General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs it right that whoever a President pardons cannot then plead the 5th b/c cannot incriminate self
Last edited Sat Jul 22, 2017, 07:03 AM - Edit history (2)
any longer? Is this like immunity?
Edit to add this article link provided by PoliticAverse:
President Trump is considering pardoning family members and staffers caught up in the Russia investigation, but legal experts warn that it could backfire by making it harder for them to avoid testifying.
Under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, Americans are protected against self-incrimination, but people who have been pardoned are no longer under any legal jeopardy, Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe told TIME.
"Anyone pardoned by Trump would lose most of the 5th Amendments protection against compelled testimony that might otherwise have incriminated the pardoned family member or associate, making it much easier for DOJ and Congress to require such individuals to give testimony that could prove highly incriminating to Trump himself," Tribe said in an email.
http://time.com/4868418/donald-trump-presidential-pardons-backfire/
Foamfollower
(1,097 posts)Not a lot of precedent to support it, though there is some and nothing in precedent counters it.
The key is, refusing to testify would be felony contempt and lying in testimony would still be perjury, which mens both would require an additional pardon.
It's also why Nixon didn't pardon anybody.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Had not thought of that!
Kaleva
(37,623 posts)A person who accepts a pardon, and by doing so is admitting guilt, cannot plead the 5th and has to answer all questions or be held in contempt and if they lie, face perjury charges.
forgotmylogin
(7,652 posts)because that specific plea protects people from being coerced to incriminate themselves in a crime. Since they are pardoned for the crime, there is no danger of self-incrimination, so not answering truthfully is perjury or contempt.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)If they fail to testify they can be held in contempt.
If they lie, they can be charged with perjury.
Accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. When the go to testify, they testify as an guilty person.
But do you see a republican congress holding any of Trumps toadies in contempt?
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Stinky The Clown
(68,295 posts)A pardoned Jarvanka will be compelled to roll over on Two Scoops
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)TomSlick
(11,591 posts)and if s/he accepts the pardon, then s/he cannot invoke the 5th Amendment because there is no risk of self-incrimination. However, a pardon is only effective if accepted by the person pardoned because the acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt. See, Burdick v. US, 236 U.S. 79 (1915).
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Thank you for the info.
byronius
(7,527 posts)wcmagumba
(3,035 posts)they could be pardoned for additional charges it seems....Kinda an infinity of pardons possible...crazy times.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)TomSlick
(11,591 posts)The pardon power is extraordinarily broad. The drafters assumed a minimum level of decency on the part of public officials. But we know what comes of assuming.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)TomSlick
(11,591 posts)dsc
(52,486 posts)For example, lets say while Kushner was meeting with the Russians about stealing the election he also killed a hooker but Trump only pardoned him for the stealing of the election. He still could plead the fifth for questions that would lead to the discovery that he killed the hooker.