Donald Trump is hoping to exploit a legal grey area

There’s some ambiguity in the US law on the scope of a presidential pardon

Because of his unpresidential nature, United States President Donald Trump inspires debates on the most basic legal and political premises underpinning his country. His recent tweet that he had “the absolute right to pardon himself” has resurrected an issue thought closed after the Watergate crisis. There is an ambiguity in the wording of the US Constitution regarding the scope of a presidential pardon. A pardon applies to federal laws and it cannot be invoked by a president facing impeachment. But the constitution is silent about any lesser crime. An acting attorney general, asked to give an opinion in 1974, ruled that under “the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case; the President cannot pardon himself.” However, it has never been tested in court.

Once an academic exercise, it has become politically relevant because of the slow but inexorable progress of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and the possibility Mr Trump could become among those he charges. If the charges were severe enough to cause the US Congress to move for his impeachment, constitutionally, the president cannot get himself off the hook. If the president is found guilty of something less than the “high crimes and misdemeanours” that trigger impeachment, then the possibility of a self-pardon arises. Mr Trump and his opponents sense their battles may lead them into this legal grey area at some point. Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, to which India also adheres, would tend to go against Mr Trump. British courts in a series of judgments going back to the early 17th century entrenched the principle “one cannot be judge and attorney.”

Mr Trump completed his tweet on pardoning himself by saying, “why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?” Whether he speaks the truth on that count will be determined as Mr Mueller’s probing continues to move forward.