One of the things that has most worried conservatives as they consider the disgraceful Fulton County, Georgia, case against Trump and 18 others is that none have believed that Trump, if reelected, would have the authority to pardon himself or the others. That’s because, according to common belief, the president’s pardon authority extends only to federal convictions. Mark Levin, however, believes that this view is incorrect and that, no matter how corrupt Georgia is, that doesn’t mean Trump will have to conduct his presidency from a state prison.

There is no constitutional bar to someone running from prison. Eugene V. Debs did so in 1920, and Trump could do so even if the Democrats’ election interference sees him convicted in one or more of the four cases currently on file. No one takes Alvin Bragg’s case seriously, but the Georgia case is serious. That’s not because it has any validity but because it’s easy to get a conviction on this type of case.

Image: Mark Levin and Donald Trump. YouTube screen grab.

What’s especially concerned people about the Georgia case is the question of a presidential pardon. Even if Jack Smith obtains a federal conviction (which isn’t hard to do against a Republican politician in a D.C. court), the moment Trump takes the oath of office, he can pardon himself, along with his co-defendants and the January 6 martyrs. However, the conventional wisdom is that his pardon authority doesn’t extend to state convictions—and Governor Kemp can’t pardon him either, even assuming he wanted to.

Now, though, Mark Levin argues that “President Trump can, in fact, pardon himself from the GA charges if he is elected president.” That’s good. And of course, being Mark Levin, he provides chapter and verse explaining why this is so:

President Trump can, in fact, pardon himself from the GA charges if he is elected president.

1. The Constitution's silent about whether a president can be indicted.
2. The DOJ has taken the position under both parties that you cannot indict a sitting president because it would…

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) August 15, 2023

In case you cannot get the tweet to open, here’s what Levin wrote:

President Trump can, in fact, pardon himself from the GA charges if he is elected president.

1. The Constitution's silent about whether a president can be indicted.

2. The DOJ has taken the position under both parties that you cannot indict a sitting president because it would cripple the executive branch and make his ability to defend himself effectively impossible.

3. Given the DOJ's position, and the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, I would argue strongly that the idea that a president cannot be indicted at the federal level because it would cripple the executive branch, but can be indicted by local DAs, would have exactly the same effect as a federal indictment, except there are thousands of local and state prosecutors making the crippling of a president even more likely.

4. FURTHERMORE, if indicted and even convicted, the idea that a president cannot pardon himself from state charges is absurd, again, not only because of the Supremacy Clause, but the same considerations that apply to a federal conviction would obviously apply to a state conviction.

Therefore, I disagree with Jonathan Turley's view and others who keep repeating it.

No less a constitutional expert than Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has endorsed this view:

Mark Levin makes a credible argument here—one I had not previously considered.https://t.co/rLvzCXu9Yf

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) August 16, 2023

Although the usual crowd disputes Levin’s take, I happen to agree with it for a slightly different reason. The Founders were always deeply suspicious of local biases in courtrooms. That’s one of the reasons there is a federal court system: To ensure that, in cases involving parties from two different states, the party from the other state doesn’t find himself railroaded by local prejudices.

It’s entirely likely that the Founders would applaud Levin’s take on the situation because they would find it unconscionable for a single local prosecutor to destroy the duly-elected president of the United States. One local politician’s power to override the people’s will would be anathema to the Founders.