The danger for Trump in issuing the pardons is

[elevator]

that anyone who accepts one and is then called to testify in a court case or congressional hearing has given up their fifth amendment rights and must testify truthfully to all questions under penalty of perjury, which are pretty severe. I imagine some of these clowns will happily give testimony that will be detrimental to Trump.

[C_U_L8R]

1. Not only a danger for Trump.

Many good prosecutors are probably connecting a lot of dots right now. Through the capos and the soldiers, you get the bigger fish.

[Laelth]

2. I doubt it.

People under such circumstances usually suffer from dramatic and inexplicable failures of memory.

“I don’t recall. I don’t remember that. I have no recollection of that conversation.”

It’s hard to make a charge of perjury stick to poor memory.

-Laelth

[NCDem47]

5. Agree.

I don't think this is the silver lining (if there is any) that people believe.

Also, ignoring subpeonas, evasive answering or outright lying that prosecution can't prove.

Trump's sickos have pushed limits to see what they can get away with. I personally don't think that will fade. What WILL change though is a resolve to punish this type of behavior and make examples of people who thumb their noses at the law.

[Eyeball_Kid]

3. Fifth Amendment rights are only waived...

when testimony is related to the crimes for which they were pardoned.

I'd guess that the waters get murkier when Trumpy issues a blanket pardon for all crimes that someone COULD HAVE COMMITTED. That leaves the field of exploration wide open, IMO.

But in general, the pardon tsunami looks very bad for Trumpy-Boy. There is no way around it that Trumpy's public image, once thought of as impossible to get worse, just got a lot worse. He now LOOKS like a crook to anyone paying an iota of attention. Further, these pardons will become the basis of a court challenge-- that Trump has pardoned many of these people to keep himself from being charged with crimes. His actions violate the basic principle that no person is above the law. If evidence is gathered that shows he's protecting himself from prosecution, the Courts may decide that these pardons were given in bad faith, and violate that basic underpinning of justice.

[mr_lebowski]

4. Is it written somewhere that a Court can undo pardons given in bad faith by a POTUS

Not a Governor, a POTUS ... can be reversed?

And/or that POTUS can be held in some way legally accountable for having given pardons in bad faith, other than perhaps thru impeachment?

If so, can you clue me in to where that is written?

[Miguelito Loveless]

7. No, but a case could be made to the SCOTUS

that a pardon cannot be for crimes that come to light after the original pardon. So, if you are pardoned for lying to the FBI about a campaign contribution, do you also get a pass if it is later revealed you embezzled money from the campaign? I can't see the SCOTUS going along with such a dangerous precedent. What if you murdered a witness? Is the SCOTUS going to be OK with sanctioning murder under the same ruling?

[mr_lebowski]

9. Can't really argue that the pardon was given in bad faith if the other crimes were unknown to POTUS

Of course crimes that occur after the pardon cannot be covered by a pardon, even a blanket one.

Presumably, if the pardons are not blanket pardons, these criminals could still be prosecuted for other crimes that happened before the pardon if they're not named by the pardon. But that's nothing to do with the pardon being done in bad faith, which is the subject of the post I'm referring to.

If Person X is pardoned for crime Y by POTUS Z, and it's determined that person X gave POTUS Z a suitcase with $100,000 in it the day before, is there any actual way to reverse the pardon for crime Y?

Yes, you could still prosecute person X for bribery (unless it was a blanket pardon, then it might get stickier), but is there an actual mechanism, when it's POTUS doing it, to either prosecute POTUS (outside impeachment) for accepting the bribe, or for reversing the crime Y pardon if it was a (presumably) the result of a bribe?

That's what I'm unclear on.

[Miguelito Loveless]

11. My understanding of the law as written

would be the pardon would stand, but the president would be subject to impeachment, if in office, indictment if out of office. Then there is the question off pardoning himself. Yet another instance I don't see the SCOTUS siding with Trump, especially with a Democrat in office. So, if he pardons himself, that pardon should be voided.

That said, given the obvious criminal behavior with this crowd, there is bound to be lots of other crimes just waiting to be found by a diligent state AG, starting with tax crimes, all the way down to mopery.

[Squinch]

6. When has any of them ever followed the law.

[Nitram]

8. Thanks for pointing that out. You've just made my day!

[mr_lebowski]

10. They'll all happily say "I can't recall" until the cows come home ...

Which of these people do you think are going to betray Trump, and know enough about something Trump did to seriously hurt him in some way? Flynn? Papadopoulus? Van Der Schwann (sp? in both cases).

Esp. given nobody can really prove that you're lying when you say 'I can't recall'?

He's issuing pardons to people he either knows don't have info that could hurt him, or he knows won't betray him.

I'm expecting a full (and blanket) pardon for Stone as well at some point. Doubt Stone is content with just the commutation (assuming it didn't already happen and I missed it).