Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.

Donald Trump Insists He Has 'Complete Power' to Pardon

posted by n1 on Monday July 24 2017, @11:22AM   Printer-friendly
from the friends-and-family dept.

MrPlow writes:

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Amid relentless scrutiny over possible ties between his presidential campaign and Russia, an extraordinary suggestion has emerged - that Donald Trump could pardon himself or his family.

Source: BBC News

US President Donald Trump has insisted he has the "complete power" to pardon people, amid reports he is considering presidential pardons for family members, aides and even himself.

A Democratic Party spokesman has called the reports "extremely disturbing".

The US authorities are probing possible collusion between the Trump team and Russia. Intelligence agencies think Russia tried to help Mr Trump to power.

Russia denies this, and the president says there was no collusion.

The Washington Post reported on Thursday that Mr Trump and his team were looking at ways to pardon people close to him.

Source: BBC News

Original Submission #1  Original Submission #2 

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Donald Trump Insists He Has 'Complete Power' to Pardon | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 108 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @07:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @07:02PM (#543835)

    ... because he has no faith in the judicial process ...

    That's a valid fear.

    If that really is a valid fear (for him) then why did he swear an oath at his inauguration to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." After all, what exactly is he swearing to defend? Or do you (and he) have some sort of weird notion that the judiciary is not a legitimate part of the federal government? Please note that I am not advocating for blanket approval for everything that the judiciary does; on the other hand, there is a legitimate process for countering judicial abuse, imperfect though it may be.