Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums10 legal experts on why Trump can't pardon his way out of the Russia investigation
It may prove to be one of the stupidest things he has yet done.
By Sean Illing@seanillingsean.illing@vox.com Updated Mar 28, 2018, 1:41pm EDT VOX
Snip: I reached out to 10 legal experts and asked them if the Arpaio decision is a signal of how Trump might seek to undercut the Russia investigation. I also asked what it would mean for the investigation if Trump pardoned key players in the scandal like Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, or Jared Kushner before any of them could be convicted.
While its impossible to predict what Trump will do, nearly all the experts I spoke to agree on one thing: If Trump does use his pardoning powers to thwart the Russia investigation, its very likely to backfire.
If someone like Flynn or Kushner were preemptively pardoned, he wouldnt be able to plead the Fifth Amendment if he were called to testify against Trump. The Fifth Amendment protects citizens against self-incrimination. But if someone has been pardoned, they no longer face the threat of prosecution, and so they cant use a desire to avoid incriminating themselves as an excuse not to answer a question.
So in addition to potentially obstructing justice, Trump would only leave himself and his colleagues more vulnerable if he decided to pardon anyone currently under investigation. Of course, that doesnt mean he wont pull the trigger anyway. But he might want to think long and hard about the implications before he does.
More: https://www.vox.com/2017/8/29/16211784/trump-pardons-manafort-flynn-mueller
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1077 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
10 legal experts on why Trump can't pardon his way out of the Russia investigation (Original Post)
Quixote1818
May 2018
OP
drray23
(7,633 posts)1. But if they still refuse to talk.
Since they can no longer invoke the fifth, the judge would find them in contempt. Is that in itself a federal offense ? If so, what stops Trump from pardoning that as well ?
Cha
(297,275 posts)2. So while you're wandering around the Rose Garden in your bathrobe and pardoning people on Twitter
Link to tweet
While its impossible to predict what Trump will do, nearly all the experts I spoke to agree on one thing: If Trump does use his pardoning powers to thwart the Russia investigation, its very likely to backfire.
If someone like Flynn or Kushner were preemptively pardoned, he wouldnt be able to plead the Fifth Amendment if he were called to testify against Trump. The Fifth Amendment protects citizens against self-incrimination. But if someone has been pardoned, they no longer face the threat of prosecution, and so they cant use a desire to avoid incriminating themselves as an excuse not to answer a question.
If someone like Flynn or Kushner were preemptively pardoned, he wouldnt be able to plead the Fifth Amendment if he were called to testify against Trump. The Fifth Amendment protects citizens against self-incrimination. But if someone has been pardoned, they no longer face the threat of prosecution, and so they cant use a desire to avoid incriminating themselves as an excuse not to answer a question.
onenote
(42,714 posts)3. They could still invoke the Fifth Amendment if they could be charged
with a state law criminal violation based on their testimony.