Those who are pardoned lose their self-incrimination protection.

[MoonRiver]

That would potentially put them in danger of being forced to produce damaging testimony regarding the crime they were pardoned for, or face contempt of court charges. Idiot-in-Chief is far too stupid to know how vulnerable pardoning those complicit with him would be to them as well as him, but his lawyers aren't.

If you’re pardoned, can you be compelled to testify about your crime?

1. A friend of mine asked me this question, so I researched it; the answer, turns out, is yes: A person may refuse to testify, even when subpoenaed, on the grounds that the testimony may expose him to criminal liability. But if the prospect of criminal liability disappears — whether because he has been granted adequate immunity by prosecutors, or because he has accepted a presidential pardon — then the privilege against self-incrimination also disappears. “f the witness has already received a pardon, he cannot longer set up his privilege, since he stands with respect to such offence as if it had never been committed.” Brown v. Walker (1895); see also, e.g., Nixon v. Sampson (D.D.C. 1975) (yes, that Nixon). (Remember that, as with President Richard Nixon, a pardon can preclude future criminal prosecutions, and not just erase past ones.)

2. Of course, that only works to the extent that the pardon does indeed foreclose the possibility that your testimony will be used against you in a criminal prosecution. A presidential pardon, for instance, only applies to federal crimes; if the conduct could also be prosecuted as a state crime, the witness can refuse to testify about it. The same is true if a governor pardons someone for committing a state crime, but there remains a risk that the person could be prosecuted by the federal government for the same conduct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/02/if-youre-pardoned-can-you-be-compelled-to-testify-about-your-crime/?utm_term=.2f774199e73c

[Zoonart]

1. I'm guessing that Mueller

has already gamed out the "What if he pardons everyone?" scenario.
Thanks for posting this. It is very interesting to know.

[MoonRiver]

2. Yep, the noose is tightening.

You're welcome. I felt compelled to put this out there due to all the concern about Chump pardoning everybody.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. And you're still subject to the penalties of perjury.

A pardon is not all-inclusive, for everything you've done and/or will do in the future.

[MoonRiver]

4. It's definitely not a Get Out of Jail Free card.

The Maniac may panic and do it against advice of counsel, but he will be sorry if he pulls this stunt.

[greymattermom]

5. So if he pardons someone

who has a nondisclosure agreement, and that person is asked to testify about something that's in the nondisclosure agreement, what happens? This could get interesting.

[MoonRiver]

6. Don't know, but my guess is that a federal subpoena trumps non-disclosure agreements.

Calling all lawyers!

[Jim Lane]

18. Private parties cannot, by agreement between themselves, block a subpoena.

The centuries-old axiom is "The law has a right to every man's evidence." It of course applies to Kellyanne Conway, too.

An employer that was promised secrecy by the employee would probably have standing to move to quash the subpoena. For example, if Mueller subpoenaed a lawyer who represented Trump, Trump could move to quash on the grounds that the lawyer doesn't know anything relevant except information that's protected by the attorney-client privilege. If Mueller subpoenaed the guy who designed one of Trump's golf courses, Trump could move to quash on the grounds that the guy doesn't know anything relevant, period.

Failing that, the employer could ask the court to place the subpoenaed testimony under seal, so that the employer wouldn't suffer whatever business disadvantage the NDA was designed to prevent.

[Calista241]

7. That's how it's supposed to work in theory.

Mueller wants information from Manafort on Subject X. And threatens him with prosecution on Subject Y.

If Trump pardons him for Subject Y, Manafort is still in legal jeopardy for Subject X, and Mueller has even less leverage.

[MoonRiver]

8. My guess, and it is only that, not being a lawyer, is that Mueller knows how to leverage

these legal machinations.

[Calista241]

9. As much power as the law gives him

It is as much a handicap as it is a beneficial arrangement.

Everyone here just needs to not get their hopes up that Mueller is the answer to all their prayers in the next 3 months. Remember, a lot of people went down for Iran Contra and they never got close to Reagan or Bush.

[MoonRiver]

10. Agree, but Reagan and Bush were never so hated as this fucker.

[Calista241]

13. He may be hated by us

but is he hated by the people that work for him and are in the know?

He's made a lot of people rich, and given a lot of people a lot of power.

And people here forget that Reagan was just as hated. He took on the unions, and they were much more powerful in the early 80's than they are today. Reagan literally allowed thousands of LGBT people to die and didn't even acknowledge there was a problem.

[MoonRiver]

14. "US" is about 65% of the American population.

[Calista241]

15. You're assuming that opinion polls are A) accurate and B) indicative of how people will vote.

Impeachment is a huge issue, that i think the vast majority of Americans would prefer not to go through. Especially with the economic volatility that such a process would entail.

My feelings are that as long as he doesn't get too off the rails, doesn't commit (or have committed) a violent crime, and as long as he keeps the economy humming along, there will be no impeachment process.

[fishwax]

11. Then he can just pardon them for contempt of court

I mean at that point you'd hope enough republicans would stand up against it, but that's hardly a sure bet.

[MoonRiver]

12. True, but they may have already produced the goods on shit sandwich.

For this narcissist and psychopath, it's all about him. I assume he could care less about anybody, including his kids, except HIM.

[Lee-Lee]

16. Remember he was only pardoned for misdemeanor contempt of court

So he retains his 5th Amemdment right on everything other than that one contempt charge- including any possibly criminal actions that led to it.

So in other words he hasn't lost anything really.

[Ms. Toad]

17. That was actually decided by the case that keeps being misinterpreted

as requiring him to admit guilt and accept the pardon.

Someone who was pardoned wanted to plead the 5th amendment. The government contended he lost that right because the pardon implied guilt (and forgiveness).

He was permitted to reject the pardon and plead the 5th. (Hence the misreading of the case that you have to admit guilt and actively accept the parton. The case was very limited - and a conviction had not yet been obtained.)