Why the Repubs are rushing Kavanaugh through

[PAMod]

My apologies if this has already been posted:

"Democratic New York attorney general nominee Letitia James – who is widely expected to win election in November – ran on the promise to be a legal backstop against President Donald Trump. She argued that if Trump were to pardon himself or associates convicted of federal crimes, that she, as attorney general, could then charge them again in New York under state law, “safeguard(ing) against President Trump’s attacks on the rule of law in our country.”

But, if the U.S. Senate confirms President Trump’s nominee Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, that might be impossible..."


[link:https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/policy/ethics/brett-kavanaugh-could-limit-attorney-general-tish-james-power.html|

[calimary]

1. To get around that, could charges be filed after trump's out of office?

He can’t pardon squat once he’s not in the White House anymore.

[unblock]

5. Technically it doesn't matter when charges are filed,

Only when the crime is committed. On his last day in office, Donnie could pardon himself and his whole family; hell, he could pardon every registered republican for any crime ever committed up to the date of the pardon.

Of course, this only works for federal crimes, and may itself constitute an obstruction of justice crime. Also not clear a self-pardon is valid, but everything else about it is.

[brush]

2. I believe this is being discussed here.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211210153

[Roland99]

3. Brought this up last Sunday. This is important

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211170155

[Nevilledog]

4. Yeah.......NO

That is not what Gamble does.

Do people even read the article they're citing?

Like this paragraph:

Even if the court were to rule on Gamble in a way that expanded the double jeopardy clause, the New York Attorney General could still sue Trump or his associates in other ways, such as bringing a case on the emoluments clause, which bars the president from accepting gifts from foreign officials. By some legal interpretations, an attorney general would not even need to commit double jeopardy to prosecute individuals like Manafort or Cohen following a pardon. To put it simply, they have each been accused of committing so many different crimes that New York could go after the ones that were left out of their plea deals.


*sigh*

[PAMod]

6. Huh?

You said "that is not what Gamble does."

What are you talking about? The paragraph excerpt you posted does not contradict the rest of the article.

I read the entire article and understood it, perfectly - including your paragraph.

Tell me in your words what point you think you are making here, please.

[Nevilledog]

7. The point I'm making is that Gamble is not a barrier to State prosecutions after a pardon.

Gamble deals with same event, exact same crime, two prosecutions (Fed and State)

The Solicitor General's brief is here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-646/28031/20180116184058367_17-646%20Gamble.pdf

Here's the point I'm making, based on my 27 years as a criminal defense attorney..... The decision in Gamble, whether Gamble prevails or not, will not give added power to a presidential pardon. Such pardons concern only Federal criminal offenses. The president cannot issue a pardon which would bar prosecution by the state of separate offenses, only separate prosecutions for the exact same crime (element by element). Thus, say an individual is convicted of evading federal taxes, a presidential pardon of that conviction has no bearing on a state charging someone from evading state taxes...... Different offense. If Gamble prevails, that has no impact on different offenses being charged in different jurisdictions such as my tax evasion example.

The practical reason behind Gamble bringing this appeal is really not because he was convicted in both State and Fed jurisdictions, but because the federal sentence (even though it was ordered to be served concurrently with his state sentence) resulted in an additional three years of incarceration.


The dual prosecutions of Gamble, for being a prohibited possessor of a firearm, was stupid in the first place and a waste of resources for a relatively low level offense.

[PAMod]

8. Of course a pardoned criminal can be tried for other offenses at the state level.

A pardoned criminal can be tried in federal court as well, for other offenses that aren't covered by the pardon.

No disagreement here about the stupidity of the dual prosecutions of Gamble, but it's that ability to re-prosecute this band of crooks for the exact same crimes (element by element) at the state level that should be preserved, and that they will be elated to see destroyed.

Boiled down: your actual point is that not all is lost if Gamble prevails.

Thank you for the clarification - peace.

[Nevilledog]

9. Many states already have laws that reflect of Gamble overrules Abbate.

NY being one of them.