WAPO has reported tonight that Trump's lawyers are looking into Pardons for his aides, family members and e even himself.

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 45483dae68

I would note that today is the 6 month anniversary of Trump's "Presidency".

Trump can clearly Pardon his aides, maybe even aides and executives at Trump businesses.

Pardoning his family members is a little tricky, but the SOB would probably drive that through if he wanted to enough. Might be a gag factor, even for his blind, loyal base.

The problem with pardons to these two groups is that they would have to accept them, which is an admission of guilt.

Trump cannot, however, pardon himself as he is still subject to impeachment. Impeachment in the Constitution is senior to Pardon powers. But Trump CAN get h is pardon by resigning and having Pence immediately Pardon. That takes very good timing. Trump signs the resignation while Pence is sworn in, and Pence immediately signs the Pardon, Trump then accepts it and packs his bag, with his private jet taking him to a golf course some where. Might cause problems, but would be worth it to get rid of the guy.

The dogs are circling, and he is clearly desperate.

So far he's behaved exactly like you'd expect a guilty person to behave... Constant denial of facts, ever changing story, trying to control those with authority to investigate him and trying to get rid of them if he can't control them.

Now he's ramping up the attack against Mueller, Rosenstein, even Sessions, presumably to try and justify getting rid of them.
His last card will be the pardon card, but while that might work for his family, it won't work on him.

The thought of him considering pardoning himself is quite revealing of his personality, however. He considers himself more of a 15th Century European monarch than a democratic president. Then again, it fits the detestable character that he is.

"President Pence" makes my spine tingle. I'd rather even see Ryan as POTUS!

A great comment from another board "Trump telling Mueller not to look into his finances is like Jeffery Dahmer telling the police not to look into his refrigerator."

Not w that shit is funny right there. I'm having a lot of fun with this train wreck.

Trump is just in trouble in general. His staff will never trust him again after what he did to Sessions.
The Senate has no respect for him.
His lies and bullying are coming home to roost.

Ken777 wrote:

Trump cannot, however, pardon himself as he is still subject to impeachment. Impeachment in the Constitution is senior to Pardon powers. But Trump CAN get h is pardon by resigning and having Pence immediately Pardon. That takes very good timing. Trump signs the resignation while Pence is sworn in, and Pence immediately signs the Pardon, Trump then accepts it and packs his bag, with his private jet taking him to a golf course some where. Might cause problems, but would be worth it to get rid of the guy.

Replacing Trump with Pence: Is that a good idea?

BawliBooch wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

Trump cannot, however, pardon himself as he is still subject to impeachment. Impeachment in the Constitution is senior to Pardon powers. But Trump CAN get h is pardon by resigning and having Pence immediately Pardon. That takes very good timing. Trump signs the resignation while Pence is sworn in, and Pence immediately signs the Pardon, Trump then accepts it and packs his bag, with his private jet taking him to a golf course some where. Might cause problems, but would be worth it to get rid of the guy.

Replacing Trump with Pence: Is that a good idea?

while just a small improvement, being completely nuts is better than completely nuts and unpredictable. Maybe time to start looking into what the rest of the party knew and when they knew it. The republican party for the most part refusing to do anything about a traitor in the White House is good enough reason to check if they may be in on the collusion in any way.

"This Russia thing is a which hunt - but can i get a pardon for what i never did?"

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Maybe time to start looking into what the rest of the party knew and when they knew it. The republican party for the most part refusing to do anything about a traitor in the White House is good enough reason to check if they may be in on the collusion in any way.

It's a fair bet that people with close connections to the campaign like Pence and Priebus were at least willfully blind to what was going on between the campaign and Russia. I doubt this ends if Trump is removed.

I always issue a pardon when I trump...

Mir wrote:

I doubt this ends if Trump is removed.

And there you have the main problem, "IF". Time and time again people predicted that he doesn't survive his latest crazy thing and he has yet to fall off the cliff. He did and he has won the nomination and ultimately won the presidency. We'll see if he will be impeached.

The precedent of a pardon of the President was set with the deal done with Nixon by Ford over 40 years ago. Some believe that Nixon would resign as facing impeachment and likely removal from office after a lengthy process with the deal that then the new President Ford would give him a preemptive pardon to 'end this long national nightmare' of investigations and disruptions to the country from the 'Watergate' crimes.

The serious, Constitutional crises danger with Trump is that he could do a preemptive pardon to himself, his family and any staff members subject to the current investigations, basically stopping them so in turn keeping all his money and could then carry out policies, especially as to Russia by ending the financial and other sanctions put in by Pres. Obama, that could benefit him personally. Many believe he has extensive financial connections and debts with Russian Oligarchs who saved his sorry financial butt over the years when prudent USA and most European and Asian financers said no to him after large losses with him. Pres. Trump is in an extorted position no President should be in due to his debts with Russian investors and Pres. Putin is using it for his and his Nation's goals.

The power of the Presidential pardon was never intended to be abused this way and if ever done, would likely cause an even more serious crises of leadership in the USA.

He is just doing this to mess with the minds of the left.

Or so his supporters would say. Actually, where are they? Awfully quiet...

I'm still waiting for all the winning to happen though.

He wants to be pardoned for the thing he insists is made up. That's like the leader of Sealand asking the UN for protection against Sealander rebellion.

BawliBooch wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

Trump cannot, however, pardon himself as he is still subject to impeachment. Impeachment in the Constitution is senior to Pardon powers. But Trump CAN get h is pardon by resigning and having Pence immediately Pardon. That takes very good timing. Trump signs the resignation while Pence is sworn in, and Pence immediately signs the Pardon, Trump then accepts it and packs his bag, with his private jet taking him to a golf course some where. Might cause problems, but would be worth it to get rid of the guy.

Replacing Trump with Pence: Is that a good idea?

It's not great, but probably a good deal better as 1) he wouldn't embarrass the country on a daily basis and 2) would have more respect for the institutions and protocol that would return us back toward sanity. That said, we've dealt with idiot Christian fundamentalists before and could probably handle this neanderthal just fine, whereas there's no telling what Trump will do, whether you're aligned with him or against him.

cpd wrote:

He is just doing this to mess with the minds of the left.

Or so his supporters would say. Actually, where are they? Awfully quiet...

They haven't gotten their talking points yet--no tweets.

jetero wrote:

cpd wrote:

He is just doing this to mess with the minds of the left.

Or so his supporters would say. Actually, where are they? Awfully quiet...

They haven't gotten their talking points yet--no tweets.

Well, even Spicer is done defending him:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58ed2 ... mg00000009

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

jetero wrote:

cpd wrote:

He is just doing this to mess with the minds of the left.

Or so his supporters would say. Actually, where are they? Awfully quiet...

They haven't gotten their talking points yet--no tweets.

Well, even Spicer is done defending him:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58ed2 ... mg00000009

Best regards
Thomas

Spicer has been done defending him. Another victim of the "LOYAL" Trump.

Mir wrote:

It's a fair bet that people with close connections to the campaign like Pence and Priebus were at least willfully blind to what was going on between the campaign and Russia. I doubt this ends if Trump is removed.

Indeed it is. It's rather improbable that those close to the campaign were unaware of the connections to Russia. It's not whether they knew it, but rather what did they know and when did they know it.

Rex Tillerson might make it to the list of getting pardoned.

Exxon fined $2m for violating Russia sanctions while Rex Tillerson was CEO

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -tillerson

So we have a secretary of state of a presidency accused of being helped by Russia, which actually broke the law to help Russia. Ohhhh auch, If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a..............

Really does it ever end?

TWA772LR wrote:

"President Pence" makes my spine tingle. I'd rather even see Ryan as POTUS!

Believe me, no love for Mr. Pence here, but remember: the POTUS's domestic powers are relatively weak. For domestic policy, the Speaker of the House is the most powerful person in the nation.

But for international relations, the President has vast and unfettered powers. While I find Mr. Pence to be the most nauseating kind of sanctimonious Bible-thumper, he's not likely to start carelessly insulting other heads of state. Also, given a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence having their fingers on "The Big Red Button," I'd take Mr. Pence any day.

DocLightning wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

"President Pence" makes my spine tingle. I'd rather even see Ryan as POTUS!

Believe me, no love for Mr. Pence here, but remember: the POTUS's domestic powers are relatively weak. For domestic policy, the Speaker of the House is the most powerful person in the nation.

But for international relations, the President has vast and unfettered powers. While I find Mr. Pence to be the most nauseating kind of sanctimonious Bible-thumper, he's not likely to start carelessly insulting other heads of state. Also, given a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence having their fingers on "The Big Red Button," I'd take Mr. Pence any day.

Well put.

I wonder if Mr. Pence could get elected in his own right after completing the term of a resigned/impeached Trump.

Dutchy wrote:

Rex Tillerson might make it to the list of getting pardoned.

Hell might freeze over some day.

Mr. Tillerson stands accused of no crime. Nothing to be pardoned for.

BobPatterson wrote:

I wonder if Mr. Pence could get elected in his own right after completing the term of a resigned/impeached Trump.

Recent history says no, think Ford versus Carter.

A bit further out you have LBJ and Truman who won after completing the term of a dead incumbent who was popular. Doing it after an impeached President who was dumped in disgrace is a different matter as there's a ton of manure heading the candidate's way every second.

Add to that a Carter-like candidate with a wave of support and Pence would be on the bus back home. Michelle Obama for President......?

Channex757 wrote:

Add to that a Carter-like candidate with a wave of support and Pence would be on the bus back home. Michelle Obama for President......?

LOL. No, no, for crying out loud. Oprah before Mrs. Obama.

I think the country is really tired of family dynasties in politics.

BobPatterson wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

Add to that a Carter-like candidate with a wave of support and Pence would be on the bus back home. Michelle Obama for President......?

LOL. No, no, for crying out loud. Oprah before Mrs. Obama.

I think the country is really tired of family dynasties in politics.

I did say it in jest but I've heard that mentioned once or twice. I think you are right. If the country wanted more dynasties then Jeb Bush would be in the hot seat today.

The Dems have a few years to scratch their collective bellies and toss names round. I believe Jon Stewart isn't doing much these days....

ltbewr wrote:

The serious, Constitutional crises danger with Trump is that he could do a preemptive pardon to himself, his family and any staff members subject to the current investigations, basically stopping them so in turn keeping all his money and could then carry out policies,

The power of the Presidential pardon was never intended to be abused this way and if ever done, would likely cause an even more serious crises of leadership in the USA.

The sitting President is free to pardon anyone found guilty of a federal crime, with one glaring exception, that would be himself, if, he is impeached, impeachment trumps the Presidential pardon process every time.

Channex757 wrote:

I did say it in jest but I've heard that mentioned once or twice. I think you are right. If the country wanted more dynasties then Jeb Bush would be in the hot seat today.

The Dems have a few years to scratch their collective bellies and toss names round. I believe Jon Stewart isn't doing much these days....

Here is the thing, if it came down to a Pence or M Obama, I think Pence wins, except, if the economy crashes in the next 2 1/2 years.

There is a lot of money lining up behind Cory Booker, I would personally love to see a Booker/Buttigieg ticket, but I don't think that will happen......Jon Stewart, no thanks, that bastard abandoned this country when it needed him most, I can only dream of what the Daily Show would have been like last year and for the first 6 months of the current term.

jetwet1 wrote:

The sitting President is free to pardon anyone found guilty of a federal crime, with one glaring exception, that would be himself, if, he is impeached, impeachment trumps the Presidential pardon process every time.

As I understand it, the president can pardon anyone, even someone whom isn't convicted or even indicted. See the example of the pardon for Mr. Nixon, no-one actually indicted him over Watergate, but he was granted a presidential pardon anyway by Gerald Ford.

jetwet1 wrote:

There is a lot of money lining up behind Cory Booker, I would personally love to see a Booker/Buttigieg ticket, but I don't think that will happen......Jon Stewart, no thanks, that bastard abandoned this country when it needed him most, I can only dream of what the Daily Show would have been like last year and for the first 6 months of the current term.

Cory Booker would be a good choice for many but I believe that there are too many in the GOP who cannot accept a person of color for President so soon after President Obama. Hell, they never accepted President Obama! Booker could probably do well as VP, which would give him more time in office to develop more international experience.

I also believe that who ever gets the top spot in 2020 will be running against someone but Trump. Pence might be able to hold on, but I'm not even sure of that.

Isn't Pence a proponent of end times religious BS ? I'm not convinced giving him the red button is a great idea.

Aesma wrote:

Isn't Pence a proponent of end times religious BS ? I'm not convinced giving him the red button is a great idea.

Yes, he probably is and so was Bush Jr. apparently. But when Trump is removed from office, he will become president.

Isn't this what third world dictators do when the hammer is coming down? Pardon themselves and their family? Demand the media stop talking about how corrupt the president is? Threaten the media?

seb146 wrote:

Isn't this what third world dictators do when the hammer is coming down? Pardon themselves and their family? Demand the media stop talking about how corrupt the president is? Threaten the media?

When we talk about a "pardon" we are talking about an action taken according to law, in a nation having and abiding by a system of laws.

There is no nation in the world with a pardon law that permits a person (President or whatever title) to be a judge in his own cause. That is what self-pardon would be.

Usurping power and placing oneself above the law is a different thing.

Trump needs to appoint 27 SCOTUS judges to work 24x7, 365 days to adjudicate all these constitutional issues. 9 judges working part time is not going to cut it.

seb146 wrote:

Isn't this what third world dictators do when the hammer is coming down? Pardon themselves and their family? Demand the media stop talking about how corrupt the president is? Threaten the media?

Kind of yes. I think it is abusing the law like it is. Kind of crazy one person can just decide to pardon people, especially if he has benefited himself from the crime. A bit of a banana republic method yes.

Dutchy wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Isn't this what third world dictators do when the hammer is coming down? Pardon themselves and their family? Demand the media stop talking about how corrupt the president is? Threaten the media?

Kind of yes. I think it is abusing the law like it is. Kind of crazy one person can just decide to pardon people, especially if he has benefited himself from the crime. A bit of a banana republic method yes.

WHAT is "abusing the law like it is"?

It was not a crazy idea to the founding fathers. There is good reason for our Constitution to have the provision for Executive Pardon.

Please drop your "banana republic" sarcasm and address issues honestly and in detail.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Trump needs to appoint 27 SCOTUS judges to work 24x7, 365 days to adjudicate all these constitutional issues. 9 judges working part time is not going to cut it.

Do YOU work 24/7/365 ?

FDR wanted to appoint more Justices (SCOTUS members are called Justices).

There are many Judges on appellate courts who also decide most constitutional issues.

It is often the conflicts between appellate court decisions that rise to the Supreme Court.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Isn't this what third world dictators do when the hammer is coming down? Pardon themselves and their family? Demand the media stop talking about how corrupt the president is? Threaten the media?

Kind of yes. I think it is abusing the law like it is. Kind of crazy one person can just decide to pardon people, especially if he has benefited himself from the crime. A bit of a banana republic method yes.

WHAT is "abusing the law like it is"?

It was not a crazy idea to the founding fathers. There is good reason for our Constitution to have the provision for Executive Pardon.

Please drop your "banana republic" sarcasm and address issues honestly and in detail.

Oh dear, Bob, sorry to step on your American flag.........

Oh yes, the holy founding fathers, come on Bob, that was 1776, over 250 years ago, times have changed, not every person whom holds the highest office has the integrity the founding fathers has envisioned.

As I understand it, many of the rules of integrity, like no connection to business, don't apply and you see the result.

So if you want to have a good discussion, let your American nationalism go and we might have one.

Always have check and balances and with this you can't deny, your president has great powers and those powers might be abused like your president has indicated.

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Isn't this what third world dictators do when the hammer is coming down? Pardon themselves and their family? Demand the media stop talking about how corrupt the president is? Threaten the media?

When we talk about a "pardon" we are talking about an action taken according to law, in a nation having and abiding by a system of laws.

There is no nation in the world with a pardon law that permits a person (President or whatever title) to be a judge in his own cause. That is what self-pardon would be.

Usurping power and placing oneself above the law is a different thing.

Pardoning people involved in illegal deeds made on your behalf is still pretty iffy though.

Also the fact that the vice president can take power when the president is impeached or resigns in such circumstances, a vice president that was chosen by the president, not even necessarily elected.

In such circumstances a new election should be in order.

In France everyone used to benefit from presidential pardons. Once a year at the start of summer, all prisoners with only a few months left on their sentence would be freed, all misdemeanor traffic offenses annulled, etc. Then we got a "law and order" president named Nicolas Sarkozy (himself utterly corrupt and facing several court cases) who stopped the practice. Now it's only used for exceptional cases, like recently a woman who killed her abusive husband in cold blood (according to the court that jailed her) after years of abuse and abuse of their children.

I could see a president at the end of his last term pardoning someone in his entourage who "took the fall" for something, but doing it to a swathe of people at the start of a term, for something that has probably changed the outcome of the election itself, that's another story.

In fact I can't imagine such a situation in France, the president certainly has the power to keep his seat and "impeachment" is pretty much impossible, however if Trump was the French president, elected in similar circumstances, there would have been riots similar to those which started the revolution in 1789. Probably a civil war like happened then too.

edit : on another note, I'm sure Trump is considering including Hillary Clinton in the pardon, to try and turn it into something less evil.

MaverickM11 wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

Trump cannot, however, pardon himself as he is still subject to impeachment. Impeachment in the Constitution is senior to Pardon powers. But Trump CAN get h is pardon by resigning and having Pence immediately Pardon. That takes very good timing. Trump signs the resignation while Pence is sworn in, and Pence immediately signs the Pardon, Trump then accepts it and packs his bag, with his private jet taking him to a golf course some where. Might cause problems, but would be worth it to get rid of the guy.

Replacing Trump with Pence: Is that a good idea?

It's not great, but probably a good deal better as 1) he wouldn't embarrass the country on a daily basis and 2) would have more respect for the institutions and protocol that would return us back toward sanity. That said, we've dealt with idiot Christian fundamentalists before and could probably handle this neanderthal just fine, whereas there's no telling what Trump will do, whether you're aligned with him or against him.

I agree 100% with what you and Doc said in later post.

He is not going to go around the world insulting other heads of state and will be respectful of them.

His religious right agenda will not have any federal leverage with congress as most reps in the blue states and even the moderate ones will not pass any religious right legislation as will cost them their jobs.

Pence might be an evangelical nut but I don't see him starting a war because his approval ratings suck. If I were Vegas I would put of even money Trump starts something to get the media to forget about his scandals.

BobPatterson wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

"President Pence" makes my spine tingle. I'd rather even see Ryan as POTUS!

Believe me, no love for Mr. Pence here, but remember: the POTUS's domestic powers are relatively weak. For domestic policy, the Speaker of the House is the most powerful person in the nation.

But for international relations, the President has vast and unfettered powers. While I find Mr. Pence to be the most nauseating kind of sanctimonious Bible-thumper, he's not likely to start carelessly insulting other heads of state. Also, given a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence having their fingers on "The Big Red Button," I'd take Mr. Pence any day.

Well put.

I wonder if Mr. Pence could get elected in his own right after completing the term of a resigned/impeached Trump.

It really depends on who the democrats run. If it is Republican-lite like Hillary was then they have its a toss up like 2016 was.

They need a democrat that hasn't been completely and utterly bought off by the establishment (Hillary was) and that proudly stands up for liberal values which if you look at the polls a majority of American support. In the States where the democrats still have control this is what you will find.

Ideally a younger version of Bernie Sanders.

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kind of yes. I think it is abusing the law like it is. Kind of crazy one person can just decide to pardon people, especially if he has benefited himself from the crime. A bit of a banana republic method yes.

WHAT is "abusing the law like it is"?

It was not a crazy idea to the founding fathers. There is good reason for our Constitution to have the provision for Executive Pardon.

Please drop your "banana republic" sarcasm and address issues honestly and in detail.

Oh dear, Bob, sorry to step on your American flag.........

Oh yes, the holy founding fathers, come on Bob, that was 1776, over 250 years ago, times have changed, not every person whom holds the highest office has the integrity the founding fathers has envisioned.

As I understand it, many of the rules of integrity, like no connection to business, don't apply and you see the result.

So if you want to have a good discussion, let your American nationalism go and we might have one.

Always have check and balances and with this you can't deny, your president has great powers and those powers might be abused like your president has indicated.

As usual, you will not answer a question about your words:

WHAT is "abusing the law like it is"?

Those words are utter nonsense unless clarified with understandable meaning.

Respond, please.

Aesma wrote:

Pardoning people involved in illegal deeds made on your behalf is still pretty iffy though.

I will certainly agree if that happens if the illegal deeds are done at your behest. Independent stupid actions might be looked at differently.

Aesma wrote:

Also the fact that the vice president can take power when the president is impeached or resigns in such circumstances, a vice president that was chosen by the president, not even necessarily elected.

Nothing wrong with the Presidential succession rules. Ford was appointed with consent, not elected. Mr. Pence was elected to his office.

Aesma wrote:

In such circumstances a new election should be in order.

Change the Constitution.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

WHAT is "abusing the law like it is"?

It was not a crazy idea to the founding fathers. There is good reason for our Constitution to have the provision for Executive Pardon.

Please drop your "banana republic" sarcasm and address issues honestly and in detail.

Oh dear, Bob, sorry to step on your American flag.........

Oh yes, the holy founding fathers, come on Bob, that was 1776, over 250 years ago, times have changed, not every person whom holds the highest office has the integrity the founding fathers has envisioned.

As I understand it, many of the rules of integrity, like no connection to business, don't apply and you see the result.

So if you want to have a good discussion, let your American nationalism go and we might have one.

Always have check and balances and with this you can't deny, your president has great powers and those powers might be abused like your president has indicated.

As usual, you will not answer a question about your words:

WHAT is "abusing the law like it is"?

Those words are utter nonsense unless clarified with understandable meaning.

Respond, please.

Are you going to respond to this? viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1368631

Otherwise, you have no business to call on me like you do.

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Oh dear, Bob, sorry to step on your American flag.........

Oh yes, the holy founding fathers, come on Bob, that was 1776, over 250 years ago, times have changed, not every person whom holds the highest office has the integrity the founding fathers has envisioned.

As I understand it, many of the rules of integrity, like no connection to business, don't apply and you see the result.

So if you want to have a good discussion, let your American nationalism go and we might have one.

Always have check and balances and with this you can't deny, your president has great powers and those powers might be abused like your president has indicated.

As usual, you will not answer a question about your words:

WHAT is "abusing the law like it is"?

Those words are utter nonsense unless clarified with understandable meaning.

Respond, please.

Are you going to respond to this? viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1368631

No, in THAT thread I have answered you sufficiently. There comes a point with you when further back-and-forth is unproductive.

In THIS thread, you can just hang there, displaying your unwillingness to engage in honest debate.

Have a good day.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

As usual, you will not answer a question about your words:

WHAT is "abusing the law like it is"?

Those words are utter nonsense unless clarified with understandable meaning.

Respond, please.

Are you going to respond to this? viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1368631

No, in THAT thread I have answered you sufficiently. There comes a point with you when further back-and-forth is unproductive.

In THIS thread, you can just hang there, displaying your unwillingness to engage in honest debate.

Have a good day.

Ok, I have answered you sufficiently.

BobPatterson wrote:

Aesma wrote:

In such circumstances a new election should be in order.

Change the Constitution.

So that is the best answer, your version of an open debate. Since your Constitution is kind of hard to change, we can't talk about it? Well, stop this thread then, Bob, no point in any discussion.

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Aesma wrote:

In such circumstances a new election should be in order.

Change the Constitution.

So that is the best answer, your version of an open debate. Since your Constitution is kind of hard to change, we can't talk about it? Well, stop this thread then, Bob, no point in any discussion.

There really is no need to be childish or petulant.

Aesma raised several points and I responded to each of them.

On the last point, he suggested that it might be better to hold a new election when a President resigns or is impeached.

Our Constitution specifies how the office will be filled, our personal opinions to the contrary, so "Change the Constitution" was an appropriate remark (in my opinion).

You are free to disagree with my opinion. You can even disagree with our Constitution.

But you are not qualified, as I have previously pointed out, to discuss our polity. You are already too biased by your eurocentric-socialist one-world dogma to be able to understand what kind of society we are and why we adore our Constitution and swear an oath to protect and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic; and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

We are a nation of laws, and if you want to change the terms of Presidential succession, then you must first change the Constitution.

I do not consider you to be an enemy, but it doesn't really matter to me what you might think about our Constitution.

I think it is a fair point Aesma is raising. When a president is removed from office, then new elections to have the people have a say of what has happened. What is wrong with that, even though I know it wasn't written-up like that over 250years ago.

So tell me, Bob, why are Americans so found of their constitution.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Isn't this what third world dictators do when the hammer is coming down? Pardon themselves and their family? Demand the media stop talking about how corrupt the president is? Threaten the media?

Kind of yes. I think it is abusing the law like it is. Kind of crazy one person can just decide to pardon people, especially if he has benefited himself from the crime. A bit of a banana republic method yes.

WHAT is "abusing the law like it is"?

It was not a crazy idea to the founding fathers. There is good reason for our Constitution to have the provision for Executive Pardon.

Please drop your "banana republic" sarcasm and address issues honestly and in detail.

I think it is a valid point. A sitting president talking about pardoning himself. Putting himself above the law. This is something serious. We should not be supporting the president blindly on any matter. Above all, one who believes he is above the law and laws do not apply to him.

Besides, if he didn't do anything, why is he wanting to pardon himself? Pleading the Fifth would look pretty bad, but before anything has even happened, he wants to be excluded from punishment? Sounds pretty bad...

Dutchy wrote:

I think it is a fair point Aesma is raising. When a president is removed from office, then new elections to have the people have a say of what has happened. What is wrong with that, even though I know it wasn't written-up like that over 250years ago.

The short answer has already been given: "We are a nation of laws, and if you want to change the terms of Presidential succession, then you must first change the Constitution."

Our Constitution was adopted in 1789, 228 years ago. Regarding Presidential succession, it has been modified by the 20th Amendment (1935) and the 25th Amendment (1967). It has also been modified according to the terms of the Constitution by Presidential Succession Acts of 1792, 1886 and 1947.

Who knows but that someday, the law will be changed or further modified. But until that happens, the current law is the LAW.

Dutchy wrote:

So tell me, Bob, why are Americans so found of their constitution.

Perhaps because every person who has become a naturalized citizen has taken an oath to preserve and defend it. So has every person who has entered upon military service, and every person who has ever been employed by the Federal (and probably most State) Governments. Probably every cop and fireman.

My father and my mother's parents were naturalized. Everyone in our family had first-person testimonies about gratitude for this nation and for respecting our Constitution and laws. Perhaps nowadays, without universal military service, and with many people being several generations removed from "first families", the passion for this country is not as strong as it is for my generation.

I really don't know for sure.

But this I do know: Since our Constitution was adopted, its provisions, more or less, have been adopted in nearly all the countries of the world. Not word-for-word, but in essence.

There is a reason for that.