Concerning the indictment - from a friend who is a lawyer:

[ehrnst]

Last edited Mon Oct 30, 2017, 10:24 AM - Edit history (2)

1. Open indictment means more charges can be added

2. Use of the word "conspiracy" frequently is there to prevent Trump from pardoning, since he can't pardon co-conspirators

Edited for clarification:

Pardoning anyone who might have been a co-conspirator in misconduct involving Trump himself would much more plausibly be impeachable. If he pardons them, they can't plead the 5th. So, his lawyers would discourage him from doing so, if the co-conspirators can implicate him directly.

[Hekate]

1. Mmmmm

[lagomorph777]

2. Hah! Good catch!

Can't pardon co-conspirators. That will make things more complicated. Mueller is always a couple of steps ahead of the Turd.

[onetexan]

18. this is soooo good ohhh lala

i'm heck bz this morning but when my hubby texted the indictment news i'm jumping w/ joy . Best news we've heard ALLL YEAR

[NastyRiffraff]

3. Oooh, conspiracy! I like it

Thanks for this, ehrnst. I didn't know the bit about "conspiracy."

[Sanity Claws]

4. Can't pardon co-conspirators?

I have never heard that before. Is there a cite for that?

I wonder if that is why Nixon was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator back when the Watergate charges were filed.

[marylandblue]

5. No, that was because they weren't sure they could indict him

And they knew Congress would impeach anyway.

[ehrnst]

6. I'll ask my friend. (nt)

[unblock]

7. donnie can pardon anyone for any federal crime committed, but doing so might implicate himself

if donnie pardons someone who wasn't even named in an indictment, that pretty much admits that the pardoned person is guilty and also that donnie is fine with whatever crime he committed.

it's a lot harder to claim someone was falsely accused if he wasn't accused in the first place....

[Sanity Claws]

8. I agree there are reasons not to pardon someone who was not yet indicated

However, I would still like a cite for the idea that a President can't pardon co-conspirators. The Constitution contains no such limitation and, as far as I know, there has been no case law on this issue because it never arose before.

[unblock]

9. constitutionally, yes, of course he can.

anyone who says he can't is either mistaken or thinking of "can't" not in the constitutional sense.

that's why i was suggesting a practical or political sense of "can't".

[ehrnst]

10. See OP for edit. (nt)

[Sanity Claws]

11. Thanks for the clarification

Yes, there could be tactical reasons for Trump not to pardon a co-conspirator.
However, we also know that Trump is impulsive and does not always listen to sage legal advice. Who knows what he will do?

[Bradical79]

21. Right. Only limitation is in regards to impeachment

And at this point, they can't really be considered co-conspirators officially. Trump hasn't been formally charged in this.

[TlalocW]

12. But doesn't Trump have to be listed as a co-conspirator to prevent a pardon?

Not sure I get that.

TlalocW

[ehrnst]

13. See my edit in the OP. (nt)

[bigbrother05]

17. Un-indited co-conspiritor, they have the charges ready but wait to file them

Often cited for a President (think Nixon) to wait until out of office to charge.

[orangecrush]

14. YEEEHAWWW!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. All three points put tremendous pressure on Manafort to tell all about tRump-Russia. . . nt

[PoliticAverse]

16. "since he can't pardon co-conspirators" - that's speculation as there is no such limitation...

specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

[PJMcK]

19. Trump can't pardon people who haven't been indicted, can he? (n/t)

[PoliticAverse]

22. Yes he can. That's how Ford was able to pardon Nixon who was never indicted. n/t

[PJMcK]

23. But the Constitutionality of that pardon wasn't tested

I remember those days very well. The country had been roiled with more than a decade of social, cultural and political conflicts along with the Viet Nam War. There was a concerted desire to put the Watergate troubles behind the country and that's why Nixon wasn't pursued. Incidentally, Democratic leaders agreed with that decision.

Specifically, my question was related to the revelations of today's indictments and perhaps I didn't phrase it clearly. What I meant was, can Trump issue a blanket pardon for people who haven't even been named because the indictment has been sealed?

I believe there is a logical and legal difference between this case and Nixon's.

[PoliticAverse]

24. Well a President can pardon anyone who broke specific laws during a specific period without naming

each specific individual involved. That's how Carter was able to pardon Vietnam draft dodgers en masse...

Acting pursuant to the grant of authority in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, I, Jimmy Carter, President of the United States, do hereby grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to: (1) all persons who may have committed any offense between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selective Service Act or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder; and (2) all persons heretofore convicted, irrespective of the date of conviction, of any offense committed between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selective Service Act, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, restoring to them full political, civil and other rights.

(see https://www.justice.gov/pardon/proclamation-4483-granting-pardon-violations-selective-service-act )

[PJMcK]

25. Good point, thank you

However, my original observation still stands: President Carter's pardon was written and signed as an Executive Order. It was never challenged on Constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court never was asked to review the president's blanket pardon. Who knows how it would have been argued and decided?

Anyway, this is all intellectualism while we watch what happens with Trump from the sidelines.

[FakeNoose]

20. Thanks for the explanation

Goes to show that Mueller & his team of Untouchables know what they're doing.

We know the co-conspirators - at least one - will rat him out. Any bets on who will take the deal?
I'm thinking it will be Manafort.

[Gothmog]

26. This indictment was due to the Statute of Limitations

Mueller had to bring this indictment to avoid issues with the Statute of Limitations

[Old Crow]

27. Where are you getting the term "open indictment" from?

It's not on any of the paperwork I've seen nor in any of the news stories I've read.