Columnist Jennifer Rubin, once a conservative who had an official breakup with the movement, argues that if Donald Trump was smart the last thing he would do is try to be president again.
The thought on Trump's end is that as the president, he could simply pardon himself of any convictions. But Rubin said that, until recently, no one had even used the words "self-pardon" – and the reason for that is that it wouldn't work out well.
“The Constitution specifically bars the president from using the pardon power to prevent his own impeachment and removal,” Rubin cited Laurence H. Tribe, Richard Painter and Norman Eisen who penned a column for The Washington Post in 2017. “It adds that any official removed through impeachment remains fully subject to criminal prosecution. That provision would make no sense if the president could pardon himself.”
“The Constitution’s pardon clause has its origins in the royal pardon granted by a sovereign to one of his or her subjects," they continue. "We are aware of no precedent for a sovereign pardoning himself, then abdicating or being deposed but being immune from criminal process. ... Many a deposed king would have been spared instead of going to the chopping block.”
They said that Trump couldn't serve as both his own judge and attorney. They don't think that such a pardon would ultimately hold up.
Writing in the Post, Rubin asked, "If it were otherwise, why would there be a prohibition under Justice Department guidance against prosecuting a president (only) in office? Indeed, the Justice Department, in its original 1973 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo and an update in 2000, looked at the portion of the impeachment clause that provides if the president (or other officer) is convicted, that person 'shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.'"
She also pointed out that the OLC suggestion never considered that a president would try to self-pardon to stop a prosecution. She said that Richard Nixon likely would have tried to remain in office if self-pardons were legitimate.
At the same time, Trump would run the risk of a self-pardon not being accepted if he tried to use it. A key piece of a pardon is to admit to the crimes. So, the admission would be public with no guarantee that the pardon would be upheld legally.
There's also the matter of increased scrutiny that Trump would continue to face as an elected official. With additional time in the White House, Democrats well-versed in Trump tactics, and ongoing state litigation, there would be even more eyes watching and judging every move a second President Trump makes.
"Trump’s notion that he can avoid prosecution by winning an election has another obvious flaw: No president has the ability to pardon himself or anyone else for state crimes," Rubin closed. "Though he might imagine (falsely, in my view) that he can slip through the clutches of Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg (at least with regard to a felony), he could still face prosecution in Georgia for his alleged election interference.
"If an indictment comes, as expected, in August, we will get a glimpse of the mound of evidence amassed against Trump, perhaps bolstered by testimony from his former associates. If Trump really wants to avoid prosecution — and punishment, if convicted — for alleged state crimes, he would have to arrange a plea, something he has refused to consider, or flee to a jurisdiction without extradition. Running for president won’t help those cases go away."
