Day 183: Quick Rhetoric for the Day: Pardoning oneself

I want to start by reminding people of the definition of “pardon:”

“to use the executive power of a Governor or President to forgive a person convicted of a crime, thus removing any remaining penalties or punishments and preventing any new prosecution of the person for the crime for which the pardon was given.” (my emphasis)

If you don’t live under a rock, you know that recently the President of the United States has asked about pardoning himself.

I have a bit of a logical issue with this, because it seems like it, rhetorically, tells us something quite interesting. As anyone who knows the law knows, we have a 5th amendment right to not implicate ourselves. It says, literally:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And we all know why a person pleads the fifth. Either the person is guilty or the person has strong reason to assume that they will be found guilty.

An innocent person with nothing to fear doesn’t plead the fifth, unless that person is in dire fear of not having proper representation.

However…

and this is where I’m a little concerned as an American citizen…

technically you cannot be pardoned if you are not guilty. There is no process through which an innocent person is pardoned.

Richard Nixon, after resigning his presidency, was pardoned by Gerald Ford– blanket style– for any crimes he “might” have committed against the United States while serving as president. This is one of the only known instances of a person being pardoned before being proven guilty, but as history has told us, Nixon was in fact guilty and was about to be impeached. While he hadn’t been convicted, there was really no doubt that he was going to be convicted, and people who helped him in the Watergate scandal took serious legal falls. This was sort of  wink-wink-nudge-nudge “might have committed” situation.

So our current President wants to know if he can pardon himself.

First– if that’s a loophole that exists, we’re fools. That would mean that the elected President of the United States is above the law. That cannot possibly be how the Presidental power to pardon is meant to work, though it wouldn’t surprise me if no one ever thought a President would try to get away with breaking the law. I’m not sure the forefathers ever expected it.

But more importantly, I know we are talking about an “outsider” President who might not know the system all that well, but in my mind asking if you could pardon yourself is, at the very least, expression of an interest in breaking the law. It could be an implication of wrongdoing. At the very least, it makes someone a skeezy person.

So that’s where we are, 180+ Days into Trump America. We might have a criminal President who is hoping he can make himself truly above the law.

That should scare you, regardless of who you voted for.