50

Yes. The precedent is President Gerald Ford's pardon of his predecessor Richard Nixon in proclamation 4311 before any possible prosecution had started. The pardon was granted specifically to prevent the disturbance of "the tranquility to which the nation has been restored" by "the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United ...


38

Yes Presidential pardons only deal with breaches of Federal law. So, if the punishment is a fine then that penalty is waived. However, if the fine is punishment for breach of state law, the pardon does not touch it - he would need a pardon from the relevant state Governor(s). But Anthony Levandowski is not being punished with a fine, he was punished with a ...


36

There are 2 separate issues here: what happens to such a President and what happens to the person who has been pardoned. What happens to the person who has been pardoned? While at least one attempt at reversing a pardon has been discussed in recent history (Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich), there is no case of a pardon that has been reversed without the wishes ...


33

Yes The rule against prosecuting a sitting President is not a law, it is a Justice Department opinion and policy. The justification for it is that dealing with a criminal case would be severely distracting to the President, and thus harmful to the nation. Besides, the opinion goes on, any serious issue can be dealt with by impeachment. That reasoning ...


28

Questionable and Unsettled First, I am not a lawyer, nor a constitutional scholar. but Ford's pardon of Nixon was never tested in court so there is no precedent here. Some would like to claim that the pardon was valid, but until there is a test, no one can really say. The reason that it was never tested was that people were relieved to see Nixon go at the ...


27

Bribery of public officials is in itself a crime (18 USC § 201), for both the giver and the recipient: (b) Whoever— (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official... (A) to influence any official act; ... (2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly,...


12

According to the DoJ, A commutation may include remission (release) of the financial obligations that are imposed as part of a sentence, such as payment of a fine or restitution. A remission applies only to the part of the financial obligation that has not already been paid. The Brookings Institute offers a slightly different (more detailed) opinion. If a ...


11

I apologize if I'm grossly misinterpreting things here. You are grossly misinterpreting things here. Your mistakes aren't terribly uncommon, but you are completely and totally wrong in what you are suggesting. Does the above bolded part correspond to breaking any specific laws? That is, how would one show that a person engaged in insurrection or rebellion, ...


11

There is no law governing the 'number' of the president. Common sense suggests that a person can't be 45th and 46th; there must be someone in between having the presidency and they will become the 46th president. In the extremely unlikely scenario that a foreign power occupies the United States this year, eliminates the office of President, and a few years ...


11

First of all, there is a distinction between being impeached and being convicted. Trump was impeached when the House voted to adopt an Article of Impeachment. That happened while he was still in office. He will not be convicted until the Senate votes to convict him by a 2/3rds vote, if it ever does. In the case of Nixon, the House had not yet voted to adopt ...


8

No Section 2, Clause 1 says: ... and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Impeachment is explicitly carved our from the President's power to pardon.


7

If no President or Vice-President is picked by Inauguration Day, January 20th, then the Presidential Succession Act kicks in. The Act lists the line of succession Acting President. It starts with the Speaker of the House, the President pro tempore and then goes through the cabinet officers. (You can see the full order of succession here.) You can read more ...


6

I don't know how that would end, but states' AGs have take action against Trump personally in other matters, and that's bubbling through the courts; latest news I found on something like that on quick search (May 15): A lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of illegally profiting off the presidency through his luxury Washington hotel was revived Thursday ...


6

The New York Times reported on the veto which I think that the question is referring to on December 31, 1970. The Congressional Research Service reported on the issue on March 30, 2001 and the pertinent part regarding the litigation over that pocket veto was as follows: President Richard Nixon, on December 24, 1970, exercised a pocket veto over the ...


6

There is no general legal obligations be truthful Such an obligation only arises where specifically called out by law or where there is a relationship of trust between the parties, e.g. they are negotiating a contract, they have a doctor-patient relationship etc. In any event, the President has legal immunity for actions performed as President. Presidents ...


6

18 USC 1752: (a) Whoever— (1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so; [...] shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). (b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is— (1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if— (A) the person, during and in ...


5

How would jury selection work for a trial of Donald Trump? Just like it does for everybody else - using the rules for criminal procedure in the relevant jurisdiction. For example, in New York, each juror must be fair and unbiased: A juror who cannot provide unequivocal assurance or whose credibility about the assurance is in doubt would properly be excused ...


5

The answer is as simple as the fact that the President of the US is a civilian and citizen, and keeps his/her full rights to free speech and free press as guaranteed under the First Amendment. The military necessity exception is a somewhat surprising exception to the general proposition that you have a protected right to express any viewpoint whatsoever, but ...


5

It looks like you're referring to Kennedy v. Sampson. The DC District Court heard the case (364 F. Supp 1075 (1973)) and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff Sen. Edward Kennedy, holding that the veto was invalid and that the bill had become law. The case was appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (511 F.2d 430 (1974)), which affirmed.


5

This would be a violation of 18 USC 1361, which prohibits destruction of federal property. See also the DoJ legal notes on this crime. The act does have to be willful, so dropping a cup accidentally is not a crime. If for example the act is mustaching Obama's portrait, the damage would probably rise to the quarter-million dollar fine and 10 years in prison ...


4

No. Congress, in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, gave the the power to regulate drugs to the FDA, not the President. In addition to giving the FDA jurisdiction, Congress also set up requirements and procedures that the FDA must use to classify and reclassify drugs. (The FDA, acting under the APA and other statutes, has engaged in further procedural ...


4

The closest the Supreme Court has gotten to criminal liability for official acts seems to be Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). There it addressed civil liability and held that the U.S. President "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." It's unclear how the Justices would decide criminal ...


4

Perhaps. The relevant law is assembled into notes on 3 USC 102. The original act of 1963 defines President-elect in this manner: (c) The terms 'President-elect' and 'Vice-President-elect' as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the ...


4

Yes, they can be sued civilly Or, for that matter, be prosecuted by another jurisdiction- pardons only work within the jurisdiction that issued them. In a common law jurisdiction, the pardon cannot be used as evidence Nor, for that matter, can a criminal conviction. This is partly because the elements that need to be proved for the civil wrong won’t ...


4

There is no such restriction. At the time the Constitution was written it was the common practice to use "he" for a person of unknown or unspecified sex. The use of that word cannot be taken to imply a restriction to males. If it were not settled before, the 19th Amendment granting voting rights to all adult women would have settled the matter. ...


4

I'm not aware of any court ruling about the meaning of the "14 years" clause, but the plain reading of it would be that someone merely needs to accumulate 14 years of residency in the United States in order to be eligible to run for President. There's precedent for this, in the form of Dwight D. Eisenhower: he spent large parts of the period 1942-...


4

The relevant part of the 22nd amendment to the US constitution says: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than ...


4

There are a number of complexities that come together that make the claim that President Trump violated obligations under the Geneva Convention difficult to justify. By definition, the Blackwater employees were not mercenaries according to the Geneva Convention (United Nations Mercenary Convention). Among other things, the Geneva Convention requires that a ...


3

Most of the implications here are political, not legal. For that, you'd have to ask Politics.SE. The law, however, is quite clear: If the President is alive, and "a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" do not invoke the 25th amendment, the President would ...


3

The President has absolute immunity from civil and criminal liability for the consequences of his discretionary official policy decisions (as do all legislators at all levels of government, all prosecutors, all judges, and many top policymaking elected and appointed officials like Governors, Mayors, a cabinet secretaries). He cannot be prosecuted after he ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible