Trump wants to be the Supreme Leader

Donald Trump is firmly of the view, it seems, that being president of the United States is something akin to being the Supreme Leader. He believes, or so his lawyers say, that as president he has the right under the constitution and under the clemency powers assigned to the White House encumbent, to absolve himself from any suggestion of wrongdoing. In other words, he thinks he can pardon himself were special counsel Robert Mueller ever to try and indict him for colluding with the Russians to destroy Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the 2016 presidential election. The president of the US certainly has the right to issue pardons, and many a convicted American has been forgiven his sins by the sweep of the presidential pen. But can a president seriously pardon himself? Theoretically, this extraordinary idea could be argued in court but there is a serious flaw in Trump's thinking. Trump says he is totally innocent of any alleged collusion with the Russians but if he wants to pardon himself, he first has to admit he is guilty. This is the quid pro quo for being pardoned, admission that the crime took place. But there is no way Trump is ever going to say: "Ok, I admit I colluded with Moscow, now I officially pardon myself, so yaboo sucks." So he's stuck. Unless of course, he and his multiple lawyers which, of course, include the erratic Rudy Giuliani, have concluded that as president he is in charge of American law enforcement and is therefore in a unique position which somehow puts him above the normal laws which affect common folk. This is truly a dangerous path down which democracy starts to look very shakey. Richard Nixon went down that path. He effectively authorised the break-in and burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate building overlooking the Potomac River in Washington in 1972. He thought he could get away with it and then lie about it afterwards because he was the president. Trump has all kinds of titles, like his predecessors, such as commander-in-chief, which allow him to carry out some pretty dastardly operations. But burglary by your White House staff is not one of them. Trump would be wise to let the Robert Mueller Russia collusion investigation run its course. If Trump believes/knows he is innocent of any of the potential charges, he should stick to that line and not get his lawyers to whisper to the newspapers that a presidential pardon might be in the offing. That makes no sense at all and is just plain silly. Personally, and this is just purely a personal opinion, not based on anything legal or judicious, I don't think Mueller should get the chance to interrogate Trump. If he believes he has evidence to link Trump to collusion then let him make his case to the Department of Justice and to Congress. A formal interview of the president would be damaging to the presidency itself and embarrassing and unnecessary. Mueller already knows the answers to his list of questions. Trump would dismiss all of them as witch hunt fake news. But here's an interesting fact: since Nixon, Obama is the only president not to have had a special investigation against him or his close associates. By contrast, Gerald Ford (affected by the continuing Watergate investigation), Jimmy Carter (allegations of dodgy loans to his family peanut business), Ronald Reagan (the Iran-Contra affair, selling arms to Iran in return for releasing six US hostages), George HW Bush (administration officials accused of illegal arms sales to Iraq in Iran/Iraq war in 1990s), Bill Clinton (the Whitewater affair covering Bill and Hillary's busines dealings, and the Monica Lewinsky affair when he was accused of perjury and obstruction of justice), and George W Bush (administration officials leaked the name of a covert CIA officer, Valerie Plame, to the press), were all subject to high-profile investigations. But none of these presidents were found guilty or were successfully impeached or were forced to resign. I guess Trump might take comfort from this!