Question about pardons and further testimony?

[independentusa]

I did not know exactly how to phrase my heading. What I want to know is once a person is given a pardon they also give up their right to plead the 5th. So if requested to testify after being given a pardon and they refuse to do so they can be sent to jail for contempt. Can the president then just pardon them for contempt or is that beyond his ability to pardon someone?

 

[MovingPictures]

The president can pardon somebody, then re-pardon them for contempt charges that comes from a witness refusing to testify against them - if that's the objective.

However, that would be a blatant abuse of his authority, and would be subject to impeachment.

It would also be incredibly risky for a witness to rely on such a cycle.

 

[Xelor]

I did not know exactly how to phrase my heading. What I want to know is once a person is given a pardon they also give up their right to plead the 5th. So if requested to testify after being given a pardon and they refuse to do so they can be sent to jail for contempt. Can the president then just pardon them for contempt or is that beyond his ability to pardon someone?

Red:
Yes. That can happen regardless of regardless of whether one is pardoned for a prior act.


Blue:
If the contempt charge is a federal one, yes. If the contempt charge is not federal, no.

 

[independentusa]

The president can pardon somebody, then re-pardon them for contempt charges that comes from a witness refusing to testify against them - if that's the objective.

However, that would be a blatant abuse of his authority, and would be subject to impeachment.

It would also be incredibly risky for a witness to rely on such a cycle.

Thank you

 

[Xelor]

The president can pardon somebody, then re-pardon them for contempt charges that comes from a witness refusing to testify against them - if that's the objective.

However, that would be a blatant abuse of his authority, and would be subject to impeachment.

It would also be incredibly risky for a witness to rely on such a cycle.

Red:
True enough, but it wouldn't alter the pardon and the benefit of it to the pardoned person.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I did not know exactly how to phrase my heading. What I want to know is once a person is given a pardon they also give up their right to plead the 5th. So if requested to testify after being given a pardon and they refuse to do so they can be sent to jail for contempt. Can the president then just pardon them for contempt or is that beyond his ability to pardon someone?

Well, the pardoning power is awarded by the U.S. Constitution in the case of the President, and each State's constitution in the case of governors. In the case of the President he has absolute power to pardon for Federal offenses which can only be modified by amending the Constitution. The same holds true for each State, although the ability to amend many State constitutions is easier than for the U.S. Constitution.

So IMO the answer is yes, the President can pardon someone charged with a federal offense of contempt, or perjury, or whatever. It is generally accepted that this pardon power does not extend to State crimes.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The president can pardon somebody, then re-pardon them for contempt charges that comes from a witness refusing to testify against them - if that's the objective.

However, that would be a blatant abuse of his authority, and would be subject to impeachment.

In your opinion, not in fact.

While Congress can impeach for just about any "Trumped"-up charge ( ), currently absent an amendment to change the existing Constitution, Presidential pardon power is absolute in federal crimes and thus the exercise thereof cannot be an "abuse of authority."

Best example? Ford pardoning Nixon.

 

[MovingPictures]

In your opinion, not in fact.

While Congress can impeach for just about any "Trumped"-up charge ( ), currently absent an amendment to change the existing Constitution, Presidential pardon power is absolute in federal crimes and thus the exercise thereof cannot be an "abuse of authority."

Best example? Ford pardoning Nixon.

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, and I'm going to show you again.

Presidents are not allowed to use their powers with corrupt intent, whether the power is absolute or not. If a president was to pardon some random person over and over again, who he was pardoning for moral reasons that had nothing to do with him, it would indeed be within his power to do so.

But, when a president uses the power of clemency as a method to keep a witness silent, it is very, very illegal. And if you don't believe me, just look in the history of the Watergate scandal, where one of the infractions listed in the impeachment articles against president Nixon was promising witnesses clemency in exchange for them refusing to testify against him and remaining silent.

9.endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

It is not my opinion, it's established Congressional precedent.

Cease and desist in digging in on this.

 

[Mr Person]

The president can pardon somebody, then re-pardon them for contempt charges that comes from a witness refusing to testify against them - if that's the objective.

However, that would be a blatant abuse of his authority, and would be subject to impeachment.

It would also be incredibly risky for a witness to rely on such a cycle.

In your opinion, not in fact.

While Congress can impeach for just about any "Trumped"-up charge ( ), currently absent an amendment to change the existing Constitution, Presidential pardon power is absolute in federal crimes and thus the exercise thereof cannot be an "abuse of authority."

Best example? Ford pardoning Nixon.

Not abuse because:

1. It's within his constitutional power therefore can't be an abuse (hope you don't dislike Obamacare's method of final passage, etc)

2. It's not an abuse because Nixon was a victim, as thinks Stone (now indicted) ?

 

[MovingPictures]

Red:
True enough, but it wouldn't alter the pardon and the benefit of it to the pardoned person.

Actually, a judge must first recognize a pardon and although they always have, it's not hard to imagine them rejecting one, where a president/governor is themselves a subject of the investigation and is giving witnesses pardons, and leaving the constitutionality up to the SCOTUS.

That's why presidents don't just hand out pardons like candy, WH counsels for years have known this.

 

[washunut]

I did not know exactly how to phrase my heading. What I want to know is once a person is given a pardon they also give up their right to plead the 5th. So if requested to testify after being given a pardon and they refuse to do so they can be sent to jail for contempt. Can the president then just pardon them for contempt or is that beyond his ability to pardon someone?

They could/should pull a Comey. Just say i don't recall about 200 times until they get tired of asking the same question and getting the same answer.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, and I'm going to show you again.

Presidents are not allowed to use their powers with corrupt intent, whether the power is absolute or not. If a president was to pardon some random person over and over again, who he was pardoning for moral reasons that had nothing to do with him, it would indeed be within his power to do so.

But, when a president uses the power of clemency as a method to keep a witness silent, it is very, very illegal. And if you don't believe me, just look in the history of the Watergate scandal, where one of the infractions listed in the impeachment articles against president Nixon was promising witnesses clemency in exchange for them refusing to testify against him and remaining silent.



Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

It is not my opinion, it's established Congressional precedent.

Again, you assert something I did not state. Did you miss this part:

...While Congress can impeach for just about any "Trumped"-up charge…

Nothing you stated changes the fact that absent an amendment, the President's power to PARDON is absolute.

The fact that Congress has the power to impeach a President is also "absolute," on any allegation they wish. Where doe this indicate the person pardoned is not really pardoned?

Perhaps it is you who should consider what they are asserting before you decide it is dispositive. :coffeepap:

 

[Xelor]

Actually, a judge must first recognize a pardon and although they always have, it's not hard to imagine them rejecting one, where a president/governor is themselves a subject of the investigation and is giving witnesses pardons, and leaving the constitutionality up to the SCOTUS.

That's why presidents don't just hand out pardons like candy, WH counsels for years have known this.

Red:
I can't say you're wrong, but I also can't find a thing that indicates that "a judge must recognize a pardon."

What is the context for your assertion? Are you merely referring to the fact that the rule of law and the letter and spirit of specific laws, in this case the Constitutional law governing presidents' pardon power, is meaningless if the polity, judiciary, legislature and LEO units fail, in a practical rather than formal sense, to acknowledge the legitimacy of a given lawfully taken action. If that's what you mean, well, yes, of course. To do otherwise is to, essentially, revolt.

 

[MovingPictures]

Again, you assert something I did not state. Did you miss this part:



Nothing you stated changes the fact that absent an amendment, the President's power to PARDON is absolute.

The fact that Congress has the power to impeach a President is also "absolute," on any allegation they wish. Where doe this indicate the person pardoned is not really pardoned?

Perhaps it is you who should consider what they are asserting before you decide it is dispositive. :coffeepap:

Now you're changing your tune.

You said.

While Congress can impeach for just about any "Trumped"-up charge ( ), currently absent an amendment to change the existing Constitution, Presidential pardon power is absolute in federal crimes and thus the exercise thereof cannot be an "abuse of authority."

You weren't just talking about the witness being pardoned, you clearly stated right here that a president can't abuse the pardon power with criminal intent, and I just demonstrated that is simply not so.

You're blatantly misdirecting people as to what you alleged, and trying to pull a switcheroo.

 

[MovingPictures]

Red:
I can't say you're wrong, but I also can't find a thing that indicates that "a judge must recognize a pardon."

What is the context for your assertion? Are you merely referring to the fact that the rule of law and the letter and spirit of specific laws, in this case the Constitutional law governing presidents' pardon power, is meaningless if the polity, judiciary, legislature and LEO units fail, in a practical rather than formal sense, to acknowledge the legitimacy of a given lawfully taken action. If that's what you mean, well, yes, of course. To do otherwise is to, essentially, revolt.

A judge has to acknowledge a pardon and dismiss a case, but in theory he could refuse to dismiss the case on grounds that the president is bribing a witness.

It would have to be VERY obvious and clear to the court.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Now you're changing your tune.

You said.


You weren't just talking about the witness being pardoned, you clearly stated right here that a president can't abuse the pardon power with criminal intent, and I just demonstrated that is simply not so.

You're blatantly misdirecting people as to what you alleged, and trying to pull a switcheroo.

Anyone can allege a crime, that does not make the person guilty absent trial and conviction.

Again, CONGRESS can IMPEACH for whatever they want. They can claim it is an "abuse of authority" and try to impeach him. They can also claim his bad hairstyle is an impeachable offense. So what?

The House voted to impeach Bill Clinton, and the Senate voted to acquit. Did that make Clinton "guilty" of anything?

The current House could vote to impeach Trump, and the current Senate has enough votes to acquit. Would that make Trump "guilty" of an allegation of abuse of authority?

The pardon power remains absolute and the President can pardon anyone for any Federal crime he wants.

 

[MovingPictures]

Anyone can allege a crime, that does not make the person guilty absent trial and conviction.

Again, CONGRESS can IMPEACH for whatever they want. They can claim it is an "abuse of authority" and try to impeach him. They can also claim his bad hairstyle is an impeachable offense. So what?

The House voted to impeach Bill Clinton, and the Senate voted to acquit. Did that make Clinton "guilty" of anything?

The current House could vote to impeach Trump, and the current Senate has enough votes to acquit. Would that make Trump "guilty" of an allegation of abuse of authority?

The pardon power remains absolute and the President can pardon anyone for any Federal crime he wants.

You're one very confused person.

Presidents can not be removed from office for any reason - you don't know what you're talking about. They can only be impeached and removed from office for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanours, as the constitution clearly states.

If the House of Representatives impeaches a president, they must provide articles on the offenses the president is alleged to have committed. Otherwise, the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, who will preside of the Senate trial, can absolutely rule the trial as unconstitutional if the House wanted the president removed for a "bad hairstyle".

And the trials purpose is to remove the officer from their post, not to convict them of the crime legally.

Please, learn the constitution you talk about so much.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You're one very confused person.

Presidents can not be removed from office for any reason - you don't know what you're talking about. They can only be impeached and removed from office for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanours, as the constitution clearly states.

If the House of Representatives impeaches a president, they must provide articles on the offenses the president is alleged to have committed. Otherwise, the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, who will preside of the Senate trial, can absolutely rule the trial as unconstitutional if the House wanted the president removed for a "bad hairstyle".

And the trials purpose is to remove the officer from their post, not to convict them of the crime legally.

Please, learn the constitution you talk about so much.

You keep adding more ancillary information as if you are making your point clearer. I am well aware of the authority of Congress under Article I.

I said the Congress can impeach for whatever they want. They just have to couch the rationale in terms of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Easy since they can pass laws (like the Tenure of Office Act, which led to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson for purely political reasons) to suit the need. Or did you forget that power lies with Congress?

We've already had what, at least four impeachment attempts I could find since his election:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/438

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/621

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/646

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/13

All alleging some form of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Meanwhile, nothing you have said in this long red herring discussion I got dragged into has refuted my original point which was:

In your opinion, not in fact.

While Congress can impeach for just about any "Trumped"-up charge ( ), currently absent an amendment to change the existing Constitution, Presidential pardon power is absolute in federal crimes and thus the exercise thereof cannot be an "abuse of authority."

Best example? Ford pardoning Nixon.

Since I agreed that Congress can allege abuse of authority for purposes of impeachment, which still does not negate the sitting President's power to grant pardons for any reason while still holding office, nor if impeached, negate the legitimacy of those prior pardons. :coffeepap:

 

[yankintx]

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, and I'm going to show you again.

Presidents are not allowed to use their powers with corrupt intent, whether the power is absolute or not. If a president was to pardon some random person over and over again, who he was pardoning for moral reasons that had nothing to do with him, it would indeed be within his power to do so.

But, when a president uses the power of clemency as a method to keep a witness silent, it is very, very illegal. And if you don't believe me, just look in the history of the Watergate scandal, where one of the infractions listed in the impeachment articles against president Nixon was promising witnesses clemency in exchange for them refusing to testify against him and remaining silent.



Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

It is not my opinion, it's established Congressional precedent.

Cease and desist in digging in on this.

As a fellow student of Watergate I concur with your analysis. Its never the crime, its the coverup. Trump is waist deep in obstruction territory and has been for well over a year.

 

[MovingPictures]

You keep adding more ancillary information as if you are making your point clearer. I am well aware of the authority of Congress under Article I.

I said the Congress can impeach for whatever they want. They just have to couch the rationale in terms of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Easy since they can pass laws (like the Tenure of Office Act, which led to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson for purely political reasons) to suit the need. Or did you forget that power lies with Congress?

We've already had what, at least four impeachment attempts I could find since his election:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/438

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/621

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/646

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/13

All alleging some form of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Meanwhile, nothing you have said in this long red herring discussion I got dragged into has refuted my original point which was:



Since I agreed that Congress can allege abuse of authority for purposes of impeachment, which still does not negate the sitting President's power to grant pardons for any reason while still holding office, nor if impeached, negate the legitimacy of those prior pardons. :coffeepap:

My god, you're impossible.

You literally stated "the Congress can impeach for a bad hairstyle if they want" and that's one of the most absurd things I've heard on this forum, so far. This idea that the Congress can impeach people for noncriminal conduct is absurdly unconstitutional, and you'd know that had you had actually read the constitution of this country.

My first post did not address whether pardons granted as part of a criminal cover-up would be illegitimate, you're the one that brought that point up. But you weren't just referring to that, you also made a clear statement that the pardon can't be used for criminal purposes, because the president has the power to pardon. It's the old "it's not illegal when the president does it!" circular argument, and from a "libertarian" no less.

The idea that a person having a given legal power means there's no circumstance where that powers use becomes criminal is just absurd. That's like saying that because a CFO has authority over a corporation's finances, that means if he directs company money into his bank accounts, it's not embezzlement because he had that authority.

 

[Hawkeye10]

My god, you're impossible.

You literally stated "the Congress can impeach for a bad hairstyle if they want" and that's one of the most absurd things I've heard on this forum, so far. This idea that the Congress can impeach people for noncriminal conduct is absurdly unconstitutional, and you'd know that had you had actually read the constitution of this country.

My first post did not address whether pardons granted as part of a criminal cover-up would be illegitimate, you're the one that brought that point up. But you weren't just referring to that, you also made a clear statement that the pardon can be used for criminal purposes, because the president has the power to pardon. It's the old "it's not illegal when the president does it!" circular argument, and from a "libertarian" no less.

The idea that a person having a given legal power means there's no circumstance where that powers use is criminal is just absurd. That's like saying that because a CFO has authority over a corporation's finances, that means if he directs company money into his bank accounts, it's not embezzlement because he had that authority.

Ya, but this is you. The dude is right, they can impeach for bad hair.... nobody will stop them....but then they need to go face the voters.

 

[Xelor]

A judge has to acknowledge a pardon and dismiss a case, but in theory he could refuse to dismiss the case on grounds that the president is bribing a witness.

It would have to be VERY obvious and clear to the court.

Red:
Perhaps you'r aware of a statute or ruling or something that corroborates that assertion. Your repeating it doesn't do that.

 

[Thoreau72]

Again, you assert something I did not state. Did you miss this part:



Nothing you stated changes the fact that absent an amendment, the President's power to PARDON is absolute.

The fact that Congress has the power to impeach a President is also "absolute," on any allegation they wish. Where doe this indicate the person pardoned is not really pardoned?

Perhaps it is you who should consider what they are asserting before you decide it is dispositive. :coffeepap:

I always thought that a pardon was after a conviction?

 

[MovingPictures]

Red:
Perhaps you'r aware of a statute or ruling or something that corroborates that assertion. Your repeating it doesn't do that.

It's a DB article but I've heard this opinion from a few legal scholars, too. I'm not saying that pardons granted as part of an effort to silence witnesses would be illegitimate - I'm not agnostic on that issue. All I'm saying is that it's limits have never been tested by a prosecutor.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-russia-pardons-would-be-an-obstruction-of-justice

Procedurally, whenever a president issues a pardon to abort a criminal conviction, terminate criminal charges, or even prevent prospectively criminal charges from ever being brought, a judge typically has to issue a formal order dismissing the matter. The prosecutor certainly could condemn the pardon publicly as a “cover-up,” as Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh did in 1992 after the first President Bush pardoned six persons, including former defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, in the Iran-contra scandal. But Walsh never sought review by a court of the validity of the pardons as he theoretically could have done. He could have argued that the pardons were illegitimate, were granted in bad faith, and that the president was trying to shield persons from criminal accountability for political reasons and indeed may himself have been involved in a conspiracy to thwart the federal investigation. And presumably if Walsh lost he could have appealed to a higher court, even the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether the courts would have considered his appeal is unclear.

 

[Xelor]

It's a DB article but I've heard this opinion from a few legal scholars, too. I'm not saying that pardons granted as part of an effort to silence witnesses would be illegitimate - I'm not agnostic on that issue. All I'm saying is that it's limits have never been tested by a prosecutor.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-russia-pardons-would-be-an-obstruction-of-justice

Thank you. That adequately clarifies what avenue you were pursuing.

I asked a friend what you may have been talking about. The explanation I got comports with what's in the DB article, but with a bit of additional detail:

• The dismissal procedure pertains only to matters that are in process at the time of the pardon's issue.
• Should a jurisdictionally valid pardon come about, the judge has no discretion as goes the case's dismissal; he can't decide not to dismiss the matter. The judge would himself be violating the law were he not to dismiss the case. Yes, the dismissal of the matter is procedural, but it's literally nothing other than "dotting an eye and crossing a tee" so the jurisprudencial administrative process stops.
  
  If the judge didn't dismiss the matter, it'd just leave an "unclosed loop" in the process and documentation of the matter. Conceivably, someone could sometime later discover the paperwork re: the case and say, "Oh, we have this unresolved matter. Go get that defendant so we can resolve this." The defendant would be found, s/he'd appear in court with his pardon document (or refer to it), and the judge would then confirm the existence of the pardon and, in turn, dismiss the matter and apologize for the court's administrative laxity.
• The/a prosecutor can, as noted in the DB article, do something: challenge the pardon. Whether that challenge results in the pardon's vacation is a different matter, but unless and until it does, the pardon stands.
  
  As a practical matter, it'd take "smoking gun" grade evidence (or near as makes no difference) for such a challenge to prevail. The existence of and ability to obtain such evidence would never before have even been something one could construe as an existential plausibility. That may not be the case with Trump, but, until the Mueller report arrives, we won't really have a fair idea of how existentially plausible, if at all, such be.