about lots of White House staff asking for pardons, since they aren't necessarily immune. The thing is, once someone gets a pardon, and they no longer face prosecution, there is no danger of self-incrimination, and the 5th Amendment right to not speak largely disappears. I.e. they could be compelled to testify against Trump.

    So does Trump throw all these people under the bus by making them face criminal prosecution for his crimes, or does he make them immune and increase the risk (even if only reputational) to himself? Investigators could easily offer immunity in exchange for testimony even without a pardon. I think we know which he'll choose, but it leaves both sides pitted against one another.

    The snake may be about to eat itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • Neat.

    Next non-fascist president, having a monkey-paw moment, gets the Tribunal of Six in the same room and locks the door

    There are now six Supreme Court vacancies. This is an official act. We can do this the easy way or the hard way

    Alito begins to speak

    BAM

    Any other objections?

  • source
  • parent