Trump wants to know if he has power to pardon himself, family, aides
JUL 21, 2017 — The Washington Post
Some of President Donald Trump’s lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, building a case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest and discussing the president’s authority to grant pardons, according to people familiar with the effort.
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.
Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation.
“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,'” a close adviser said.
With the Russia investigation continuing to widen, Trump’s lawyers are working to corral the probe and question the propriety of the special counsel’s work. They are actively compiling a list of Mueller’s alleged potential conflicts of interest, which they say could serve as a way to stymie his work, according to several of Trump’s legal advisers.
A conflict of interest is one of the possible grounds that can be cited by an attorney general to remove a special counsel from office under Justice Department regulations that set rules for the job.
The president is also irritated by the notion that Mueller’s probe could reach into his and his family’s finances, advisers said.
Trump has been fuming about the probe in recent weeks as he has been informed about the legal questions that he and his family could face.
His primary frustration centers on why allegations that his campaign coordinated with Russia should spread into scrutinizing many years of Trump dealmaking.
He has told aides he was especially disturbed after learning Mueller would be able to access several years of his tax returns.
Breaking a tradition that began with President Jimmy Carter, Trump has repeatedly refused to make his tax returns public after first claiming he could not do so because he was under audit or after promising to release them after an IRS audit was completed.
Further adding to the challenges facing Trump’s outside lawyers, the team’s spokesman, Mark Corallo, resigned on Thursday, according to two people familiar with his departure. Corallo did not respond to immediate requests for comment.
“If you’re looking at Russian collusion, the president’s tax returns would be outside that investigation,” said a close adviser to the president.
Jay Sekulow, one of the president’s private lawyers, said in an interview Thursday that the president and his legal team are intent on making sure Mueller stays within the boundaries of his assignment as special counsel. He said they will complain directly to Mueller if necessary.
“The fact is that the president is concerned about conflicts that exist within the special counsel’s office and any changes in the scope of the investigation,” Sekulow said. “The scope is going to have to stay within his mandate. If there’s drifting, we’re going to object.”
Sekulow cited Bloomberg News reports that Mueller is scrutinizing some of Trump’s business dealings, including a Russian oligarch who purchased a Palm Beach mansion from Trump for $95 million in 2008.
“They’re talking about real estate transactions in Palm Beach several years ago,” Sekulow said. “In our view, this is far outside the scope of a legitimate investigation.”
The president has long called the FBI investigation into his campaign’s possible coordination with the Russians a “witch hunt.” But now, the president is coming face-to-face with a powerful investigative team that is able to study evidence of any crime they encounter in the probe – including tax fraud, lying to federal agents and interference in the investigation.
“This is Ken Starr times 1,000,” said one lawyer involved in the case, referring to the independent counsel who oversaw an investigation that eventually led to House impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton. “Of course, it’s going to go into his finances.”
Following Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James Comey – in part because of his displeasure with the FBI’s Russia investigation – Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel in a written order.
That order gave Mueller broad authority to investigate links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” and any crimes committed in response to the investigation, such as perjury or obstruction of justice.
Mueller’s probe has already expanded to include an examination of whether Trump obstructed justice in his dealings with Comey, as well as the business activities of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law.
Trump’s team could potentially challenge whether a broad probe of Trump’s finances prior to his candidacy could be considered a matter that arose “directly” from an inquiry into possible collusion with a foreign government.
The president’s legal team has also identified what they allege are several conflicts of interest facing Mueller, such as donations to Democrats by some of his prosecutors.
Another potential conflict claim is an allegation that Mueller and Trump National Golf Club in northern Virginia had a dispute over membership fees when Mueller resigned as a member in 2011, two White House advisers said.
A spokesman for Mueller said there was no dispute when Mueller, who was FBI director at the time, left the club.
Trump also took public aim on Wednesday at Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Rosenstein, whose actions led to Mueller’s appointment. In an interview with the New York Times Wednesday, the president said he never would have hired Sessions if he knew he was going to recuse himself from the cases.
Some Republicans in frequent touch with the White House said they viewed the president’s decision to publicly air his disappointment with Sessions as a warning sign that the attorney general’s days were numbered.
Several senior aides were described as “stunned” when Sessions announced Thursday morning he would stay on at the Justice Department.
Another Republican in touch with the administration described the public steps as part of a broader effort aimed at “laying the groundwork to fire” Mueller.
“Who attacks their entire Justice Department?” this person said. “It’s insane.”
Law enforcement officials described Sessions as increasingly distant from the White House and the FBI because of the strains of the Russia investigation.
Traditionally, Justice Department leaders have sought to maintain a certain degree of autonomy from the White House as a means of ensuring prosecutorial independence.
But Sessions’ situation is more unusual, law enforcement officials said, because he has angered the president for apparently being too independent while also angering many at the FBI for his role in the president’s firing of Comey.
As a result, there is far less communication among those three key parts of the government than in years past, several officials said.
Currently, the discussions of pardoning authority by Trump’s legal team is purely theoretical, according to two people familiar with the ongoing conversations. But if Trump pardoned himself in the face of the ongoing Mueller investigation, it would set off a legal and political firestorm, first around the question of whether a president can use the constitutional pardon power in that way.
“This is a fiercely debated but unresolved legal question,” said Brian Kalt, a constitutional law expert at Michigan State University who has written extensively on the question.
The power to pardon is granted to the president in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, which gives the commander in chief the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
That means pardon authority extends to federal criminal prosecution but not to state level or impeachment inquiries.
No president has sought to pardon himself, so no courts have reviewed it. Although Kalt says the weight of the law argues against a president pardoning himself, he says the question is open and predicts such an action would move through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court.
“There is no predicting what would happen,” said Kalt, author of the book, “Constitutional Cliffhangers: A Legal Guide for Presidents and Their Enemies.” It includes chapters on the ongoing debate over whether presidents can be prosecuted while in office and on whether a president can issue a pardon to himself.
Other White House advisers have tried to temper Trump, urging him to simply cooperate with the probe and stay silent on his feelings about the investigation.
On Monday, lawyer Ty Cobb, newly brought into the White House to handle responses to the Russian probe, convened a meeting with the president and his team of lawyers, according to two people briefed on the meeting. Cobb, who is not yet on the White House payroll, was described as attempting to instill some discipline in how the White House handles queries about the case. But Trump surprised many of his aides by speaking at length about the probe to the New York Times two days later.
Some note that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit a president from pardoning himself. On the other side, experts say that by definition a pardon is something you can only give to someone else. There is also a common-law canon that prohibits individuals from serving as a judge in their own case. “For example, we would not allow a judge to preside over his or her own trial,” Kalt said.
A president can pardon an individual at any point, including before being charged with a crime, and the scope of a presidential pardon can be very broad. President Gerald Ford pardoned former president Richard M. Nixon preemptively for offenses he “committed or may have committed” while in office.Trump
July 21, 2017 survey: The Trump Administration has only been in office for six months, but they’re already being investigated by the House, the Senate and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Do you think they’re corrupt?
Answer by Steve H.: Well, not if you declare yourself exempt from all universally recognized ethical principles and norms. Then there is no such thing as corruption. Problem solved. Next question?
Looking at Trump and Jeff Sessions, I kind of think that that the Attorney General’s position should be structured differently so they are more independent. Like a Solicitor General who serves ten years or the idea of a ten year FBI director. Or a “permanent” Special Prosecutor who can jump in regardless of what Party is in power. This cabal situation just isn’t working and is too painful and distracting for the nation.
Jerry K.: If Donald Trump had hired Jeff Sessions to be part of Trump, Inc. in a corporate position then I can understand him expecting “loyalty” However, Sessions was pegged to be the Attorney General of the United States, someone who is supposed to stand for the rule of law at all times. Donald wanted a yes man in the position of top legal entity, and he’s disappointed. It’s just another validation of Trump’s specific self-interests, that do not ncessarily include thoughts about what is good for the country. BTW, this is in no way support for what Jeff Sessions ultimately represents.
Donald has never understood that running a country is NOT corporate America. He expects to be able to run things his way and demand loyalty from those he “hires.” And he isn’t going to change…
He’s going to go down fighting, throwing every legal or illegal action he can into his eforts to increase his power, destroy is “enemies”. He may even confuse some of his core supporters with his unorthodox ways, but they’ll never abandon him because they have already lost the meaning of truth without self-interest.
he thing is Donald Trump hasn’t a clue. He thinks everybody in government and every position is beholding to him not to the American Constitution not to the people. He wants to be a dictator just like Putin.
Six months into the Presidency and all there is to show to the World is 951 Tweets.
BG: His repetition of “I am not under investigation” is apparently a pre-emptive move. He can issue pardons if he is “not under investigation.” He also has to pardon before indictments are announced, so it is all a big game right now.
MK: He can indeed pardon after indictments for federal offenses are issued. If he is president, he can pardon whether or not he is under investigation.
BG: Thanks, I guess I can’t keep it all straight.
MK: That’s part of the plan, of course: Trump doesn’t want anyone to keep it straight.
MS: After he pardon’s himself, which carries with it ad admission of guilt, then the state of New York can come after him for which there is no immunity. Break out the popcorn!
MK: Hell, I could imagine him in that setting claiming that the self-pardon was not an admission of guilt and, in any case, protected under the Fifth Amendment and even inadmissible as evidence in the state action. Not supporting any of those myself, of course, but nevertheless
Buried 19-year-old memo indicates special counsel Mueller might have authority to indict Trump
By Meteor Blades
Saturday Jul 22, 2017
With Donald Trump focused on the legality of pardons for himself and selected minions, and spewing a torrent of early morning official White House statements in 140-character bits amid new revelations about Russian contacts, legal authorities are again wondering whether a sitting president is immune from prosecution. The conventional reasoning is that immunity reigns.
However, digging via the Freedom of Information Act byThe New York Times has uncovered a buried memorandum that says it doesn’t. The source? The execrable Kenneth Starr, who sought to bury President Bill Clinton, contributing to the vicious ultra-partisanship that has only grown in the past two decades. Starr, speaking with apparent contrition last year, claims Clinton has redeemed himself in his post-presidential years. Regardless of the source, the memo raises new possibilities. As Charlie Savage reports:
The 56-page memo, locked in the National Archives for nearly two decades and obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act, amounts to the most thorough government-commissioned analysis rejecting a generally held view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office.
“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”
Mr. Starr assigned Ronald Rotunda, a prominent conservative professor of constitutional law and ethics whom Mr. Starr hired as a consultant on his legal team, to write the memo in spring 1998 after deputies advised him that they had gathered enough evidence to ask a grand jury to indict Mr. Clinton, the memo shows.
He points out that Watergate special counsel Leon Jaworski also had determined in 1974 that Richard Nixon could be indicted, saying so in a memo and later in a court brief. Neither time did those views get tested in court since Nixon resigned in the face of impeachment and Clinton was acquitted by the Senate after a five-week impeachment trial.
The Jaworksi memo and brief and the Starr memo aren’t the only legal explorations of the subject, however. As Savage points out, In 1973, a brief by Solicitor General Robert H. Bork inferred that the Constitution makes presidents immune from indictment and trial. This was backed up decades later in a 2000 memo by Randolph D. Moss, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel under Clinton.
These conflicting views have never been tested by the Supreme Court, or any of the lower courts.
What the Starr memo gives credence to is the possibility that Robert Mueller III, the former FBI director who is now special counsel, may have more options than is generally thought to be the case when it comes to action he might take when he has completed his inquiry into Trump’s campaign dealings with Russia and whether he obstructed justice. If Mueller found enough evidence to indict and consequently chose to accept the Jaworski and Starr point of view, he would still have to ponder the impact of the anything-but-small political fallout from taking the momentous step of indicting a sitting president for the first time in the history of the Republic.
All this assumes, of course, that Donald J. Trump won’t get up one of these mornings and tweet to the world that he has fired Mueller.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/22/1683028/-Buried-19-year-old-memo-indicates-special-counsel-Mueller-might-have-authority-to-indict-Trump?detail=emaildkre
Putin is literally the James Bond Goldfinger crime figure—spending a few billion to steal our election is nothing to him….