{"id":275499,"date":"2018-06-04T16:10:00","date_gmt":"2018-06-04T20:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?p=275499"},"modified":"2018-06-05T16:25:42","modified_gmt":"2018-06-05T20:25:42","slug":"of-course-the-president-can-pardon-himself","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2018\/06\/04\/of-course-the-president-can-pardon-himself\/","title":{"rendered":"What the Heck Is Rudy Doing Answering the Pardon Question?"},"content":{"rendered":"

RUSH: Now, there\u2019s no question about it. The president can pardon himself. The Constitution clearly says so. It\u2019s implicated right there when in the Constitution says “except for impeachment.” He cannot pardon himself if he\u2019s impeached, obviously, but any other situation he can. I mean, it\u2019s not a big deal.<\/p>\n

\"\"The real question is what the heck was Rudy doing answering the question? I thought I was watching Mitt Romney being interviewed by Stephanopoulos all over again. Rudy said, “That\u2019s an interesting constitutional debate.” We\u2019re not having a debate in society here.<\/p>\n

The reason Stephanopoulos asked the question — you know how the question was designed to be interpreted. So when the president is found guilty of colluding or obstructing, will he pardon himself? Can he? That\u2019s how Stephanopoulos intended the low-information crowd on there to interpret his question. You know, it\u2019s like Casey Stengel said with the \u201962 Mets, “Can anybody here play this game?”<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: I want to go back to this business of the president pardoning himself. I do not understand why this was even allowed to enter this public domain. I want to ask you if you remember a GOP presidential debate. It was in January of 2012. So a little over six and a half years ago. And one of the moderators of this debate was George “Stephy” Stephanopoulos of the Clinton administration war room. He\u2019s still a Democrat Party operative working undercover as a so-called journalist at Good Morning America and debate moderator.<\/p>\n

Question for Mitt Romney (paraphrasing): “Governor Romney, do you believe states have the right to ban contraception?”<\/p>\n

Romney: “Wait. What? What? Where\u2019d that come from, George? We\u2019re not even talking about that, George, what? I can\u2019t imagine a state would want to.”<\/p>\n

\"\"Stephanopoulos, boring in: “I\u2019m asking do you believe states have that right or not? Do you believe states have the right to ban contraception.” Romney looks around, nobody\u2019s talking about it, George. What the heck is this?<\/p>\n

“I\u2019m asking if you think states have the right to ban contraception.” Thus was born the Romney smear that he didn\u2019t believe in the right to privacy. And it was manufactured out of whole cloth. There wasn\u2019t a person in that debate that had ever brought up the subject. It was not a subject, the states having the right to ban contraception. It was not a debate topic, it was not topic in the campaign, it clearly came out of nowhere.<\/p>\n

It was a question planted by the Democrats through Stephanopoulos to eventually continue on this idea the Republican War on Women and Romney not believing in the right to privacy. I spotted it the minute the question was asked, and I said, “Do not answer. Whatever you do, do not answer this, keep this as a hypothetical, do not fall for it.”<\/p>\n

But he fell for it because Republicans know that they have to be open and they can\u2019t appear to duck and they can\u2019t dodge, so Romney gave his answer. And it didn\u2019t matter, it didn\u2019t matter again what the answer was, just the fact that he answered it allowed the media to report Romney weighed in on whether or not states have the right to ban contraception. And that became Mitt Romney can see where certain states might want to ban you getting birth control. And we\u2019re off and running, all because he answered the question.<\/p>\n

So we move forward to yesterday with the same Clinton war room operative, George Stephanopoulos, undercover as a mainstream journalist, this time on ABC\u2019s whatever it is Sunday show. This Week Needs David Brinkley, that\u2019s what it is. And Rudy Giuliani is making the rounds because that\u2019s his gig, to go on television and fight the good fight for Trump. And Stephanopoulos asks, “So, will the president pardon himself?” Comes out of nowhere.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

And Rudy, “That\u2019s an interesting constitutional question,” started debating it and so forth. And history repeats, Stephanopoulos keeps boring in, boring in, can he, should he, what do you think? And eventually Rudy says, “Yeah, sure, he can. Constitutionally, no question he can.” Mission accomplished. Because, ladies and gentlemen, here is how the question, as asked, was intended to be interpreted. I don\u2019t care the words Stephanopoulos used. Let\u2019s cut to the basic chase.<\/p>\n

Can the president pardon himself, Rudy? Is it the collective thinking in the president\u2019s legal team he can pardon himself? Why the hell are you asking that? There\u2019s no evidence Trump\u2019s done anything. There\u2019s not a shred of evidence Trump\u2019s done anything. The only reason pardons are in the news is because Trump\u2019s pardoning people the left is irritated by. That\u2019s the only reason pardons are in the news.<\/p>\n

Pardons are not in the news because Trump has been found guilty of anything. There\u2019s no evidence linking Trump to any of these baseless, senseless charges that they\u2019ve made up and drummed up. Oh, by the way. There\u2019s now additional information about the Australian ambassador and George Papadopoulos<\/a>. You know what it is? Papadopoulos wasn\u2019t drunk! Papadopoulos only had one drink. The source is Alexander Downer, the Australian ambassador who answered a question in an interview in an Australian newspaper.<\/p>\n

This entire story the FBI presented to the New York Times as the reason for the investigation commencing July 31st, 2016, has fallen apart. The Steele dossier, as the explanation for the investigation beginning has fallen apart, and now the Papadopoulos angle has totally fallen apart. This story involving Papadopoulos is nothing, nothing like the original report published by the New York Times, which was sourced to the ever present anonymous sources.<\/p>\n

The whole thing has fallen apart. There is no evidence of anything. I don\u2019t know why Rudy answered this, because the question that Stephanopoulos asked was intended to be interpreted exactly this way. Quote, “So when the president is found to have obstructed or colluded, do you think he\u2019ll pardon himself? Can he?” That was the way Stephanopoulos intended the media to interpret the question, and they have. That\u2019s the way they intended the low-information voter to interpret the question, if they bothered to pay attention.<\/p>\n

The whole point of asking the question is to establish the atmospherics that Trump has done something with profound enough guilt that pardoning himself is actively being considered, when it isn\u2019t! Just like the states banning contraception was not being pondered by anybody when Stephanopoulos asked Romney about it in 2012. Ditto here. I just… Ugh. (sigh) In the big scheme of things, it\u2019s probably no big deal, but it\u2019s just frustrating because Trump is not guilty of anything.<\/p>\n