Originally Posted by
Stavros
Another thought which Broncofan alluded to earlier -
A) A pardon can only be given for a crime committed and judged and sentenced in a court of law, so the President would first have to identify what the cimes were, and have them prosecuted and a legal judgment made before he could pardon himself.
so
B) Is it not the case that what the President actually wants is an Exemption from Prosecution? That is not a Pardon, and I doubt it is legal, and let us not forget, it is merely conventional that a sitting President is not indicted for a crime, and that as we have seen in the last 4 years, conventions can become redundant -why some and not others, and does the elimination of one, not justify them all?