trump needs to be careful with pardons. Anyone he pardons cannot take the fifth,

[shraby]

they can be called in and HAVE to answer questions asked.
That could get pretty dicey for trump now, couldn't it?

[wcmagumba]

1. If they still refuse to talk...

and are charged with contempt could he just pardon them a 2nd or 3rd time, as Colbert would say "dot, dot, dot"?

[unblock]

5. as long as donnie's in office and enough republicans in congress stand by such behavior, sure.

this is one reason to wait to pardon, so you can pardon everything a person has done all at once.

he can give personal assurances at any point. not that anyone should trust him, but still....

[democratisphere]

2. I think this week may result in an unbelievable amount of chaos and diversions.

[LongTomH]

9. We can hope!!!

Last edited Sun Oct 29, 2017, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

[unblock]

3. this has been covered elsewhere, it's not as much of a lock as you might think.

he can only pardon for federal crimes, leaving the 5th amendment available to a pardon recipient if answering a question might implicate themselves in a state crime (or a different federal crime, if the pardon didn't just broadly pardon them for "any crime&quot .

also, technically, someone could retain full 5th amendment rights by not accepting the pardon. a pardon isn't accepted until it's actually used by the recipient in court. so if prosecutors just hear about the pardon and drop charges or choose not to indict, then the recipient can claim they never accepted it.

obviously, prosecutors can turn around and proceed with a case against the pardon recipient until they actually use the pardon in court, but that might be an awful lot of work to build a case only to have it thrown out in 10 minutes. remember that the pardon recipient can keep the pardon in reserve and only use it if and when they feel they need it. if nothing else, they can delay matters a lot. in the meanwhile, they retain full 5th amendment protections.

[awesomerwb1]

4. So what happens if those pardones then just

refuse to answer any more questions? what are the consequences of that? Can't they be pardoned again?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

8. They can be pardoned again

With trump in office and with the investigation being done at the federal level, his ability to pardon people could make things very difficult for Mueller. If those indicted believe that they will receive a pardon from trump, they have zero incentive to cooperate or flip on anyone.

[Orrex]

6. They can't plead the 5th, but they'll absolutely assert executive privilege

How do I know? Because Sessions did it, immediately after confirming that Trump wasn't claiming executive privilege.

His claim was that, by answering the question at hand, he might interfere with the President's ability to claim executive privilege on the subject in the future. Got that? He refused to answer on the grounds that Trump might later refuse to answer.

And the response by the Republican Senators questioning him? "Okay, next question."


Watch for it!

[delisen]

7. GHW Bush pardoned his Sec Defense

Casper Weinberger when he was scheduled to stand trial in Iran-Contra

ix years after the arms-for-hostages scandal began to cast a shadow that would darken two Administrations, President Bush today granted full pardons to six former officials in Ronald Reagan's Administration, including former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger.

Mr. Weinberger was scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 5 on charges that he lied to Congress about his knowledge of the arms sales to Iran and efforts by other countries to help underwrite the Nicaraguan rebels, a case that was expected to focus on Mr. Weinberger's private notes that contain references to Mr. Bush's endorsement of the secret shipments to Iran.

In one remaining facet of the inquiry, the independent prosecutor,
Casper Weinberger, just before he was about to stand trial in the Iran-Contra scandal

Lawrence E. Walsh, plans to review a 1986 campaign diary kept by Mr. Bush. Mr. Walsh has characterized the President's failure to turn over the diary until now as misconduct.

Decapitated Walsh Efforts

But in a single stroke, Mr. Bush swept away one conviction, three guilty pleas and two pending cases, virtually decapitating what was left of Mr. Walsh's effort, which began in 1986. Mr. Bush's decision was announced by the White House in a printed statement after the President left for Camp David, where he will spend the Christmas holiday.

Mr. Walsh bitterly condemned the President's action, charging that "the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed."

Mr. Walsh directed his heaviest fire at Mr. Bush over the pardon of Mr. Weinberger, whose trial would have given the prosecutor a last chance to explore the role in the affair of senior Reagan officials, including Mr. Bush's actions as Vice President.

'Evidence of Conspiracy'

Mr. Walsh hinted that Mr. Bush's pardon of Mr. Weinberger and the President's own role in the affair could be related.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html

[cyclonefence]

10. And if the person pardoned

accepts the pardon, isn't that an implicit confession of guilt? Or even an explicit confession of guilt? Because otherwise, why accept a pardon?