It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
In response to the questions posed about pleading the 5th if the person is not the subject of a criminal investigation there is no 5th application. There is a reduced 5th invocation in civil cases though since the constitution is specific with criminal applications.
Witnesses can plead the Fifth—that is, invoke the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination—in appropriate circumstances. In grand jury proceedings, for example, witnesses who are called to testify but believe their testimony might incriminate them in a subsequent case can generally refuse. Somewhat similarly, the Fifth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to not even take the witness stand at trial.
Sure but was it a ruling or dicta? Thats the question and until a person is pardoned without charge and its challenged, its considered to be the latter and not the former
originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: theworldisnotenough
I've already been hit with criticism regarding my media citations
Checks OP again.. no citations. A TV personality? Msnbc?
Who's gonna be pardoned? For what exactly?
Trump lawyer denies legal team is discussing pardons
President Trump’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow, is pushing back against a Washington Post report saying Trump's legal team is “discussing the president’s authority to grant pardons."
Sekulow told CBS News that pardons pertaining to the ongoing federal probe into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russian election meddling “are not being discussed and are not on the table.”
originally posted by: F4guy
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: F4guy
At which point Trump can just pardon them again.
It is clear from the caselaw that that sort of behavior is itself obstruction of justice. Which would lead to impeachment and then indictment and prison.
originally posted by: theworldisnotenough
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: theworldisnotenough
Acceptance of a pardon is required.
It is not an admission of guilt if no one is charged / tried / convicted. The DOJ policy requires an admission in order to qualify to receive one, in addition to a conviction. That policy does not apply to pardons issued by the President and accepted by the intended recipient.
A person does not have to be charged nor convicted in order to be pardoned. A Presidential pardon only applies to federal law violations.
Impeachment is the only offense pardons do not affect.
Burdick vs. United States is the case law and it only refers to people who are already convicted. It does not say anything about people being pardoned when they are never charged. It set the precedent that a pardon cannot be forced if it is rejected. It also established the need for the person pardoned to submit the pardon to the courts for the legal side of things.
MSNBC is wrong on the blanket admission of guilt claim. All one has to do is look at Richard Nixons pardon, which MSNBC ignored.
Thank you for the tutorial.
Now let's get back to the original question: why haven't pardons been handed out like confetti especially in light of the anxiety attacks and lack of self-control on the part of The Donald? You'd think that one way or another he'd be more than eager to put a lid on the Mueller investigation. Then again, as noted in the OP, The Donald may be concerned about his business future.
And let's get back to the follow-up question: how will a pardon affect a pardonee's Congressional testimony and the invocation of the Fifth Amendment?
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: F4guy
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: F4guy
At which point Trump can just pardon them again.
It is clear from the caselaw that that sort of behavior is itself obstruction of justice. Which would lead to impeachment and then indictment and prison.
Not really but whatever works...
Impeachment is not a criminal issue. It is a political issue and Congress determines what a high crime and misdemeanor are. It is not based on a legal question but a political question. There are no restrictions on Presidential pardons in the Constitution so trying to assign a criminal intent to an action that is constitutionally protected is not going to work.
originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Extremely funny how stupid-ass babbled about getting a special prosecutor for Hillary while campaigning...
...Now he appears to be going on the defense because there's one on his tail...
LOL
You just can't make this # up...
It is asserted besides that the pardon is void as being outside of the power of the President under the Constitution of the United States because it was issued before accusation or conviction or admission of an offense. This, it is insisted, is precluded by the constitutional provision which gives power only "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States," and it is argued, in effect, that not in the imagination or purpose of executive magistracy can an "offense against the United States" be established, but only by the confession of the offending individual or the judgment of the judicial tribunals.
Why was Ford wrong to pardon Nixon? Mainly because it set a bad precedent. Nixon had not yet been indicted, let alone convicted, of any crime. It's never a good idea to pardon somebody without at least finding out first what you're pardoning him for. How can you possibly weigh the quality of mercy against considerations of justice? Yet it would happen again in December 1992, when departing President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger, former defense secretary, 12 days before Weinberger was set to go to trial for perjury. As I've noted before, this was almost certainly done to prevent evidence concerning Bush's own involvement in Iran-contra (when he was vice-president) from becoming public. The final report from Iran-contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh called it "the first time a President ever pardoned someone in whose trial he might have been called as a witness," but in fact it was the second. Ford's motive was less self-protective, but, as Slate's Christopher Hitchens notes here, it had the same effect of shutting down further investigation into illegal activities. Without the precedent of Ford's pre-emptive pardon, Bush père might have lacked the nerve to attempt one himself, and certainly would have created a much bigger ruckus if he went ahead and did it anyway.