Good question. I think we’re going to be seeking a whole new understanding of what a president can and can’t do—with a risk of overlegislating, as if we really could prevent future problems if we could think of them all beforehand.

The Constitution doesn’t say, and I highly doubt it’s ever come up in this nation’s history. It’s just not a question this country has ever had to (or ever thought it might have to) ask itself.

I don’t see how a pardon could be given to keep a witness quiet. Once someone is pardoned, they can no longer refuse to testify to protect themselves from self-incrimination, since they have already been pardoned for any wrongdoing they may reveal about themselves.

The matter of being paid to give a pardon is an interesting one. It seems that it should be illegal, but the Constitution does not say anything about it.

In general, the president cannot reverse a pardon, since the Constitution does not specifically grant that right.

@LostInParadise “The matter of being paid to give a pardon is an interesting one. It seems that it should be illegal, but the Constitution does not say anything about it.”

The emoluments clause prohibits personal gain from the office of the president. It’s arguable that the Supreme Court might have the authority to invalidate a pardon on those grounds.

The President has the power to pardon anyone convicted of a Federal crime—without exception. Were he to do this for personal gain he might be prosecuted for it, but the pardon holds.

@gorillapaws , Interesting point. I agree with @stanleybmanly‘s point. An argument could be put forward that the fines that would have to be paid should offset any money obtained from giving the pardon and should therefore be a sufficient deterrent.

@LostInParadise “The emoluments clause would definitely say that a crime was committed, but it does not say anything about undoing the pardon.”

I’m not a lawyer, nor an expert in constitutional law. I do believe there is legal precedent for voiding the legality of an (otherwise legal) action if done as part of an illegal action. For example if fraud is used in encouraging some otherwise legally permissible action, then it can be struck down.

I don’t know if we have any lawyers here. My brother is a lawyer. I will ask him the next time I speak to him.

Something else to consider. What if the president is allowed to pardon himself, which is an interesting question in itself, and what if he pardons himself for accepting a bribe in exchange for a pardon?

@LostInParadise Fair question. I think nobody knows the real answer because it’s a scenario that was never described explicitly in the constitution. I think there is an argument to be made that prohibits this but there are some required premises that one has to accept for this argument to work:

1. A pardon is an admission of guilt.
2. A president who has admitted to an act explicitly forbidden in the constitution immediately voids all presidential authority from the moment the forbidden act occurred.
3. Pardoning someone for money is a violation of the emoluments clause.

Well, I was thinking about this some more. If a guilty person paid or threatened a jury member or Judge to find them guilty, they can still be up on new charges for the bribe or threat. So at the very least, I wouldn’t that just be a new crime. Like Jury tampering. Only in this case, President tampering. I’m not sure if it’s found out after an innocent verdict that was bought if they can still be tried again for the first crime, but I know they can face charges on jury tampering.
And you would think this may fall under the pardon, but unless the pardon list that crime, I don’t know how that would work but I think the new charges could stick.

The pardon sticks regardless of whatever befalls the President responsible. The President has no authority to rescind a pardon, including one of his own.

The emoluments clause prohibits personal gain from the office of the president.

No, the Constitution prohibits gain from foreign governments and the US and state governments. Gain from the private sector isn’t mentioned.

Vox – The emoluments clause, explained for Donald Trump

This could be either a political OR legal question. I’ll flush the politics down the toilet where it belongs, but try to answer the legal aspect.

Pardons or any other political favors granted in exchange for money or anything else of value
are against Federal law, and Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution. But the rules are unclear on exactly how a court or grand jury can overturn an executive pardon granted for corrupt purposes.

@JLoon Well in the case that I laid out wouldn’t it be an illegal pardon, so it couldn’t nor should it be upheld? If a criminal paid a judge money to find him innocent, that would be a bribe. So wouldn’t the justice system override that verdict and charge the criminal again and add bribery to the original offense?
By the way, I wasn’t asking in the sense of political. I was asking about the legality of a pardon and what can be done or not done, since there seem to be many holes in the whole system when it comes to pardons.

@Pandora – As everybody’s finding out, holes are everywhere it comes to the entire “nation of laws” American myth. And as far as constitutional checks and balances – hahaha. The rest of the world thinks we’re all suckers and they’re holding their noses and walking away like they just found a dead skunk in the park.

But to get to your point about the justice system overriding a corrupt pardon, my own feeling is yes that’s whats implied by the statutory and constitutional language. And there are plenty of cases where courts have nullified actions taken by state and local officials that were induced by bribery. But so far no precedent on reversing a presidential pardon found to be given for a corrupt purpose.

And thats one reason I’m so sick of hearing what a brilliant and enduring legacy of freedom we have in our Constitution. Politicians have been using it for ass wipe for over 30 years.