If Trump pardons himself and his family...

[LiberalFighter]

wouldn't that make the state prosecutor's job easier? They would be admitting to committing crimes.

If nothing else go after their companies and put them out of business.

[Girard442]

1. If I were a DA, I'd go after him for felony jaywalking.

[regnaD kciN]

2. Not if the SCOTUS...

...rules that he can not only pardon himself for federal crimes, but for crimes at any level.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. That's established law. Presidential pardons are only for federal crimes.

In fact, it's explicitly in the Constitution: The president "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States..."

[regnaD kciN]

5. "Established law"...

...only lasts as long as there are five votes on the Supreme Court to uphold it.

In this case, I can easily imagine the current Court redefining “against the United States” to mean “against any jurisdiction within the United States” as opposed, say, to charges brought in another country’s courts.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. They won't do that. The majority are constitutional originalists

who believe in interpreting the constitution exactly as written; they wouldn't add such a gloss (which would also be contrary to the whole notion of federalism).

[Miguelito Loveless]

11. You fail to make allowances

for shameless hypocrisy.

[Coleman]

12. The SCOTUS already ruled on Separate Sovereigns

The idea that Federal and States can prosecute an individual for the same crime not falling under double jeopardy. The vote was 7 yes 2 no (the 2 were Gorsuch and RBG). If the current justices remain true to their positions on Separate Sovereigns, then the state has the authority to try Trump on the same acts that violated state law.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Accepting a pardon does not operate as a legal confession or admission of guilt.

In Burdick v. United States (1915) the Supreme Court commented that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” Since then it's been assumed that the acceptance of a pardon is the equivalent of a guilty plea, or at least an admission that the pardoned crime was committed. However, Burdick was about a different issue - the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just dicta (a comment without legal affect). The court meant that, as a practical matter, a person might not want to accept a pardon because it might make him look guilty. In some cases, pardons have been given to exonerate people who were not guilty. They are not a legal declaration of guilt, so state prosecutors could not use the pardon as a basis for claiming Trump had confessed to related state crimes.

[euphorb]

7. I agree with The Velveteen Ocelot, but there is a further issue.

Trump and his family have not actually been formally charged with any crimes. Any pardon would simply refer to "any crimes that may have been committed." So, even if a pardon was a legal admission of guilt, a state prosecutor would still have to identify and prove specific crimes.

[AllaN01Bear]

8. i think that the prez pardoning system needs to be deleted.

[Grasswire2]

9. I'm not too keen on the unitary power re: treaties and tariffs, either. nt

[Chainfire]

10. Even if he pardons himself, it would not preclude investigations

In fact, that should mean that every thing should be investigated and the results released to the public. If Trump wants a trial to defend his honor, he can bring to court.

I just don't believe that even this Supreme Court would not want to bless someone pardoning themselves for crimes against the people. It would destroy their credibility forever.