Trump Pardon Watch Thread

[tantric superman 4668]

Pretty sickening.

The interesting thing about all of this is that as of about 30 years ago, you'd basically want to eliminate -- kill or drive away - anyone who could be classified as an "enemy of the state" - someone who desires to destroy the nation either immediately or gradually. 

More than 70 million people voted for these assholes, and what - 20-50 million of them actively support the graft and corruption? 

I know that deep down they are my neighbors and I certainly don't want them killed or driven off.  But they are promoting destruction of our system of government.  They are enemies of the state.  Their voting power needs to be eviscerated or otherwise destroyed. 

I'm beginning to think we need to encourage a Trumpest party to drive them all together - including out of the almost dead corpse of the Republican Party which maybe we can fill with functioning adults of the Cuban and Catholic variety.  And then I guess...

[4th&Five 41909]

 

[Brisketexan 106676]

5 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

[closetohumping 17786]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

I’ve never understood WTF the founders were thinking allowing the president to just pardon anyone for pretty much any reason.  I realize federal crimes were few and far between back then but they existed and some were quite important. 

I don't think John Hancock thought someone like Trump would be president.

[washparkhorn 9968]

2 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

I’ve never understood WTF the founders were thinking allowing the president to just pardon anyone for pretty much any reason.  I realize federal crimes were few and far between back then but they existed and some were quite important. 

TLDR version: English kings had the power to pardon, so the Founders thought it was a good idea to keep it.

Worth a read - even though it is the Heritage Foundation:

Spoiler

At the time the Constitution was framed, the pardon was conceived of as having a dual purpose both as a political means of ameliorating dissent,[9]broadly understood, and as a moral expression of [justice]. There was, in the Founders' conception, a link between criminal liability and some form of moral blameworthiness—a link that led to mitigation of punishment where criminal intent was lacking.

The presidential power to pardon is granted under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: "The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."[11] The text does not provide any standard for the presidential exercise of this power. For all it appears, the power can be exercised for any reason or no reason at all.[12] Substantively, there is only one limitation: impeached officeholders cannot be pardoned.

What is the purpose of such a broad and unfettered pardon power? It was considered essential for both normative reasons of justice and utilitarian reasons of power. First, the pardon power coincided with the Founders' conception of justice. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 74:

"The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives, which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations, which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution: The dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind."

Thus, Hamilton concluded, "Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed."

Hamilton was not alone in his view that the purpose of the pardon power is to temper justice with mercy. Chief Justice John Marshall said much the same thing: "A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed."[14]

But pardons were also seen as playing a practical role in public policy. Here is Hamilton on the use of pardons as a critical component of reconciliation: "In seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth."[15] Likewise, James Wilson argued during the Constitutional Convention that a "pardon before conviction might be necessary in order to obtain the testimony of accomplices."[16]

For public policy reasons, as much as anything else, President George Washington granted an amnesty to those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion,[17] and Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson did the same for Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War.[18] Indeed, this aspect of the pardon was used relatively recently when Gerald Ford pardoned President Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to Vietnam-era draft evaders.[19]

For the Founders, therefore, the pardon power was an authority that was both utilitarian in nature and an effort to develop a constitutional conception of just deserts. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, "A pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the constitutional scheme."[20]

Indeed, as Akhil Reed Amar has noted in his history of the American Constitution, the federal pardon power was far broader than that possessed by state governors.[21] The governor of Massachusetts, for example, could issue a pardon only with "the advice" of a legislatively chosen council. New York's governor could not pardon before trial and, for murder and treason, could only suspend a sentence pending legislative review of the matter. For this reason, Amar characterizes the pardon power as one of the "threads that defined America's presidency" and allowed for decisiveness of action and the unity of executive power.

The conception of the pardon as an exercise of justice found a ready echo in some of the early enactments of the new federal government. The most prominent example was the Mitigation and Remittance Act of 1790.[22]About one year earlier, Congress had enacted a number of forfeiture provisions and penalties relating to the avoidance of customs duties. For example, it was unlawful to unload a ship after dark (an act that might facilitate the evasion of tariffs) or without a license (an early example of a malum prohibitum crime).[23] Other early customs penalties imposed fines or forfeiture for failing to get clearance to sail[24] and departing without a manifest.[25]

Within a year, however, it became apparent that a number of ship owners had incurred liability for penalties or forfeitures principally through ignorance of the recently enacted customs regulations, tariffs, and duties.[26] The First Congress provided a means of mitigating the punishments (in effect, a statutory pardon) with district judges finding the facts of the matter and reporting on them to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary, in turn, had the "power to mitigate or remit" any penalty "if in his opinion the same was incurred without willful[l] negligence or any intention or fraud."[27] In other words, Congress recognized that it had created criminal liability where intent might be lacking and provided a mechanism for the mitigation of punishment for those deemed to lack criminal intent.[28]

The sentiment behind mitigating penalties when criminal intent was lacking was no stray or isolated thought. Indeed, it survived even in times of conflict on the brink of war. In 1800, when Congress passed a law suspending commerce with France, it imposed a series of penalties and forfeitures to enforce the adopted restrictions.[29] Yet even here, in the midst of heightened tensions, Congress also saw fit to extend the provisions of the Mitigation and Remittance Act and apply them to "all penalties and forfeitures incurred by force of this act."[30]

The same was true nine years later, in 1809, when Congress imposed an embargo on trade with Great Britain in the run-up to the War of 1812.[31]Though the embargo was a critical component of American opposition to British actions on the high seas, the mitigation and remittance provisions were again adopted to excuse those who acted without willful negligence or the intent to defraud.[32]

Finally, a broad acceptance of the pardon power can be seen throughout the early practice of the republic. Although Washington and John Adams made little use of the pardon power (16 and 21 pardon statements, respectively), other early Presidents were far more generous with their mercy.[33] Thomas Jefferson signed at least 119 pardon statements; James Madison, 196 (or possibly 202, the records are unclear); James Monroe, 419; and John Quincy Adams, 183.[34] Plainly, the pardon was a regular aspect of the criminal justice system early in American history.

 

 

[washparkhorn 9968]

1 hour ago, closetohumping said:

I don't think the Founders thought someone like Trump would be president.

100% agree.

[GhostOfTomJoad 9491]

So are all of the Law & Order GOPers/Trumpkins cool with this? Pleading guilty to lying to the FBI--twice--is totally fine when you're working to undermine our democracy? Is that how it works?

[dingleberryswitzer 2724]

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

I’ve never understood WTF the founders were thinking allowing the president to just pardon anyone for pretty much any reason.  I realize federal crimes were few and far between back then but they existed and some were quite important. 

Seems strange that something like appointing cabinet members needs Senate approval, but things like pardons don't.  

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

3 hours ago, Horndog said:

Judge Sullivan should schedule a hearing and ask Flynn on the record if he is acknowledging guilt and accepting the pardon.  If he says no, sentence him.

Not that anything will happen to them, but they all knew. They were complicit. Ron Johnson returned from Russia in 2018 saying election meddling was "no big deal." Uh-huh.

[ChiTownDoc 21326]

First thing I thought of when I saw thread title.  Poor watch.  

[Degenerate Gardner 4135]

31 minutes ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

Seems strange that something like appointing cabinet members needs Senate approval, but things like pardons don't.  

Why hassle with the cabinet confirmation process when you can just be Acting and skip it?  

- Donsld Trump

[Biff Tannen 46069]

41 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Not that anything will happen to them, but they all knew. They were complicit. Ron Johnson returned from Russia in 2018 saying election meddling was "no big deal." Uh-huh.

Yet another dinosaur that needs to be kicked to the curb. And 0% chance he even knows how to tweet. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Every time I see a photo with the watch, I think 'does it have some sort of specialness that he would wear a watch so small that it looks painful?' I mean, this is supposed to be the billionaire stellar businessman who could wear any watch he wanted. I know some people say it is his hand size that prompts the selection, but it seems so very odd to me that the only way I would come close to something similar would be if it were a special gift from a loved one and it couldn't be resized. Even then, I would probably choose to set it aside for safekeeping.

[Loch Ness Monster 3533]

Little confused why every conservative believes Flynn was the biggest American Patriot alive. But I guess I'm confused by many things from them over the last four years.

[ChiTownDoc 21326]

4 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Every time I see a photo with the watch, I think 'does it have some sort of specialness that he would wear a watch so small that it looks painful?' I mean, this is supposed to be the billionaire stellar businessman who could wear any watch he wanted. I know some people say it is his hand size that prompts the selection, but it seems so very odd to me that the only way I would come close to something similar would be if it were a special gift from a loved one and it couldn't be resized. Even then, I would probably choose to set it aside for safekeeping.

It makes even less sense when you realize pretty much nobody is loved by him.  Well...there is one person - Maybe he was wearing it 100 lbs ago when Ivanka blew him.  That's the only thing I could see him being sentimental about. 

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah, I don't know why with all the shit he does that the fucking watch bothers me so much.  I know it's an expensive watch, but it's not meant for sporting even if he was young and fit.  The band is goofy as shit, it doesn't really fit him, it makes him look dainty (which he fucking hates).  He can obviously afford a really nice Hublot meant for sporting.  And nobody has worn anything fucking gold on the course since Judge Smails.  If he wore it all the time with his suit and just kept it on as he heads out to the club, I get it.  But he doesn't.  He specifically puts in for golf like it's his Billy Baroo or some shit.  There's an allegory to his administration in that watch, I just don't know what it is yet.   Let you know in two weeks.

[Yuk 1612]

2 hours ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Little confused why every conservative believes Flynn was the biggest American Patriot alive. But I guess I'm confused by many things from them over the last four years.

The only thing more uncomfortable for a boomer than cognitive dissonance is admitting they were wrong.

[Satchel 6982]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

Yeah, I don't know why with all the shit he does that the fucking watch bothers me so much.  I know it's an expensive watch, but it's not meant for sporting even if he was young and fit.  The band is goofy as shit, it doesn't really fit him, it makes him look dainty (which he fucking hates).  He can obviously afford a really nice Hublot meant for sporting.  And nobody has worn anything fucking gold on the course since Judge Smails.  If he wore it all the time with his suit and just kept it on as he heads out to the club, I get it.  But he doesn't.  He specifically puts in for golf like it's his Billy Baroo or some shit.  There's an allegory to his administration in that watch, I just don't know what it is yet.   Let you know in two weeks.

He likes gold: https://www.ft.com/content/7bad3292-96ca-11e6-a80e-bcd69f323a8b

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

Yeah, I don't know why with all the shit he does that the fucking watch bothers me so much.  I know it's an expensive watch, but it's not meant for sporting even if he was young and fit.  The band is goofy as shit, it doesn't really fit him, it makes him look dainty (which he fucking hates).  He can obviously afford a really nice Hublot meant for sporting.  And nobody has worn anything fucking gold on the course since Judge Smails.  If he wore it all the time with his suit and just kept it on as he heads out to the club, I get it.  But he doesn't.  He specifically puts in for golf like it's his Billy Baroo or some shit.  There's an allegory to his administration in that watch, I just don't know what it is yet.   Let you know in two weeks.

The golfing I wouldn’t know about for sure, but the watch stands out. Especially as so many of his other wardrobe choices are overly large by comparison. Something has always been off about it. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

7 minutes ago, Satchel said:

He likes gold: https://www.ft.com/content/7bad3292-96ca-11e6-a80e-bcd69f323a8b

He’s always liked it, that I get. But that specific watch could’ve been replaced by other gold watches regardless of fashion trends like Lobo mentioned.

Sorry for the timepiece derail but this IS the Pardon Watch thread....

Edited November 26, 2020 by Mrs Whiggins

[Biff Tannen 46069]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

He’s always liked it, that I get. But that specific watch could’ve been replaced by other gold watches regardless of fashion trends like Lobo mentioned.

Sorry for the timepiece derail but this IS the Pardon Watch thread....

[Hookah Horns 3089]

5 hours ago, closetohumping said:

I don't think John Hancock thought someone like Trump would be president.

They gave us the electoral college to ensure something like that would never happen. 

Whoopsadaisy. 

Law of unintended consequences. Not unlike my thread title choice prompting a timepiece fashion discussion. 

Edited November 26, 2020 by Hookah Horns

[Guest Lobo]

16 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

The golfing I wouldn’t know about for sure, but the watch stands out. Especially as so many of his other wardrobe choices are overly large by comparison. Something has always been off about it. 

Yeah, that's gotta be part of it to my subconscious.  Oversized baggy pants, loose fitting knit polo, even the fucking hat is too tall for his head, he does have big goofy clown feet like I do (makes it hard to find golf cleats).  And then that tiny little watch that looks about the same size as the engraved bracelet we bought my 5Yo girl on the way out of SeaWorld.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 hours ago, closetohumping said:

I don't think John Hancock thought someone like Trump would be president.

Actually he did. As did the rest of them. They probably thought it wouldn’t take this long.

But it’s happened, which simply means the Republican Party as we know it must be annihilated.

[Bruh Man 3160]

LAW AND ORDER (for blacks and mexicans)

[NWBuck 8621]

Pardoned means that he can no longer plead the fifth, right?

Time to get ol' boy on the record before he flees the country.

[Sawbonz 28093]

15 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

I’m actually shocked trump isn’t eating those turkeys today

[Sawbonz 28093]

10 hours ago, Lobo said:

There's an allegory to his administration in that watch

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

5 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

LAW AND ORDER (for blacks and mexicans)

No kidding. When looking at the media tweets on the other Flynn thread about "JUSTICE FOR FLYNN!!" and the recent outpouring of support for the Rittenhouse teen, and then you see this:

and the separate realities is so damn stark.

[Hookah Horns 3089]

15 hours ago, NWBuck said:

Pardoned means that he can no longer plead the fifth, right?

Time to get ol' boy on the record before he flees the country.

He'd just perjure himself again. 

[Jive Turkey 12931]

Hannity knows this is going to happen. 

 

[Brisketexan 106676]

2 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Hannity knows this is going to happen. 

 

That is 100% going to happen, because of course Trump's parting gift to the American people will be a lingering constitutional crisis.  What else could we expect?

[Neonmoon 38130]

Hannity is not speculating, he’s setting a narrative 

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

Yeah that very much sounds like Hannity is trying to forewarn. his fans. 
 

also,

On 11/26/2020 at 6:54 AM, Mrs Whiggins said:

No kidding. When looking at the media tweets on the other Flynn thread about "JUSTICE FOR FLYNN!!" and the recent outpouring of support for the Rittenhouse teen, and then you see this:

and the separate realities is so damn stark.

hotmail huh.  Yeah, that checks out. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Did these guys just wake up one morning, sit down to their eggs and toast, and say, “you know, America has been pretty good for me, I think I’ll just ruin it for everyone else and see how that goes.”

Gah, traitors and thieves. 

[BradInATX 9208]

49 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Did these guys just wake up one morning, sit down to their eggs and toast, and say, “you know, America has been pretty good for me, I think I’ll just ruin it for everyone else and see how that goes.”

Gah, traitors and thieves. 

No. Most of them are just privileged white men who think they they and they alone are responsible for their wealth and success despite all of the credit going to their parents and grandparents before them and the American system that got them there.

IE Johnny Sack.

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Did these guys just wake up one morning, sit down to their eggs and toast, and say, “you know, America has been pretty good for me, I think I’ll just ruin it for everyone else and see how that goes.”

Gah, traitors and thieves. 

Hannity is the definition of a grifter. His only skill is making shit up. He never graduated college. He worked as a general contractor for 8 years painting houses. He somehow got on college radio while working at the radio station as a general contractor. He got fired for spewing horrible anti-gay rhetoric. He lied on his resume and got a gig in Alabama, and then played that into a gig in Atlanta in 90s. Then Roger Ailes gave him a TV show out of nowhere. (I’m guessing Ailes likes his early anti-gay hate talk radio) 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 32002]

On 11/25/2020 at 8:18 PM, Lobo said:

Yeah, I don't know why with all the shit he does that the fucking watch bothers me so much.  I know it's an expensive watch, but it's not meant for sporting even if he was young and fit.  The band is goofy as shit, it doesn't really fit him, it makes him look dainty (which he fucking hates).  He can obviously afford a really nice Hublot meant for sporting.  And nobody has worn anything fucking gold on the course since Judge Smails.  If he wore it all the time with his suit and just kept it on as he heads out to the club, I get it.  But he doesn't.  He specifically puts in for golf like it's his Billy Baroo or some shit.  There's an allegory to his administration in that watch, I just don't know what it is yet.   Let you know in two weeks.

In a lot of ways it's perfect for him.  He's a fop with pimpadelic taste.

[tx 3 putt 78488]

4 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Hannity is not speculating, he’s setting a narrative 

 

 

he just gave trump validation for his actions 

[Gatorubet 30637]

Hannity knows this is going to happen. 
 

He wants his own pardon.

[DigglerontheHoof 21523]

I guaran-fucking-tee you Hannity and trump have had specific conversations about this.  

[Guest Lobo]

What?  Never.  Trump literally spends more time talking to Hannity, Maria Bartiromo, and the Fox & Friends morning team than he spends talking to his own national security briefing team.  It's a documented fact, in terms of hours of the day.  He has averaged 2-3 PDB's per week while in offie.  And averages about two hours on the air per week with Fox (usually via phone).  

How fucking sad is that America?  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13712]

13 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

Hannity knows this is going to happen. 

 

 

13 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Hannity is not speculating, he’s setting a narrative 

 

Exactly. It’s not that Trump & family need a pardon because they did nothing wrong. They need it because the witch hunt will go against them. The Dems and the MSM will make up evidence against them. This is the only way Trump can protect himself.

This has to be a simple argument for the rubes to understand.

but as mentioned if Don Jr.  (or any of them) is given a pardon, he loses his self incrimination right. If under oath, he has to admit to everything or face perjury charges if he lies. I also think the DOJ should pursue whether blanket pardons, without even roughly spelling out the crime, are valid or not.

[Guest Lobo]

I keep hearing that part about pardon & self-incrimination...is there some case precedence for that at the federal level?  I'm sure it's happened with governors pardoning cronies for shit and then those guys still having to talk to the state AG or something, but how about at the federal level?  Every President has pardoned lots of people, I wonder if any of them still were compelled to testify on other stuff?  

And Hannity knows that the pardon does not apply to the state of New York, right?  Still, slick move by Sean......the pardons aren't because of any guilt or wrong-doing, it's to protect these poor children from the evil MSM witchhunt.  Won't someobody think of the children?!?!?  

One of the people he pardons though can still be compelled to testify against one of the kids/inner-circle people in New York though, right?   

[atomheartbevo 90558]

10 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Hannity is the definition of a grifter. His only skill is making shit up. He never graduated college. He worked as a general contractor for 8 years painting houses. He somehow got on college radio while working at the radio station as a general contractor. He got fired for spewing horrible anti-gay rhetoric. He lied on his resume and got a gig in Alabama, and then played that into a gig in Atlanta in 90s. Then Roger Ailes gave him a TV show out of nowhere. (I’m guessing Ailes likes his early anti-gay hate talk radio) 

Shame Dannie Goeb didn’t get an offer from Ailes in the 90s

Edited December 1, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[atomheartbevo 90558]

8 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

He wants his own pardon.

It’s not like he shared a personal lawyer with Trump or anything.   
 

oh.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13712]

47 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I keep hearing that part about pardon & self-incrimination...is there some case precedence for that at the federal level?  I'm sure it's happened with governors pardoning cronies for shit and then those guys still having to talk to the state AG or something, but how about at the federal level?  Every President has pardoned lots of people, I wonder if any of them still were compelled to testify on other stuff?  

And Hannity knows that the pardon does not apply to the state of New York, right?  Still, slick move by Sean......the pardons aren't because of any guilt or wrong-doing, it's to protect these poor children from the evil MSM witchhunt.  Won't someobody think of the children?!?!?  

One of the people he pardons though can still be compelled to testify against one of the kids/inner-circle people in New York though, right?   

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/02/if-youre-pardoned-can-you-be-compelled-to-testify-about-your-crime/

The one out is that say Don Jr. is pardoned by his dad. He's called to testify on some subject. If his testimony could led to a state prosecution or the potential of a crime after the pardon, then yes, Jr. can refuse to testify. 

 

[Guest Lobo]

So the compelled to testify protection can be applied to Don Jr. getting to remain silent if it comes to some crime involving his dad?  

I know this is a bit of a legal leap, but indulge me.........say Donald Trump pardons himself and the kids and all is hunky-dory.  A few years from now, Trump shoots someone on Fifth Avenue while out at lunch with Don, Jr.  Murder is a state crime.  Even though pardoned and possibly exonerated from having to testify against his father, wouldn't Don, Jr. be compelled to testify at that trial involving his dad shooting somebody after the pardon?  I realize that's criminal, so on the civil side.  Don, Jr. is pardoned  Years later his father goes right back to illicit financial crimes and mismanagement.  Brand new financial grifting.  Could Don Jr. then be compelled to testify for brand new civil charges totally separate from the pardon?  

[TwiceHorn 32002]

The 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires that the testimony to be given incriminate.

If one has been pardoned from an offense, testimony relating to that offense is no longer incriminating.  Thus, no 5th Amendment privilege.

If jeopardy still exists from a state prosecution or a non-pardoned offense, the 5th Amendment privilege still attaches.

[Pig Bellmont 8876]

8 minutes ago, Lobo said:

So the compelled to testify protection can be applied to Don Jr. getting to remain silent if it comes to some crime involving his dad?  

I know this is a bit of a legal leap, but indulge me.........say Donald Trump pardons himself and the kids and all is hunky-dory.  A few years from now, Trump shoots someone on Fifth Avenue while out at lunch with Don, Jr.  Murder is a state crime.  Even though pardoned and possibly exonerated from having to testify against his father, wouldn't Don, Jr. be compelled to testify at that trial involving his dad shooting somebody after the pardon?  I realize that's criminal, so on the civil side.  Don, Jr. is pardoned  Years later his father goes right back to illicit financial crimes and mismanagement.  Brand new financial grifting.  Could Don Jr. then be compelled to testify for brand new civil charges totally separate from the pardon?  

I think a pardon has to be for past crimes. I don’t know how you’d be able to be pardoned for something you haven’t done yet. Also, the law is open regarding whether a president can pardon himself. Could get tossed if he tries.