Can the President Pardon Himself? His Family? Co-Conspirators?

⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Self pardons are uncharted territory...because even Richard Nixon wouldn’t do it. Will Trump? Switch to Ting Mobile get a $25 service credit! legaleagle.ting.com
🚀🚀🚀Extended version on Nebula! watchnebula.com/legaleagle
⚖️⚖️⚖️Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my PRELAW COURSE:
legaleagle.teachable.com/p/pr...
©©©©© Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you (15% OFF!):
www.copyrightcourse.com/yt
★ A Few of My Favorite Things★
🕵️♂️My Custom Suits: legaleagle.link/indochino
👔My Ties: fave.co/2ImLY9I
📎My Tie Clips/Bars: amzn.to/2WIQ6EE
🔲My Pocket Squares: amzn.to/2UfsKtL
💈My Hair Product amzn.to/2Ui2aQx
📸My Video Camera Setup www.amazon.com/shop/legaleagle
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Real Law Review by LegalEagle; a series where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have a suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below.
And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an OBJECTION!
Remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. Stella is the LegalBeagle and she wields the gavel of justice. DO NOT MESS WITH STELLA.
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: / stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: [e-mail]

[@LegalEagle]

🇺🇸 Should the president be able to pardon himself? ☎️ Get $25 off of you first month with Ting Mobile legaleagle.ting.com

[@LegalEagle]

The answer is no, absolutely not.

[@raawesome3851]

@@LegalEagle I agree.

[@Elizabeth-xp2sf]

No, absolutely not.

[@evanswain4444]

Should he and can he might be different answers.

[@raawesome3851]

@@evanswain4444 fair enough.

[@FTZPLTC]

"Can a president pardon himself? Asking for a friend." -- Richard Nixon.

[@lebens3585]

@Shoot non mask wearers on sight What

[@mjak993]

"from some guy" was more like it.

[@VandalAudi]

“...except for impeachment.” Sorry, Dick, yer outta luck.

[@FTZPLTC]

@Shoot non mask wearers on sight - Pretty sure he's not going to give anyone the 'rona via KZbin.

[@TheGuerillapatriot]

so no.

[@227gamerman]

"Bribery is illegal" Not if its called "Lobbying"

[@LaFemmeFictionale]

Ohhhh, burn!

[@thatonedog819]

Anti lobbying laws should absolutely be a thing 🙃

[@SapientGalaxy]

@b_radfriendship That wouldn't do much. Similar laws and judicial opinions have been made since the 70's

[@VinayakPande53]

Or campaign contributions.

[@draxxy_X_lemar]

@@thatonedog819 wait...they aren't any anti lobbying laws?

[@bioLarzen]

The question arises: why does the Presidents of the USA is required to take an oath at their inauguration, if they can't really be penalized for breaking it (see immunity), and can just go ahead and pardon themselves if they breach their oath? That makes no sense whatsoever - the presidential oath is just an empty gesture this way, it carries no significance and no potential consequences...

[@Videomorgue]

Oaths are worthless, unless people who violate those oaths are held accountable. So basically, they're worthless. 🤷

[@lottawoman4ever]

Excellent analysis! Agree! The President must "faithfully execute the laws" and if he/she does not, he is in violation of Art. II and his oath of office. If a self pardon is effective, then the president would be able to subvert the rule of law when we are a "government of laws, not men." (John Adams) True Originalist will acknowledge that it was not the intent of the Founders to create a king who could function with immunity. The government was not intended to be a shield for unlawful activity, but a machine for justice.

[@Thommadura]

1 - A president is ALREADY the president by the time they take the oath. The oath is a formality. Example, LBJ became the president the moment JFK died - not when he took the oath in the plane. 2 Impeachment is the the potential penalty for breaking the oath. The founding fathers never envisioned the incredible party line split that we have today. The expected the Congress to actually work together for the good of the country (Remember, most of them were Federalists the precursor of the Republican party and were conservatives).

[@lottawoman4ever]

The President takes the oath that is enshrined in Article ll concerning executive power in the Constitution. It is an outward expression and commitment in front of the U.S. that he/she will honor and protect the tenants in the Constitution above all else. Article I requires that the oath of office be taken and it provides the exact language for the oath. If a vice president of House Speaker must assume the Office in case of death or incapacitation of a sitting president, it may be done so privately but it is a requirement under the Constitution that allegiance be sworn or affirmed to the Constitution of the Unite States. It is more than a mere formality. Based on the requirement in Article I, I would venture to say that if a president-elect refuses to swear or affirm the oath, they will not be seated. Therefore, there are consequences intended for a president who violates his/her oath of office. Impeachment and even criminal prosecution are options. The DOJ has a policy against indicting a sitting president but that is an opinion. An opinion or policy is not law. It is just that no U.S. Attorney General has ever indicted and allowed the Supreme Court to rule on whether the indictment will hold. A president is not above the law and the Constitution makes that clear. It is politicians who subvert the language in the Constitution to give cover or deference, depending on the circumstance, to a president.

[@ceoatcrystalsoft4942]

Ceremony

[@FTZPLTC]

"The president could be impeached right up until the last day in office." ...good to know.

[@miathapapaya]

We'd need 2/3rds of the senate.... I couldn't say what theyd do even now after the Capitol insurgence

[@tomhannah3825]

But turns out if we don't do anything now because it's too late, that could allow him to "Pardon Himself" for all his many crimes...

[@FTZPLTC]

I've just seen Lindsay Graham on Twitter, declaring that an impeachment would be "divisive" to the nation, when actually, it would just be divisive to the Republicans. Based on polling, about half of Republican voters support Trump's idiot coup, which puts the GOP in a difficult position in the event of an impeachment vote. If they vote unanimously against, they'll piss off half their voters; if they vote unanimously *for*, they'll piss off the other half of their voters; and if they don't vote unanimously at all, they'll piss off both halves, maybe not quite as much, but enough. So really, the only good outcome for them is if the Dems puss out of impeaching at all.

[@KaitouKaiju]

@@FTZPLTC well then, maybe it's time for the Republican party to split. Personally, I think these two parties are way too big anyway and don't represent anything but the most extreme views on most issues.

[@FTZPLTC]

@@dacomputernerd4096 - Which I think might be just as bad for the GOP, whether he runs for them or as an independent.

[@tomdekler9280]

"Can I pardon people in exchange for services?" "Technically yes, but that will break all kinds of bribery laws" "Are those bribery laws federal laws?" "Yes, why?" "No reason"

[@JudgeJulieLit]

A president who breaks federal bribery laws ipso facto himself will need his successor to pardon him. To pardon oneself would be to act as judge of oneself as defendant, which blatant conflict of interest likely is illegal and against the code of US attorney ethics.

[@ameliecarre4783]

Pardonception

[@technicallylonnie2996]

@@JudgeJulieLit using it in that way would result in impeachment, and the pardon text specifically says "except in cases of impeachment" which would mean the president could not pardon himself even without adding other clauses.

[@BlackTempleGaurdian]

@@technicallylonnie2996 Only if they get impeached before the pardon takes effect.

[@technicallylonnie2996]

@@BlackTempleGaurdian probably, but to pardon oneself before even being charged would either require admitting that the suspected activities were in fact engaged into, or it would require a very wide stretch of the pardon to just say "I hearby pardon anyone with the last name of ____ from any crimes committed during this time or between the following dates."

[@quattordicimontenapoleone3113]

“We don’t want no king no matter how benevolent!” “Super duper pardoning power? Can’t see any problems with that. Only the best will lead this nation!”

[@jonathanfaber3291]

As a British person on the other side of this historical falling out, watching America fall to pieces is truly spectacular. You can come back yknow, we’d even give you parliamentary representation and everything, and since you spread beyond the Appalachian mountains, it’s not like the BS taxes are unfair now.

[@vctrsigma]

@@jonathanfaber3291 I wish our "monarch" also contributed more to the govt coffers than they had paid to their interests. I would also like a reduction in the number of tweets to the same level.

[@v.t.3064]

@@vctrsigma saaaame

[@johndenver6006]

@@jonathanfaber3291 Há. Didn't you guys leave the EU?

[@JoshSweetvale]

@@johndenver6006 Just got divorced in time to get back with the old ex! :V

[@whiskeyfur]

The easiest analogy I can think of when Trump sells pardons, it's like the church selling indulgences.

[@MichaelPohoreski]

Hey, the church has been selling heaven insurance for hundreds of years! Why stop now? /s

[@Julia-lk8jn]

@@MichaelPohoreski your information is slightly out of date. Trade with indulgences was stopped 1567 by Pope Pius V

[@Julia-lk8jn]

Sad but true. And one thing for certain: if he'd thought for a moment he might find solvent buyers for indulgences, he'd have sold those, too. But honestly, I think most of his 'friends' are more the sort who'll try to avoid the next life altogether by throwing a few million dollar into some 'flash-freeze your way to immortality' special offer.

[@ussinussinongawd516]

@@Julia-lk8jn I'm gonna buy an indulgence second hand then

[@thesalad943]

The pope’s 2 thefts for $5.00 last year was the best deal I’ve ever seen

[@gregorylittle6991]

This seems like what those of us in the gaming world would call a broken mechanic.

[@elizabethmidford9843]

President nerf patch coming when

[@gregorylittle6991]

@@elizabethmidford9843 it's been delayed since last November due to Covid. Awaiting update from devs.

[@emilygordbort7300]

Executive Build OP, pls nerf

[@Sl1mch1ckens]

@@gregorylittle6991 ive had an update from the devs, they are working hard to fix this but are unclear weither it will be finished by the release date of january 20th.

[@gregorylittle6991]

@@Sl1mch1ckens Good to hear they're trying to make progress. Players are getting frustrated and some a thinking of quitting due to the unhealthy meta resulting from it.

[@bryanburgess3950]

Wow, the pardon power seriously needs to be limited.

[@vctrsigma]

Unfortunately, most checks on the president are reactionary and not confirmatory. Essentially requiring a supermajority to undo them instead of even a simple majority approval. One complicit majority in one chamber and all of a sudden the president can do whatever they want. e.g. why would declaring a nat'l emergency and shifting tons of funds be default accepted unless a supermajority veto in both chambers. If the role of the unitary executive was so important for decisive timely action in cases of emergency, it should be structured like the War Powers Act; do what you must, but get an affirmative consent from congress within a reasonable timeframe IMO

[@Gerthious]

Overturning broad weed convictions after its been outlawed etc. Or the Vietnam example mentioned, there are real world examples to its need and use... by virtuous presidents

[@ArchusKanzaki]

I guess its the usual of America's founders be like "Look, we intentionally made it broad so it will be flexible and adaptable and we trusted whoever is president probably had good moral. If future generations had problems, they can amend it. We are not infallible" Current future generations : "This is sacred text that cannot be modified at all. Everything need to be done as founders intended"

[@davidpriestley1650]

A great simple addition would be that presidential pardons can only be given to convictions, or documented admissions of guilt. So they need to go through the court system, so none of these "any and all crimes they might have committed". Further scope could be allowed if the pardon is passed through Congress or the Supreme Court (for things like "all confederate soldiers" or "all Vietnam draft dodgers") - checks and balances on expansive pardons.

[@OneEyeShadow]

@@Gerthious Your sentence should automatically end when your crime ceases to be a crime in the first place. It's crazy that's not a thing.

[@klutterkicker]

Seeing a lot of "the founding fathers never thought a president would do that" lately.

[@stokhosursus]

That’s how our government was established. They knew they couldn’t foresee every possibility, so instead they made sure to establish the necessary machinery to deal with the situations as they would surely arise (and have). If they had thought they knew everything, they’d never have established a process to amend the Constitution, and if they didn’t suspect that any of the governing powers could be abused, they’d never have established the system of checks and balances and given the States all the rights not specifically delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited by the Constitution. This imperfect little document is quite a powerful thing!

[@winterwombat]

The founding fathers thought they'd designed a system that would actively keep this sort of thing from happening. To say that they failed would be a monumental understatement.

[@valeoncat13]

@@winterwombat I feel like part of the failures of the constitution and founding fathers(though it wasn't in their control) is that they created an equalizing type of document/government in a world were such equality never existed. Basic evils were normal for them, so they couldn't perceive the flaws in the system.

[@JosephDavies]

I think it would be more accurate to say "The Founding Fathers never thought a President would be _permitted_ to do that", as they created an adversarial system in the three branches meant to watchdog each other and limit overreach. Some of them did foresee this kind of collusion as a possibility. In truth, there is only so much you can do to build a system that's foolproof, no matter how trivial or complex. They granted us a large number of tools to prevent or combat this situation, and as a country we have collectively abdicated that responsibility. There will never be one specific rule that could protect us from tyranny. In order for our system of government to fail it requires us to allow check after check to go unmet; it requires our permission and support.

[@marcpeterson5115]

@@winterwombat I disagree.

[@TheKrakenfist]

Every time I hear that we're still not sure how to interpret something in the constitution, I'm reminded of vaguely written board game rules and the wonderful arguments they create. We need a second LegalEagle dedicated to tabletop rules lawyering. LINE OF SIGHT v. THE STATE OF THE GAME

[@GoldenSunAlex]

Get some 40K tournament players on it.

[@charnor2727]

What is an encounter in Dungeon and Dragon 3.5 edition? That should time them down for a few hours.

[@TheDisturbism]

I have spent a lot of time on KZbin in the last 10 years, too much, and I feel like you have created a near perfect KZbin channel. Years of talking in front of judges seems to have perfected your KZbin persona. The perfect mix of humour, information, and monetization! I have yet to watch one of your videos where I wasn’t engaged and entertained - so well done! You are my KZbin hero!

[@jonribeiro266]

John Adams: "Should we add a clause that the President can't pardon themselves?" Tommy Jefferson, probably: "Mmmmm, nah. They'll probably figure it out."

[@KateHistoryMysteries]

“Not even Hamilton is that stupid.”

[@ZephWraen]

As CGP Grey would put it "They saved that homework for a future congress. 200 years later..."

[@astrobullivant5908]

Jefferson wasn't involved in the drafting of The Constitution because he was ambassador to France at the time.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

@@astrobullivant5908 Neither was John Adams, though he was an important figure at the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention. Letters from Jefferson from France were also influential even in his absence.

[@KateHistoryMysteries]

@@Sam_on_KZbin I also imagined this conversation happening during one of Washington’s cabinet meetings...

[@Hazard0ss]

From a non-US guy: This unrestricted power to pardon anyone for anything seems like the most stupid, abusable, corruption-inducing mechanism to ever exist in a democracy.

[@vvirtualvviolence283]

"Democracy"

[@RipMyTamagachi]

As a US guy: I 100% agree

[@Zocress]

Well, America isn't real democracy. It's a semi-democracy or democracy-lite if you will. It can't be a true democracy with the electoral college in place. But yes, the unchecked power of presidential pardons is absolutely ridiculous.

[@neeneko]

Keep in mind that all the nations that switched over to democracy after the US had the US's mistakes to learn from. This is why the second and later waves of democracies look so different from the US system. The US on the other hand sorta combined monarchists, rising new rich, and borrowed from a racist and poorly researched understanding of the already existing Iroquois Confederacy, and cobbled them together with a lot of fiction and philosophy.

[@musiclaboratory9694]

@@Zocress the United States is not governed by a democracy at all. we are governed by what is known as a constitutional republic which specifically is not a democracy. People thinking we live in a democratic country is why they also think are rights are being infringed upon, people don't even know what our system of government is how can they possibly know if their rights are being abused?

[@PoklaanNL]

There needs to be 1 more limit on pardons: Only convicted persons can be pardoned for crimes they were already convicted of, with an explicit ban on prospective pardons (pardoning someone for a crime they've yet to be convicted of or even charged with).

[@AldenRogers]

Obviously no pardons should be allowed for any illegality the president is personally involved with.

[@SianaGearz]

@@AldenRogers Presidential immunity. Generally, nothing a president does in the office is technically illegal. So while it would be desirable, i don't know that it's necessarily possible.

[@TheLPcollector]

my worst fear is that 45 pardons himself for any federal crime he has done is doing or will do and make the timeframe abitrarily long, so that it extends to both before and beyond any timeframe that he could be alive (say 1900 to 2100). or have pence do such a thing... i fear trumps gonna be the one to take the chance, especially with recent developments, and he may very well get away with it which would be a VERY BAD precedent to set

[@FulgurInteritum]

nah, the whole reason pardons arent that way is to prevent political prosecution. The pardon system works as intended, the law is enforced by the president, and if he does something bad, then congress can impeach him.

[@johnny_eth]

Pardons should not exist period. At most, the president should send a reference to a court to ask for a review of a case.

[@FrancescoDondi]

The years since 2016 have been "Wait we can do that?" UK: "Yes it's regulated by a law of 1457 never repealed" US: "We thought it was forbidden but turns out nobody knows"

[@stinew358]

The UK doesn't have those kinds of decisions. Only guidelines.

[@TheMasaoL]

"It's time to think like a lawyer for the president." I'm not convinced the president's lawyers think

[@tardvandecluntproductions1278]

One can think a much as a whole species and still be unable to make the presidents demands sound reasonable in court.

[@niftythegoblin]

On the contrary, I think they use like 95% of their brain power doing mental gymnastics trying to defend this guy, they're just not always successful

[@supahvaporeon]

Considering that Rudy just got the sickness, idk if there is a requirement.

[@electroskylightgaming4085]

They dont think, they have neurological impulses.

[@notrod5341]

Why am I suddenly thinking of gardening supplies

[@zelliehtrue]

"The president will need to call a good lawyer" [Giuliani] "No, I said a good lawyer" [Powell] "Well, he's obviously going to have to make a bunch of phone calls" I'm laughing.

[@FerretJohn]

Unfortunately for him Trump no longer has access to Good Lawyers. Normally Personal Attorney to the President of the United States would be a Resume Topper, you'd be the first name on a million dollar letterhead (Smith, Jones, & Johnson. Attorney's at Law, you'd be Smith). But Trump is such a notoriously bad client, especially after becoming President, that Good Lawyers won't work for him anymore. So now all he's got is Giulliani and the firm of Dewey, Cheatum, & Howe.

[@JudgeJulieLit]

@@FerretJohn If he's 'umble enough, "Chizzle, Drizzle and Mizzle" may take him pro bono.

[@Sinister25031]

Why doesn’t he call Ben Shapiro. It’s not his area of expertise but Shapiro should be able to do something!

[@ThomasTVP]

@@FerretJohn All GOOD lawyrs know better than to involved themselves with this sack of crap.

[@nicholasfarrell5981]

zelliehtrue maybe Dewey, Cheatum, & Howe are available.

[@TheSolipsist0]

The whole pardon concept seems undemocratic to me.

[@FulgurInteritum]

quite the reverse actually. Otherwise you are saying a random judge has the ultimate say over the law.

[@awwastor]

@@FulgurInteritum Well not really, you can appeal and you’re gonna go through the whole judicial system this way. Also with the pardon the ultimate power has a person which sometimes is elected by the minority, that doesn’t sound very democratic to me.

[@FulgurInteritum]

@@awwastor the apeals courts and supreme court dont take every case. Only lucky people manage to go all the way up. And the the majority of states electors electing a president is how the democracy here works, as we are a federation. It's as democratic as our republic is.

[@ShangZilla]

Pardon is an archaic relic of feudalism where the monarch had absolute power.

[@FulgurInteritum]

@@ShangZilla nah, it's a way for the executive to balance power with the judicial.

[@RaraAvis23]

“No, I said a *good* lawyer” 😂

[@EmpressMermaid]

The fact that we are even asking if the President can pardon himself just shows how far we've slipped from reality.

[@fatty1040]

No that's just the U.S constitution. A time bomb. Which is why ammending it is important depending on the country's circumstance. Of course common sense says pardoning yourself is wrong but not in the U.S law. The U.S. law is abstract and primitive and (lots of it needs updating). Just saying that would start a country wide debate.

[@EmpressMermaid]

@@fatty1040 I agree, we do need to amend in regards to this issue. But somehow we made it over 200 years without this ever really being a thing. Crazy world we're living in now is all I'm saying.

[@elgatofelix8917]

Lockdowns for a virus with a less than 1% death rate shows how far we have slipped from reality. If Trump needs a pardon for any crime it's the crime of allowing lockdowns to be implemented.

[@bossrat5295]

@@elgatofelix8917 the spanish flu was only 2% sooooo

[@cthomas025]

@@bossrat5295 You expect them to be aware of the history of what has been regarded as the worst pandemic in modern times? They would never have gotten that comparative information to the Spanish Flu and how similar the death rates are to Covid from their alt-right resources!

[@thomasandrewclifford]

This video gets more and more scary every time he says "but can he do this? Well...yes"

[@paulmdevenney]

Indeed. America is more of a monarchy (and certainly oligarchy) than Britain, that's the irony.

[@macrussell78]

@Anne Robinson Give one example of legal eagle being debunked.

[@DrewKime]

@Anne Robinson 6:31 Please listen to the entire section on prospective pardon. This was covered, and no, no one has to be indicted before they can be pardoned.

[@DrewKime]

@Anne Robinson Watch the video. Nixon.

[@williamoldaker5348]

Sounds like the Pardon system needs to be changed.

[@FulgurInteritum]

that would require a supermajority of the states to agree.

[@Thommadura]

Actually, what Trump HAS done is establish that here are LOTS of loopholes in our over 200 year old constitution I personally believe that what we need is a Constitutional Convention and a completely updated Constitution. IF we are going to go through the process, there is LOTS to do

[@FulgurInteritum]

@@Thommadura never will happen. we will just split the country in two if we try, we wont get 66% agreement, which is a far better outcome anyway.

[@Thommadura]

@@FulgurInteritum Yup, agreed. At least not in my lifetime. If they could not get the Equal Rights for Women Amendment approved in time, what chance to we have to get the Presidential Pardon changed, unlikely. too. Electoral College, nope. I could go on. so could you. I simply stated what is really needed - not that it would happen.

[@Rebel3000]

First the electoral college, now pardons? Anything the left doesnt like needs to be changed unless it benifits them, huh?

[@igordasunddas3377]

I'm not even American, but I like that while being Ukrainian and having a German Citizenship I could very well follow your video. Thank you!

[@joshuahillerup4290]

I prefer how pardons are used in Canada, to wipe criminal records of those who have served their times and shown that they have reformed.

[@mikeharris1987]

That's actually how it works here too, but only by custom. Ordinarily, a person can only appeal to the president for a pardon after admitting guilt, showing remorse, and serving their sentence. Corrupt pardons were once thought to be so politically toxic that no one would ever dare try them.

[@joshuahillerup4290]

@@mikeharris1987 does it also remove it from the criminal record, including things like affecting future employment and security clearances?

[@mikeharris1987]

@@joshuahillerup4290it only wipes away the punishment, not the facts of the case. I'm not clear on how that would affect security clearances, so I can only speculate that security clearances could still be denied based on whatever crimes were pardoned.

[@joshuahillerup4290]

@@mikeharris1987 ok, so it's not like in Canada

[@waynefeller8824]

@@joshuahillerup4290 - In the U.S., after a period of no criminal activity, and showing remorse, one can request that those charges be expunged from your record. This expungement fills the same niche as your pardon system. To get an expungement, one fills out paperwork that goes to your local courthouse. They then decide to expunge, or not. If you receive an expungement, then those crimes are completely removed from the record. In the U.S., a pardon is given from a political leader, i.e. a state governor or the president. In this case, it is considered an admission of guilt, and the crime stays on your record, until a certain time has passed, and an expungement can be requested. With security checks, a pardoned crime will still show up. However, this is not considered an automatic fail for most clearances. And after an inquiry, a decison to whether or not you should be granted clearance will be determined at that time.

[@nejdalej]

Devon: "Time to think like a lawyer for the president" Me: "Give me a handkerchief, my face is melting."

[@nicholasfarrell5981]

nejdalej and the only way to stop it is snot.

[@PotatoPatatoVonSpudsworth]

Quick! Go back! Go BACK!

[@PeloquinDavid]

Well done. You're the first one who has managed to answer virtually all the questions I had on this (and then some...) As you mention, SCOTUS will be able (if it chooses) to review the merits of a corruptly granted pardon(s) IF (in particular) it were to judge that such a pardon or batch of pardons were so egregious that it brought American justice into disrepute. As many others have noted, SCOTUS is not immune from the need to take political reality into account when rendering difficult decisions- and, most famously, does "seem to follow election results" - but it's anybody's guess as to how they would read the politics of the current situation...

[@pointlesspos8440]

For some reason when he says "I'll see you, in court." I feel a bit more comfortable than I should.

[@bumblebeast1320]

Me: Can the president do this horrible thing? Legal Eagle: Well...probably. Me: 🤦‍♂️

[@sammarks9146]

"It depends" is every lawyer's favorite phrase.

[@jesng7770]

@@sammarks9146 not just lawyer but doctor too.

[@fatty1040]

Lol the answer is of course. Everything in the video just explains the uniqueness of this specific situation. Point is the *law* is very blurred here (Common sense isn't) thus the ambiguity.

[@thetotalwarsmaster]

@@fatty1040 what I will say about this is to look at Nixon. He was pardoned right after he resigned. Sooooooo there goes out the window a lot of what the lawyer said. o there goes about 1/2 of his first argument.

[@MartoLun]

It really is shocking how many times the answer to "Can the president of the USA legally do this horribly tyrannical thing?" is yes. It just happens that no one has done it before, because it would be political suicide to do so, and would ruin the chances of any re election. That is, unless you turn your supporters into a cult...

[@gabo12082]

Why insult turkeys like that

[@TmanaokLine]

Watching this after the insurrection in Jan 2021 just feels sickening...

[@josephjackson3485]

Why yes, insurrection... We Americans have been out of harms way for too long and do not know what an actual coup de tat looks like. Please don't say this to any Saudi Arabia / Indian / Frenchman and so on and so forth

[@LeNoir679]

@@josephjackson3485 lol you have zero idea what you're talking about

[@Pro_Butcher_Amateur_Human]

@Joseph Jackson It was an armed takeover of the building where the US governing bodies meet, with those governing bodies present, by a riotous mob who wished to overturn an election result. That is an insurrection by definition. The only reason it wasn't a bloodbath is because the US police decided that was the time to try de-escalation and negotiation for the first time ever. And because the House and Senate were able to be kept away from the mob by the police and Secret Service officers guarding them. Either of those things happened differently, and instead of being a global embarressment it would have become one of the darkest days in US history.

[@GoldenSunAlex]

@@Pro_Butcher_Amateur_Human Tbh, I think if the police had acted like they normally do it could have started an actual civil war.

[@hansheden]

This is sooooo wrong. No single person should have the power to decide what is and isn't a crime.

[@AldenRogers]

especially when they are personally involved in said crime.

[@FulgurInteritum]

but they dont. the president and congress are elected. Are you saying a random trash judge should get to decide law?

[@eliscore]

They're not. They only have the power to control who's punished

[@Thommadura]

Actually, that is not what a pardon does. A pardon normally REQUIRES the person to admit guilt. What a pardon does is reduce or eliminate punishment for the crime. However our whole legal system is based on a single person deciding a case - called a JUDGE. And in the Federal system, that can include deciding if a law is constitutional. The Federal lowest court, and the court of appeals cases are decided by ONE judge. A multiple judge situation is rare before the Supreme court. ANd a great example of power, the first president nominated EVERY supreme court judge.

[@rainbowevil]

@@FulgurInteritum what kind of garbage refutation is that? Just because they were elected at some point in the past doesn’t mean that they, a single person, don’t “have the power to decide what is and isn’t a crime.” They absolutely do, and that’s the problem.

[@calebchoi6932]

The fact that we’re even asking this question shows that we’re in deep shit😂

[@Noschool100]

Man, never thought we'd get a president bragging about self pardons

[@warcrimeenjoyer219]

@Mitt Romney stands with BLM that’s a pretty red pulled option

[@Noschool100]

@Mitt Romney stands with BLM I mean trump was the that said he could pardon himself. There's no reason to say it unless you are trying to flaunt your power.

[@myscreen2urs]

Trump is going to pardon himself like you've never seen. It's gonna be the best pardon. This pardon will be HUUUGE! Bigger than Nixon's pardon, some might say. 🙃

[@Stettafire]

@Mitt Romney stands with BLM oh yes that soycialist propaganda is scary stuff 🤣

[@andreashabeck1155]

@Mitt Romney stands with BLM did or did did not the president brag about self pardons?

[@williamknox6648]

So technically a president could pardon every person with a minor weed charge

[@kenlandon6130]

he could pardon everyone in federal prison period

[@alexmacgregor9631]

watching this 1/7/2021 and the mass pardon part is hitting different now

[@BuckNaste88]

Yeah. Thats gotta be in his mind. He turned on them pretty bad. A mass pardon would get him back in their good graces.

[@lactoseintolerantgaming2711]

Shit. I didn't even think about that. Good point.

[@SilverAnicore]

"President Mike Pence." There's a combination of words I didn't need to hear today.

[@PhantomBanker]

Or any day, for that matter.

[@jacksong6226]

Much prefer it to harris

[@a_pet_rock]

​@@jacksong6226 The guy who made it legal to torture children in Indiana is preferable to literally anyone?

[@ericm.5408]

I can't eat my White Castles now hearing those three words!

[@tomkelly00]

Fortunately that would require way more brains than twitler45 has

[@DOC_951]

Everything about being able to pardon seems like a developer cheat code that was accidentally left in the game.

[@aylbdrmadison1051]

Accidentally?

[@tuckergary1516]

oh we have a new superhero. "the orange sphincter" his power is to lie whenever his lips move. a nod to bill mar

[@logancarbin8160]

"it's time to think like a lawyer for the president" so, not think at all. Got it.

[@adrianreister]

Thank you LegalEagle for making me smarter!

[@nickstone1167]

President Trump: self-pardon, bye losers. State cases: Hello There. Have they told you who I am?

[@pirojfmifhghek566]

New York State: "Hey, remember that time you did dealings with foreign agents on US soil? That also happened to be our soil."

[@maxmazza2987]

As a New Yorker, I'm looking forward to this.

[@joesomenumbers]

@@pirojfmifhghek566 New York State: Here's a fine Trump: Okay

[@tweakernation]

@@joesomenumbers Dunno where Trump will get the money to be paying fines with almost $1 billion in cash coming due for his loans

[@jerff]

The real question is how to keep him from leaving the country before those charges are brought?

[@zachsands8869]

Question: How much could Wile E. Coyote sue the ACME Corporation for all of the faulty products he has purchased from them?

[@sternis1]

He could definitely sue them, but he has to prove that they are indeed faulty when used as described by ACME. I have a hunch that ACME likely specifies (in their manual or in another way that's clear and likely to be read by the user) the ways in which their products may or may not be used. However, since most animations of Wile E. Coyote are rather old, it's likely that the laws and requirements for product safety has changed since then. But certainly and interesting case to see! Edit: Ok So I looked at a few of the ACME products, and found that in almost all cases of injury for Wile E Coyote, there's a clear unforeseeable misuse, and the fualt of injury would be entirely on Wile. There were actually however a few cases where the product WAS indeed faulty and could have been argued to be cause of injury. Also, reasearching this a little further, there HAVE actually been mentions of this in legal contexts (albeit humorous). I found two examples from the early 90s dealing with this.

[@dracopalidine]

Perhaps he was using them in a way not intended for use therefore the liability would be on him and not the products?

[@dracopalidine]

@@sternis1 oh wow I'd love to see those references haha

[@sternis1]

@@dracopalidine You should be able to find it via google (that's what I did!)

[@starvalkyrie]

Watching Road Runner cartoons.... there's no way that Wile E Coyote is using any of those devices as directed in the manual. He frequently fails to anchor heavy equipment. Uses rocket powered propulsion through hazardous areas littered with obstacles. And I don't think any reasonable person could believe that most of those devices are even intended for roadrunner capture.

[@ConsumerOfCringe]

this video aged perfectly

[@lenkacfk7155]

Yeah, it's like Trump took it as a blueprint 🙄

[@NikkyElso]

You didn't even know the half of it 4 days ago

[@ConsumerOfCringe]

oh boy, i didnt expect endorsing a coup when i typed the comment -_-

[@Thrifty032781]

I feel like "The Office" would make a great video for your "Lawyer Reacts" series. They break so many sexual harassment laws that it's a wonder Dunder Mifflin was not sued out of existence.

[@samcalven12]

Why is the law harsher on the common citizens than it is on federal officials.

[@mechanomics2649]

Corruption and complacency.

[@brandonsalvatierra5774]

Probably because the federal officials make the laws...

[@supremememersnoke7350]

Because they're the ones in power.

[@samcalven12]

@@supremememersnoke7350 so you are conceding the power of the people to only federal officials

[@supremememersnoke7350]

@@samcalven12 No.

[@-_IT_-]

This video saddens me. They do not want one person to have too much power, but makes it easy for one person to have too much power.

[@fatty1040]

Lol having a country leader *Always* puts them in power. Its been like this for ages.

[@Stettafire]

@@fatty1040 By the standard of most Western nations. It's way worse in the US. There is nothing he can't do. In both Canada and the UK there are actions the PM can not take

[@fatty1040]

@@Stettafire Of course you are right but the pm still gets power is what i am saying. Someone always does.

[@candacen7779]

​@@Stettafire Not necessarily. There are actions that the US President cannot take, but it requires enough members of Congress to actually pursue punishment if those actions are taken. We are in a period in history at this moment where the number of Congressional members willing to do what is necessary to hold the President accountable are few. In fact, I'd argue that the same thing can happen in the UK, Canada or any other democracy (especially in the UK, where the "Constitution" is confusing as hell, and largely unknown by the majority of its citizens). A nation's leader is only as powerful as the people who are entrusted to hold that leader accountable are willing to do their jobs. The UK and Canada are no strangers to corruption, and should their Parliamentary members decide to not answer to the citizens of their country, but instead to those who fill their bank accounts, they can easily find themselves realizing how easy it is to have a leader who can get away with murder as well.

[@rburkwood]

"The President can be impeached and removed even up to the last day in office. So if people find his behaviour so odious they can impeach him and remove him from office. And that is the political resolution to all of these things" This video aged VERY well. Kudos.

[@GoldenSunAlex]

Needs to be amended to 'try' to remove him from office.

[@TimeSurfer206]

"No man should ever be allowed to sit in judgement upon himself."

[@hillkillr]

I pardon myself all the time, especially when walking through a crowd. "Excuse me, pardon me, excuse me."

[@labibbidabibbadum]

That's asking for pardons, not pardoning yourself. Granted nonetheless.

[@TheExplorder]

@@labibbidabibbadum Well, the white house is a very formal workspace these days, with everyone asking "Pardon me?"

[@jendelreavis358]

Ahhh...I remember crowds

[@panda_girl5298]

If he pardons himself that will open a door to future presidents to the same. The president, Democrat or Republican, should NOT be above the law. PERIODT

[@TheMarkster245]

It already happened (kinda) Nixon resigned then Ford took over and pardoned him

[@rlivermont]

I would say that Trump has opened the door to all sorts of nefarious behaviour by the occupant of the Office of the President.

[@rabbitbobo4131]

The president by definition are above the law, and has the power to over throw decision. The under line of this problem is that the fathers of US, has always expected people of virtual and honor in position, and would use this power for the dispute of people and pardon conflicting parties which would cause long term conflict within the nation.

[@shesaknitter]

If a president is above the law, that means that the Rule of Law part of the Constitution...that no one is above the law...means nothing. If that is the case, what else in the Constitution means nothing?

[@altrag]

@@TheMarkster245 Yeah but that still means he needs to convince at least one other person that he shouldn't be indicted for his crimes. Whether or not Pence would take that deal is .. likely, but not guaranteed. We know that Pence is obviously supporting Trump's idiocy in public but I don't know if anyone knows what their private relationship is like. Pence is in many ways (again, at least in his public persona) kind of the opposite of Trump. It may well be that he was just riding Trump's coattails and will turn on him when something like the question of a pardon deal comes up. Of course, I doubt we'll find out. Trump is too egotistical to admit that he was wrong about being able to pardon himself, so I think its highly unlikely he'd actually abdicate like that even if Pence was willing to provide the Ford-style pardon. There's also the fact that Trump doesn't actually believe he's committed any crimes, so there's a good chance he sees pardoning himself as just a "because why not" measure and doesn't actually think it matters. We'll find out in the next 6 weeks I guess. In the short term, I'm more curious how his tone will change after tomorrow when the EC representatives finally put the nail in the whole election coffin. Is he just going to ramp up and claim the EC is fraudulent as well, or will he change tactics and try some other form of treason to undermine US democracy? The climax of the final season of Survivor: West Wing should be exciting!

[@SensationalBanana]

In short, what I used to believe to be fiction in House of Cards, turns out to be entirely true...

[@phyllishamilton165]

Thank you! One of the most significant topics you've covered to date, and you've done a great service by parsing its implications.

[@ronindebeatrice]

A: He shouldn't. It's immoral and sleezy. He absolutely will pardon himself.

[@lilJuvis15]

100 years from now (if our democracy is still around 🤞🏼) they’ll be talking about 2020 and the absolutely batshit insane 4 years of Trump. Then they’ll see that over 73 Million Americans wanted a second term ...

[@brianng3414]

I think he is going to do both -pardon himself and then have Pence do another pardon himself. But you know he is going to do it. Even now, he is still lying about the election even though there is no proof of "stolen election".

[@alr2157]

@@lilJuvis15 and in 200 years they will know that the mass was hypnotized by propaganda and couldn't think clearly. And that Puppet Biden was more to fear than Ego Trump.

[@andrepereira3338]

But... what's B? WHAT'S B???

[@arnoldhau1]

@@brianng3414 Not sure about that. He would have to step down and that would conflict with his ego.

[@agactual2]

Objection: You’re supposed to make us feel better, not worse

[@christophermiller5433]

Overruled. A lawyer’s job isn’t to make you feel better, just tell you the facts and advise.

[@iamme4552]

Not part of the job but here’s something legal to keep you warm at night anyway. A presidential pardon is an executive order. As demonstrated by one of Trump’s first executive orders a president can negate any executive orders issued by the previous president in the last six months he was in office. Biden will have the power to immediately negate all the pardons Trump has issued recently or will issue including Flynn and others. Sweet dreams. 😄

[@TheBlarggle]

@@iamme4552 As if Biden would do anything even close to that. Biden is there to smooth out all the bumps so Republicans can act like they've never heard of Trump.

[@andmos1001]

Overruled: legal eagle is not you personal consultant

[@BankRoll55]

@@iamme4552 I needed this reply SO much. Thank you

[@sgtnameless7318]

Hello from Minneapolis! Very cool to see you quotes/cited my law professor, Prof. Mark Osler! I am going to make sure he sees this!

[@davida.yorkson3397]

In regards to the questions of whether a sitting president could grant a prospective pardon and whether a sitting president could grant a self-pardon, I ask the following: if a president can do both of the aforementioned things, does that mean they could issue a prospective self-pardon to themselves on their first day in office, effectively becoming immune from any and all laws?

[@jefffenton5932]

“We are a long, long way from George Washington now.” Indeed.

[@Deimnos]

@Jeff Fenton read your INDEED in te voice of Teal'c from stargate :)))

[@tuckergary1516]

george w. to trump who can't stop lying. 4'000 + last count.

[@barelyasurvivor1257]

Sigh very much so Jeff

[@nathanielbellmore]

Lol George would probably be stacking bodies right now. Too much corruption all over the place, he's gotta water that tree of liberty.

[@jusded6803]

It's a reagan and clinton repeat.

[@stormbowman7148]

So the President could technically troll everybody by pardoning all future turkeys?

[@michaeldaly1096]

Only if the turkey commits a federal crime

[@GadgetDon]

No. A pardon can only be granted for crimes that already happened.

[@maciejp7829]

@@GadgetDon so what crime did the turkey(s) commit?

[@Destorath666]

@@maciejp7829 being delicious

[@filipferencak2717]

@@Destorath666 Damn those turkeys!

[@Znegil]

So this means Mr. Orange could just give a broad pardon to everyone who did storm the senate yesterday... 🤮

[@ben-wm6yc]

Likely will too :/

[@suecaggiano6111]

Wouldn't they have to be convicted first? Will he be in power that long

[@Znegil]

@@suecaggiano6111 no, not with a broad pardon, like he said. He can just go: I pardon 'insert family member' for all crimes in the last 20 years. This stuff is way too powerful. Of course only for federal crimes

[@Herowebcomics]

He could, but that involves doing presidential work! And we all know how much he hates doing that stuff!

[@FulgurInteritum]

could, but he wont.

[@protoretro1290]

Wouldn't it be great if you could ask the supreme Court for clarification on things without starting a lengthy legal trial.

[@KevinReijnders93]

A big take away from this seems, to me at least, that the president has too much power and is only held in check by the honor system.

[@OurayTheOwl]

Yeah no, he said repeatedly that avenues to contest the president already exist, and simply because they exist they may affect the supreme courts rulings. Laws were made for a reason, and you saw examples of how and why they were used for the benefit of the country. Its just that no president in the last 250 years has acted quite in such a way that specifics needed to be hashed out to this degree, because we assumed those previous measures would be adequate.

[@evannibbe9375]

He is held in check by elections and the fundamental principle of rulers: one cannot rule alone.

[@candacen7779]

One could make that argument for essentially any democracy or democratic republic.

[@josemartini2707]

He can be impeached, impeached, impeached... he is held in check by those who can impeach him. Apparently it wasn't a good enough case.

[@gildedbear5355]

@@josemartini2707 what case? The Senate didn't call witnesses or look at any evidence.

[@queenannsrevenge100]

"Don't like it? Amend the Constitution. No, seriously - AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!"

[@JublovinJub]

I'm game! So many holes have been brought to our attention that desperately need to be filled! If we can take anything from this Presidency, we can say we learned what we need to fix! POWER back to the PEOPLE!

[@mathewfinch]

Or we could just trash the old system and make a new system, much like they did when they wrote the constitution and abandoned the Articles of Confederation, an act that was technically outside of any legal authority they had as well.

[@stokhosursus]

@@mathewfinch Actually, you’re right that the Constitution we have is directly due to the Articles of Confederation but not quite in the way that you’re asserting. The “founding fathers” realized that they would not be able to effectively foresee every possible situation that would arise to the point that they could fairly and completely codify the entire rule of law in the Constitution. Democracies were quite a new thing at the time, and there was not enough experience or knowledge to be able to do what they wanted to do with the Articles of Confederation. So, instead they decided to establish the machinery of our government to allow for changes and to prevent any one person or group from holding too much power. They established the basic structure, the division of power, and the checks and balances within that system. They also establish how the Constitution could be amended. Instead of one person or group of people wielding all the governing powers, the executive powers, the legislative powers, and the judicial powers were divided among three separate branches, where each were given the ability to check each other’s use of their respective powers without infringing upon the exercise of those powers. They went a step further by giving all rights that weren’t specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution or prohibited by the Constitution to the States-one additional check on the entire federal government. Conflict is the core principle of the structure of the US Government, established by the Constitution that, despite its messiness, has provided quite a powerful machinery for preserving the core values of the United States presented in the Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the Constitution. In short, they trusted that we’d figure it out as we went along, and they made it very difficult for any one person or group to be able to do it all alone without eventually having to work things out in conflict and compromise.

[@AndrewAMartin]

@@stokhosursus Unfortunately, they did not foresee that the spirit of compromise for the good of all Americans would be lost to extreme partisanship.

[@willdejong7763]

I'd like to give congress the ability to nullify pardons, probably would want to use similar rules to impeachment and require 2/3 of the senate to support the veto. Maybe with a time limit, allow for the pardons to be thrown out up to one year after the president leaves office. Also should limit the pardons such that they are not applicable to crimes committed after the president who issued the pardon leaves office.

[@svenrobert84]

you really make the subject of law more accessible to people who have not studied it. great job.

[@temporaltoast4349]

The concept of a President being able to pardon, is ridiculous in and of itself. We're a country that's founded supposedly on the concept of "rule of law", yet we have a high ranking official akin to a king being able to circumvent the law. That itself seems counterintuitive to the founders opposition to the British King's ability to circumvent the "law" and being above the very concept of it, as you pointed out. It's an abusable concept, and I'm sure the founders would be pissed to see how it's used these days. To be blunt, this is a power that should be removed in the next 10 years at the very least, it's idiotic as a country of the people, to be circumvented by a person, no matter what side they're on

[@bodhisitter]

Plantation owning human traffickers: "Only the best and most virtuous will lead us."

[@OurayTheOwl]

They did truly believe that, but that line still holds as we adjust our perceptions on who exactly that means. If they said "only plantation owning human traffickers" their documents wouldn't have lasted until now.

[@felixrodriguez5050]

@@OurayTheOwl and that's the invisibility of white supremacy in policy matters.

[@noesunyoutuber7680]

@@felixrodriguez5050 I mean, there's definitely white supremacy involved in the idea that literally owning black people didn't disqualify a man for an office that was supposed to be for the best of the citizenry, but it doesn't seem to actively encode white supremacy into policy the way policies created to negatively impact populations that are disproportionately (if not entirely) non-white do. Kinda hard to challenge that as invisible white supremacy in policy when it's more of a policy that treats white supremacy as invisible. It's not actually promoting it, it just enables it to the extent other forces (societal and legal) do so. While that might sound like hair-splitting, there's a kinda important distinction between "the constitution's principles were written when what was and wasn't acceptable was different" and "the constitution is hypocritical by nature and therefore shouldn't be trusted."

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@Velsen Fest No you have the white house for any conspiracies promoted by Insane pro-racists. BLM is for awareness about policing being deliberately harmful to 1/6th of the population due to racist heritage.

[@OurayTheOwl]

@@felixrodriguez5050 I wouldn’t say that’s invisible white supremacy. The words themselves don’t actually call for that even if it was well understood to mean that at the time. Which is why I can see why you’d call it an invisible agenda. However, since it’s not written to be overt, the same principles can be applied as inclusivity grows and be used to the opposite effect. This isn’t a particularly good example of “policy” or institutional racism as the intentional vagueness allows for the subversion of those very efforts.

[@veezopolis]

"Let's think like the President's Lawyer" About time someone did

[@headgames3115]

He thinks?

[@polarhack222]

@@headgames3115 Jury's still out on that one, probably because of how ridculous his lawyers' claims are.

[@kerricaine]

@@headgames3115 why do you think his head was leaking so badly? Tried too hard to form a thought

[@catelynh1020]

"There was a non-zero number of federal crimes commited"

[@FTZPLTC]

For real. As much as I don't want this election to go on longer (because it seems to have ended more times than Return of the King), it seems like America could REALLY do with getting some legal precedent laid down on this.

[@TheTigerfan99]

Didn't realize so many people watched you but don't subscribe to you. You have my subscription! Love these videos.

[@pauline_f328]

30% of people being subscribed is actually really high. I'm proud people recognize how awesome and unique this channel is

[@saundraschaefer]

My headcannon is that you're secretly Ryan Reynolds' long lost brother.

[@me0101001000]

I can no longer unsee that

[@asterix811]

Then why isn’t he sponsored by Mint Mobile instead of Ting Mobile?

[@BubbaYak]

They even kinda sound the same

[@hatemteirelbar9510]

Nope Jim Halpert

[@jeremygibbs7342]

I honestly thought at first it was Reynolds pretending to be a lawyer XD

[@Nr4747]

"I beg your pardon" takes on a whole new meaning in the last days of the Trump administration.

[@dlo111]

I love this channel, it makes sense of situations difficult to understand. Thank you so much for posting these videos. :)

[@journeysoutloud1990]

I was surprised about this and found this through the algorithm as I wanted to learn. So honestly thank you for your vids.

[@Intabih]

Motion to Discover: What do you do with this room on a day-to-day basis? Is it a spare room? Do you glare at the chair whenever you pass it?

[@uhthin]

Pooh what am I missing here? Why is this getting thumbs up?

[@musiclaboratory9694]

@@uhthin generally speaking the lawyer representing this channel has said in past videos that he will respond to valid questions submitted in a courtroom fashion. I.e. " objection" "motion to discover" ect. Ect.

[@talzane5475]

Are we sure it's not a green screen?

[@vercoda9997]

@@musiclaboratory9694 I’ll allow it. Continue.

[@sidvyas8549]

@@talzane5475 that’s what I think lol

[@jonathanvernon7251]

Wouldn't a self-pardon be the ultimate expression of quid pro quo? Receiving something of value (ie. a pardon) in exchange for granting a pardon.

[@Alkis05]

"Does the Supreme Court has the power to..." Supreme Court: "Yes!"

[@siep6922]

Thanks for this specific video, and I'm looking forward to watching some more. Mostly because you're an excellent (narrator?lecturer?teacher?storyteller?) speaker: and cos what you're saying is understandable! Once again, thank you.

[@fugyfruit]

So does this mean he admits that he has committed crimes that need to be pardoned

[@drewgoin8849]

Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915) - A pardon implies acceptance of one's guilt

[@ShadowTani]

His whole presidency have been about enriching himself, that much should be apparent to most people outside of the more oblivious supporters that actually believed an oligarch would "make America great again", and so it follows with little surprise that he then probably committed crimes along the way. Trump might not be able to see past his own ego in many aspects, but he got enough self-awareness to know whether or not he did some underhanded things along the way. Could he be pardoning himself just as a precaution against false claims in the future? It's a possibility, but that kind of foresight seems out of character for him. He has enough pride to believe he can overcome any false claims easily enough, true claims however...

[@fatty1040]

@@drewgoin8849 Not really. If you watched the video you can see both the good and bad of being pardoned. It is still a coin that has to be flipped and depends on the people and the people of the court.

[@natthekiwi7074]

You realize racists disperportionally voted for Trump right? Why are you saying demokkkrat?

[@fugyfruit]

It works better as Republikkkan

[@theintern2960]

"It's time to think like the president's lawyer." I physically recoiled from that concept.

[@donnadicasa]

"Well, I've got Covid, better get to the White House, the rally, the hearing..."

[@tparadox88]

Time to leak various liquids and gases.

[@m.k.c.5212]

Made me want to puke immediately

[@MrBeatboxmasta]

9:55 He tried to be slick and didn't think I would notice his contempt for the outgoing office.

[@dbw166]

Technically it sounds like he could pardon all those people who stormed the capitol if they don't get him out of office asap. If that's the case thats messed up

[@Cendar]

Just read an article by the Guardian stating that the rioters are asking Trump to pardon them. It disgusts me that these people are saying they were following the orders of the president. The absolute nerve of these "patriots" and Trump is disturbing. amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/16/us-capitol-rioters-donald-trump-pardons

[@aaronsande]

I have a repeating fantasy that Trump steps down for Pence to pardon him, then Pence goes "You know what? Nah. PSYCHE!"

[@beautifulmidnight]

Oh my GOD. I was thinking that. How absolutely delicious would that be?

[@wendyheatherwood]

"Thank you for transferring the presidency to me. Unfortunately I will not be pardoning you. However, now that you've surrendered all legal authority here is a list of everything I've been wanting to say to you for the last four years. Get comfortable. We're going to be here a while..."

[@steveschulte8696]

The Pence pardon power only extends to noon on 20 January 2021. So anytime Trumps wants a Pence pardon, it may be granted. Pence only has the power is duly sworn in. Pence holds office only until noon, there is a several minute vacancy in the office until the President-Elect is sworn in, and the Vice-President-Elect.

[@bwktlcn]

@Philip L Tite I keep thinking he’s going to find a way to stay (or come back). And he will be so angry, he will want to destroy those who didn’t support him enough. Or he will try to get his kids as governors of states that prosecute him so they can pardon him....

[@lperea21]

Pence will need a pardon too. But not from the correct authority

[@pricklybiscuit]

I'm starting to get the impression that the powers of the president is very easy to abuse for personal gains. Ahhh no way could just be me imagining things

[@junit483]

Certainly not because presidents will only have the highest levels of integrity and moralities.

[@vdlion717]

I'm pretty sure the last 4 years have shown exactly that. He has literally gotten away with about 50 things that would have sunk any other president.

[@Koooo4]

Seems like most of the limits put on the president is just "yeah, im sure no president would do that, no need for an actual law."

[@genieglasslamp5028]

What do you mean? It's not like its ridiculously easy for for the president to use his power for personal gain or anything. Oh wait.......

[@vdlion717]

@@Koooo4 yes, they also didn't anticipate an anchored in 2 party system where nearly nobody crosses party lines anymore. The mechanism to remove corrupt presidents is inherently flawed because of this.

[@ALBERTOERSA]

I don't like lawyers (classic animosity between Humanities and law I guess) but you know what? Fine, you got me; Just now, I have subscribed. Truly great, informative, well-delivered content, accompanied with a silky smooth voice. What else could I ask for?

[@billytaylor6604]

This Pardon thing is really strange, WHY would someone that is not guilty of ANY crime seek OR accept a pardon for ANY crimes?

[@aoikemono6414]

Trump will just use his typical "it's a witch hunt!" to claim his political opponents are out to get him and that he is protecting himself from unjust prosecution. That's the sort of high regard you want from a sitting president concerning their own legal system.

[@HaikatrineKat]

"Except in cases of impeachment" That's going to be the line debated for the next 10 years.

[@Thommadura]

@David Wang THe EGG came first. There were eggs on earth long before there were chickens!

[@teresaromanski3925]

Trump should have been convicted in both impeachments, what do you do when the Senate (jury) goes against their oath, and doesn't uphold it's duty? The whole system is rigged to protect the politicians. There really is no justice in America. I find it stunning that the party in power can commit as many crimes as they like, and when the next president is the opposing party, they can't hold the former party's criminal acts accountable, because it will look political. It's total bulls--t.

[@naman6334]

"Time to think like a lawyer for the president?" Oh dear, I'd rather not lol. Gonna end up in jail

[@PaulusCunctator]

or the hospital at this point

[@echiko4932]

@@PaulusCunctator id rather go to jail, its cheaper

[@dr.barrycohn5461]

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. Btw, I loved your segway into the commercial counselor.

[@Mexican00b]

"yeah, probably" o boy... you were so innocent at this time

[@Kasiarzynka]

Same to you, mate, same to you. Please, Mr. President, don't 1 up yourself to prove me naive.

[@mccrow4561]

"It's time to think like a Lawyer for the president" *Proceeds to have a literal meltdown*

[@BreadMan434]

Thought pipelining...slowing...focus...blurring...moral...compass...disappearing...must...hold...onto...my...RIGHT TO CHARGE ALL OF THESE ILLEGITIMATE VOTES, YOUR HONOUR. HOWEVER WE ARE NOT CALLING FOR FRAUD YOUR HONOUR.

[@collinsmovies1152]

@@rjwh67220 He's referring to giuliani's hair dye melting all over his face (literally)

[@ilikeyourname4807]

I usually hate people using the word "literally" loosely but in this case he actually melted

[@elgatofelix8917]

You misspelled liberal meltdown 😅😅😅

[@iliakatster]

Its lunacy that we're even talking about this.

[@bratwurstkinsman6740]

Pardon for what exactly is what I'm wondering.

[@Pocket_Crab]

@@bratwurstkinsman6740 for 4 years Democrats have tried to find anything to send him to jail. You think they will stop after his term is over? Lmao no, they have hatred seeded so deep for him that they will keep him in court, so they can try to ruin his life. They have already shown they have no morals by taking him court on hearsay from someone that doesn’t even live in the US and when it was found out it was all just a game of telephone, they immediately went back to ‘ He ShOuLd Be ReMoVeD bEcAuSe He iS rAcIst’.

[@cannedyams9977]

Remember when a member of Trumps team was found guilty for giving hush money to women who had an affair with him, under Trumps orders? That is an actual, and may I say immoral, crime that Trump has committed. Anyway, whatever your standing is, history is not going to look kindly back on the Trump presidency.

[@jadec3959]

@@Pocket_Crab I can't imagine how your back must feel to have your head shoved so far up your ass after all this time to STILL think trump has done nothing wrong

[@omlyfans2783]

@@Pocket_Crab I didn't realize paying only $750 in taxes when you make millions was legal. I didn't realize he has 21 sexual assault cases currently going against him because hE dId NoThInG wRoNg

[@prime77089]

“It’s time to think like a lawyer for the president”. I can feel my soul being dragged down to hell...

[@JoshSlinkard]

I've never heard someone pronounce "tyranny" that way.

[@jalabi99]

terr-ANNIE XD

[@mnschoen]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who went "wait what?"

[@bubbabri7040]

It's based on the way you pronounce "tyrant", from the ancient Greek etymology

[@tanya5322]

@@bubbabri7040 I was just going to make a similar (though less educational) comment, as I heard his pronunciation as “tie-ranny” which is comparable to how I’m familiar with the word tyrant pronounced.

[@jalabi99]

@@bubbabri7040 Like how "Tyrannosaurus rex" is pronounced? Makes sense.

[@admis9358]

Man it's almost like our constitution should be updated or something

[@dylank.4498]

Yeah good luck with that. Certain people in this country believe that “you cannot change the constitution.”

[@mechanomics2649]

You mean updating something drawn up in the 1700's and whose last amendment was proposed over 200 years ago? Hey now, let's not get too carried away here.

[@BattyButtercup]

I mean, Christianity did that with the New Testament and that went Well™. i'll allow you all to have your own, immediate mental reels as to how "well" that went, historically & immediately, for good and ill.

[@Jimmy_Jones]

America: REEEEEEEE

[@supremememersnoke7350]

Or completely overhauled.

[@L1Run]

"We defy kings! We shall institute a just government." "But if we do, how will we have a king?" "Good point. Very good point."

[@edwardnygma8533]

On that note, didn't they actually think they should address the president as "your majesty" for a while?

[@andrewshepherd1633]

@@edwardnygma8533 John Adams led the charge on trying to figure out how to address the president and his majesty WAS considered briefly. Ultimately it was firmly decided against. Whether or not it occurred in the way shown in the JA miniseries is another issue altogether.

[@brokestudentinschool2731]

What is this a quote from?

[@edwardnygma8533]

@@andrewshepherd1633 Right, didn't Washington have to decide Mr. President for himself? And I've never heard of this miniseries, tbh, was it any good?

[@edwardnygma8533]

@@brokestudentinschool2731 Looks like some John Adams miniseries.

[@chadzack9748]

So I watched the first 50 seconds, and my mind immediately went to Richard Nixon being pardoned by Gerald Ford

[@JojoIvan531]

The sponsorship delivery was so on point. Remind me to buy a sweater from you when you have a merchandise store 👍🏻

[@TheDragonslyr]

There needs to be a broad pardon of all non violent, no victim crimes, that were only created to suppress the poor.

[@autumn_breeze616]

Yeah but then the privatized penal system loses money, and we cant have that now, can we.

[@FriedrichHerschel]

That's a bit unspecific. Especially the "no victim" thingy, as quite often, the general public can be the victim, or the perpetrator him-/herself.

[@bezretmet]

@@autumn_breeze616 the most insane part that the private prisons can actually sue the state for millions if prisoner numbers drop too low. like the state is incentivized to keep crime numbers high it's insane.

[@the1exnay]

You gave three conditions for something to be pardoned, and i think all three of those would be quite contentious as to what exactly they refer to. Depending what you meant i might agree or strongly disagree.

[@finnpeterson4335]

That's literally just a presidential pardon, dude.

[@mikehawk9281]

Everytime he asked the question "can he do that?" I thought to myself no of course not, and I was surprised to know I was wrong most of the time lol

[@x--.]

The pardon power has been interpreted to be *very* broad. And that's saying something considering how broadly it is written.

[@altrag]

@@x--. Yeah, the only real question is whether he can pardon himself explicitly. I don't think there's any (real) question about being able to pardon his co-conspirators and certainly no question about being able to pardon his family members. But the president being able to pardon himself would literally put him above the law. "Except impeachment" is fine and all, but lets say he pardons himself and gets impeached for doing so. Sure, he's now out of office and "disgraced" but that pardon would still stand. Impeachment wouldn't undo the act that got him impeached, so he would still be free from indictment after he was removed from office - a thing that is generally considered a no-go in the US (though I'm not sure that whole "above the law" bit is actually constitutional or just one of those feel-good sayings that Americans believe but might not actually be true when tested. There's a good chance we'll find out though as I suspect Trump is too egotistical to pass the baton to Pence and effectively admit that he was wrong about being able to pardon himself).

[@cdespota]

Love your videos. Thanks!!