I bring forth a captivating hypothetical scenario that aims to explore
an intriguing legal question. Let your imagination take flight as we
delve into a world of pure speculation. Picture this: The year is 2024,
and Don Trump, despite being confined within the walls of a federal
prison cell, throws his hat into the ring for the upcoming election. In
this imaginative narrative, we dare to consider the non-zero possibility
of him securing victory.

Now, let the plot thicken: After meticulous contemplation, driven by a
profound sense of responsibility, impartiality, and selflessness, Don
Trump arrives at a decision. He concludes that self-pardon is the most
fitting course of action, one that serves the best interests of the
nation. With utmost determination, he diligently prepares the required documentation, poised to affix his signature... but alas, there's an
unexpected obstacle—he finds himself without a pen.

In this fictional tale, the warden, vested with the authority to
establish institutional policies, has deemed pens as potential weapons, resulting in an outright prohibition of their possession by inmates. Consequently, without access to a pen, the act of signing becomes an insurmountable challenge, rendering the possibility of a self-pardon
null and void.

While we wholeheartedly acknowledge the sheer absurdity of this
scenario, it beckons us to ponder a technical legal inquiry: Could such
an inconceivable circumstance hold any semblance of validity?

I present this whimsical thought experiment to ignite engaging
discussions within our Usenet community. Let us embrace the realm of imagination and intellectual exploration. However, please bear in mind
that this imaginative exercise is in no way intended as a reflection of real-world events or possibilities.

With sincere curiosity,

Sam

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Samuel Tepoorten" wrote in message news:ufhmij$3me9l$[email protected]...

I bring forth a captivating hypothetical scenario that aims to explore an >intriguing legal question. Let your imagination take flight as we delve
into a world of pure speculation. Picture this: The year is 2024, and Don >Trump, despite being confined within the walls of a federal prison cell, >throws his hat into the ring for the upcoming election. In this imaginative >narrative, we dare to consider the non-zero possibility of him securing >victory.

Now, let the plot thicken: After meticulous contemplation, driven by a >profound sense of responsibility, impartiality, and selflessness, Don Trump >arrives at a decision. He concludes that self-pardon is the most fitting >course of action, one that serves the best interests of the nation. With >utmost determination, he diligently prepares the required documentation, >poised to affix his signature... but alas, there's an unexpected >obstacle—he finds himself without a pen.

In this fictional tale, the warden, vested with the authority to establish >institutional policies, has deemed pens as potential weapons, resulting in
an outright prohibition of their possession by inmates. Consequently,
without access to a pen, the act of signing becomes an insurmountable >challenge, rendering the possibility of a self-pardon null and void.

While we wholeheartedly acknowledge the sheer absurdity of this scenario,
it beckons us to ponder a technical legal inquiry: Could such an >inconceivable circumstance hold any semblance of validity?

I present this whimsical thought experiment to ignite engaging discussions >within our Usenet community. Let us embrace the realm of imagination and >intellectual exploration. However, please bear in mind that this
imaginative exercise is in no way intended as a reflection of real-world >events or possibilities.

With sincere curiosity,

Sam

There was already a post about this here, back on 8/15/2023, along with multiple responses. You can go back and read that thread with the various responses. Here is that original post, which was from RichD:

The chance that Don Trump might win the election
in 2024, while sitting in a federal prison cell, is non-zero.

Then, upon due and thoughtful deliberation, with probity,
objectivity, and selflessness, for which he is renowned,
he decides that pardoning himself is in the best interest
of the country. He prepares to sign the papers... but lacks a pen.

The warden has decided that a pen is a potential weapon,
and dictated that no inmate shall receive one, as institutional
policy. He does have such authority, does he not? So, no
signature, no pardon.

So... how does that play out? Of course it's preposterous,
but it's a technical legal question, of whether such an
inconceivable thing is possible.

--
Rich



--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This was covered some time ago. There are a number of ways to "sign"
things. What would you do with a person with no hands or a
quadriplegic? A person could make a mark and witnesses would swear that
the person made the mark. He could take his fingerprint with an inkpad
and place it on the document. Lots of possible solutions.


On 10/3/2023 11:53 AM, Samuel Tepoorten wrote:

I bring forth a captivating hypothetical scenario that aims to explore
an intriguing legal question. Let your imagination take flight as we
delve into a world of pure speculation. Picture this: The year is 2024,
and Don Trump, despite being confined within the walls of a federal
prison cell, throws his hat into the ring for the upcoming election. In
this imaginative narrative, we dare to consider the non-zero possibility
of him securing victory.

Now, let the plot thicken: After meticulous contemplation, driven by a profound sense of responsibility, impartiality, and selflessness, Don
Trump arrives at a decision. He concludes that self-pardon is the most fitting course of action, one that serves the best interests of the
nation. With utmost determination, he diligently prepares the required documentation, poised to affix his signature... but alas, there's an unexpected obstacle—he finds himself without a pen.

In this fictional tale, the warden, vested with the authority to
establish institutional policies, has deemed pens as potential weapons, resulting in an outright prohibition of their possession by inmates. Consequently, without access to a pen, the act of signing becomes an insurmountable challenge, rendering the possibility of a self-pardon
null and void.

While we wholeheartedly acknowledge the sheer absurdity of this
scenario, it beckons us to ponder a technical legal inquiry: Could such
an inconceivable circumstance hold any semblance of validity?

I present this whimsical thought experiment to ignite engaging
discussions within our Usenet community. Let us embrace the realm of imagination and intellectual exploration. However, please bear in mind
that this imaginative exercise is in no way intended as a reflection of real-world events or possibilities.

With sincere curiosity,

Sam

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roy" wrote in message news:ufhrkr$3ng3f$[email protected]...

This was covered some time ago. There are a number of ways to "sign"
things. What would you do with a person with no hands or a quadriplegic?
A person could make a mark and witnesses would swear that the person made
the mark. He could take his fingerprint with an inkpad and place it on the >document. Lots of possible solutions.

Not to mention that the Constitution does not require the pardon to be in writing. Seems to me that with witnesses present, the President could
simply issue a verbal pardon.

Also - it's worth noting again that the president's pardon power only
extends to federal charges. In the specific case of Trump, there are
current charges against him which would not be eligible for pardon in the
event of conviction.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 3 Oct 2023 12:59:39 -0700 (PDT), Roy <[email protected]> wrote:

This was covered some time ago. There are a number of ways to "sign"
things. What would you do with a person with no hands or a
quadriplegic? A person could make a mark and witnesses would swear that
the person made the mark. He could take his fingerprint with an inkpad
and place it on the document. Lots of possible solutions.

If there exists "electronic signatures", whatever those are, maybe trump
could spit on it and his unique dna would be proof he'd approved it.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)