header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Could Trump pardon himself?

26 November 2020
Issue: 7912 / Categories: Legal News , International justice , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
32882
The US election transfixed the world…and it’s still not over. The Trump years continue until 20 January 2021, when Joe Biden will be sworn in as President

On that date, President Trump becomes potentially liable to criminal prosecution just like any other citizen. There is debate as to whether he could take the opportunity to pardon himself before he leaves office (he is currently under investigation for tax fraud).

Could he really do this? Is it possible? Would it work? Writing in NLJ this week, Michael Zander QC, Emeritus Professor, LSE, investigates.

RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll