Would a possible pardon of the US Capitol rioters stand if President Trump is convicted At the time of asking this question, President Trump has been impeached by the US House, but no trial date set by the US Senate. However, if Trump were to grant blanket pardons to all those who participated in the US Capitol riot today (Jan 15 2020) and he himself was convicted of inciting the same insurrection, would the pardon stand or would it be null and void?
The pardons would stand and continue to be valid. There is a minority view that the &quot;except in cases of impeachment&quot; language in the pardon clause of the U.S. Constitution deprives a President of the pardon power after impeachment until there is a U.S. Senate non-conviction. But the majority view is that this clause merely states that the loss of political office and prohibition on seeking future political office resulting from a U.S. Senate conviction in an impeachment trial cannot be removed via the pardon power. In the majority view, a President has all of the powers and authority of the office, including the pardon power, until the moment of a U.S. Senate conviction following a impeachment by the U.S. House (or the end of his term of office due to resignation or expiration of the President's term of office). Neither view, of course, has ever been resolved authoritatively in the courts because it has never come up before historically. Also, a group pardon would not absolve the President himself of criminal liability. The majority view (again never tested because no President has ever attempted to do so) is that a President may not pardon himself at all. But all other persons who benefit from the pardon would be relieved of criminal liability as a result.
In short, no, that cant be a pardon for those police officers who would be now influenced to take more violent actions towards those they detain. Pardons are only applicable to past actions. You may be pardoned before charges are filed, but the actions must have already occured. Though I less certain about this, simply because Ive never heard such a thing proposed, I would also note that it is highly improbable that the actual statement he made - generic and during a speech - could everbe interpreted as an affirmative act intending to grant pardons to anyone who may act in that manner in the future.
Yes... whether the judge will grant the subpoena is another matter and one that it is to premature to speculate on. With what I have seen of the indictment, Pence was not named as a witness in the investigation, which will call into question why he is being asked to testify to events that were not used to indict Trump (if he saw something, that should come out in the investigation prior to trial.). Without some show that the testimony was material to the investigations findings and the charge I doubt it would be granted... but there's nothing stopping the prosecution for requesting the subpoena.
It is hard to know what to call the people who entered the capitol and its grounds without biasing the answer by the selection of terms. I am going to call them &quot;intruders&quot; because I must call them something to make an answer. If police or other authorized people actually invited the intruders in, then some otherwise possible charges go away, at least for those so invited. But the videos and other news coverage I have seen do not appear to include any such invitation. Some do include police or security shouting at intruders to &quot;stop&quot; or &quot;stay out&quot;. Some show intruders breaking doors or windows to gain access, and others coming in through such broken openings. I don't see how anyone who entered in such a way could plausibly argue that s/he was invited in. Documenting exactly who said and did what during the hours that the intrusion lasted, would be a huge effort. I doubt it will ever be fully accomplished. But it seems clear that many laws were violated by at least some of the intruders, both Federal laws and DC laws. These might include: Criminal tresspass DC Code § 22–3302 Unlawful entry on property. Penalty: fine and up to 6 months imprisonment DC Code § 22–3211 Theft. Penalty: Up to 10 years, depending on circumstances and value of property. Up to 180 days for 2nd degree. See § 22–3212. DC code § 22–404 Assault or threatened assault in a menacing manner Penalty: fine and up to 180 days; up to 3 years if &quot;serious bodily injury to another&quot; results (defined as requiring prompt hospital treatment) DC Code § 22–405.01 Resisting arrest. Penalty: fine and up to 6 months. [DC code 18 DCMR 2000.2] Failure to obey police officer. Penalty: fine up to $1,000. DC code § 22–2101 Felony murder, for those who can be proved to have engaged in robbery, housebreaking or any of the other listed felonies (most of which would not apply). 18 U.S. Code § 1752 &quot;Restricted building or grounds&quot; Possible penalty: fine or imprisonment for not more than 10 years for those using or carrying firearms or dangerous weapons, up to 1 year otherwise. Several subsections of this were probably violated by many of the intruders. 18 U.S. Code § 1361 &quot;depredation against any property of the United States&quot;. Penalty: Fine plus up to 10 years if value over $1,000, up to 1 year if under $1,000. 18 U.S. Code § 2112 Robbing personal property of the United States. Penalty: up to 15 years. Some intruders were seen in videos carrying off fixtures and property from the capitol. 18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities. Penalty: fine and up to 1 year; up to 5 years if there is intent to use the weapon to commit a crime. Some intruders are seen carrying guns. 40 U.S. Code § 5104 Restricts various activities on the Capitol grounds including: &quot;A person may not step or climb on, remove, or in any way injure any statue, seat, wall, fountain, or other erection or architectural feature, or any tree, shrub, plant, or turf, in the Grounds.&quot; and &quot;may not carry on or have readily accessible to any individual on the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings a firearm, a dangerous weapon, explosives, or an incendiary device&quot;. Also, &quot;may not knowingly, with force and violence, enter or remain on the floor of either House of Congress.&quot; also a person may not &quot;parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Grounds; or display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.&quot; without authorization. 18 U.S. Code § 231 A person who transports a firearm for use in a civil disorder, or obstructs a law enforcement officer in the course of a civil disorder. Penalty: Fine and up to five years. 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy. Discussed at length in the lawfare blog article Penalty: fine and up to 20 years. Which, if any, of the above laws might actually be charged against one or another intruder there is no way to know yet, and there way well be other provisions which would apply that I have not thought of or found.
If President Trump refuses to execute the war, does that become an act of treason on his part? Probably not, but it depends on the definition of treason. Congress could decide that it is, impeach him, and remove him from office. They could also remove him from office without using the term treason. Is he required to act on such a resolution? Not really. As chief executive, he has discretion to prioritize the tasks assigned to him by congress. Furthermore, there is plenty of precedent in international affairs for countries being legally in a state of war without any actual combat or other hostilities. If he doesn't, is there any recourse other than impeachment to force US armed forces to attack RF interests at home and abroad? There's always political pressure. But there's no way to relieve the president of his command of the armed forces without relieving him of his office. Aside from impeachment by the congress, this can be temporarily achieved by the cabinet, as specified in the 25th amendment. POTUS is the commander-in-chief, but, at the same time, he is not allowed to unilaterally decide who may or may not cross the border into the United States. The president's ability to make immigration policy and the fact that such policy is subject to judicial review are unrelated to his powers as commander in chief. Immigration is a civil and criminal matter, not a military one. The president's powers in this regard are delegated to him by congress, not specified in the constitution. On the other hand, the president's role as commander in chief of the military is explicit in the constitution. Do the judges also have a power to compel armed forces to take actions which a sitting President is refusing to take? The judiciary does not have the power to order military operations.
The consequences for the US are perhaps better addressed at Politics; if you're really interested in those consequences, you can re-post this question there. For the police officer shooting a diplomat, the officer may be charged under state law, whatever is normal for an incident of this type; it doesn't matter whether the person is a US citizen or a diplomat or any other kind of alien, regardless of immigration status or lack thereof. If the person is a diplomat, however, the officer is also liable to be prosecuted under federal law, namely 18 USC 1116, which makes it a crime to kill, among others, a "foreign official"; the definition of that term includes any person of a foreign nationality who is duly notified to the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign government or international organization, and who is in the United States on official business, and any member of his family whose presence in the United States is in connection with the presence of such officer or employee. The characterization of the response "just been revoked" as "clearly legal" is inaccurate; a police officer has no power to revoke diplomatic immunity. In fact, only the diplomat's own country can waive this immunity. The United States cannot do so; it can only expel the diplomat.
To start, for this hypothetical to happen, a whole bunch of decisions contrary to sanity have to happen: The Vice President and President Pro Tempore do not invoke the 25th Amendment to temporarily remove the President from office Congress does not issue Articles of Impeachment The President does not pardon himself The District Attorney decides to prosecute the sitting President rather than waiting for his term to be over There are probably more I'm missing. With that out of the way, in theory there's no law that says a President cannot serve while in prison, and simply being a felon does not disqualify him from the Presidency. The judge might order that while he was still serving as President, he serve his time under house arrest - he'd constantly be surrounded by police officers, so it would be pretty difficult for him to run, and it would keep him as as able as possible to keep performing the official functions of the office. The judge could also just defer his sentence. Putting him in regular prison would have serious national security implications, both in terms of protecting his person and in allowing him to effectively serve as Commander-in-Chief, so the government could probably make a compelling case against putting a sitting President in prison. According to this Senate Report, the President will also continue to receive Secret Service protection once he leaves office, so long as he is not removed by Impeachment. There doesn't seem to be a provision against that protection if the President is in prison, so the Secret Service would be obliged to find a way to protect him while he is in prison. Most likely this would mean he would be put in an isolated prison wing, possibly with Secret Service protecting his section.
No punishment followed because those policies are not the law, and, even it was found out earlier, no Inspector General would have the authority to dismiss Mrs. Cliton, it's POTUS's prerogative, as I understand it. That is true for maybe 10 people max in a government department. For the tens or hundreds of thousands of employees who weren't appointed by the President to serve at their pleasure, violating policies can lead to suspension, fines, or dismissal.