I Hear The 5th Amendment On Self Incrimination Can't Be Use If One Is Pardoned......

[global1]

If a pardoned person is called to testify in front of some Congressional Committee or Agency - that means that they are have to spill the beans and can't plead the 5th and hide - right?

Isn't Trump putting himself at risk by pardoning people like Rudy or Roger Stone? Couldn't they implicate Trump in future testimony?

Now if such a person - lies to the committee or agency in any testimony - can they be charged with that lie as a crime?

I'm assuming that the pardon that they receive is for crimes or actions that they may have committed up till the time of the pardon. Can they be charged if they commit future crimes - post pardon?

[drray23]

1. yes thats correct.

Since you can not use the 5th amendment after being pardoned you have to answer the questions. If you lie, you can be charged for it.

[DonaldsRump]

2. And I believe if you refuse to answer the questions

That's criminal contempt.

[leftieNanner]

4. Which is why Trumpie wrote such a strange and broad pardon for Flynn

Idiot Face thinks he pardoned Mikey for ALL THINGS.

Only it doesn't work that way. At least Neal Katyal doesn't think so.

[global1]

17. So A Hypothetical Here: If A Person Who Was Pardoned Was Called To Testify Before A Congressional..

committee - let's say it had to do with the 2016 Election, their involvement with Russian interference - they can be asked questions about their and other people's involvement with the Russians and because they were pardoned:

1. They have to answer the questions truthfully or as you say (if you lie, you can be charged for it) - meaning they can't plead the 5th because there would be no need to because they were already pardoned for their involvement and wouldn't be self incriminating themselves;

and

2. If they were asked questions about Trump's involvement with Russian interference - they have to tell the truth if Trump was involved and potentially could implicate Trump in a crime of being involved with rigging the election with the Russians?

Now if number 2 is true - isn't Trump threading on dangerous territory by pardoning any of the people he talked into breaking the law for him?

Sorry to ask this question again here - but I want to make sure that I understand this whole pardoning thingy.

[drray23]

18. yes that is how it is understood.

They can not refuse to answer anything related to what they were pardoned for by invoking the 5th amendment and if they lie and are caught they can be charged for it.

[NightWatcher]

3. These guys never think two steps ahead.

I cant wait for trump administration actors to start prison time.

[pwb]

5. I thought people need to be charged or convicted to get a pardon.

Only a King can give a Blanket pardon against any crime that may have been committed ? IMO.

[drray23]

7. not at all.

The pardon can be for all crimes committed before and up to the time of the pardon whether you have been charged or not.
That is what Ford did with Nixon. What it can not do is pardon for crimes in the future.

[pwb]

8. It is not a crime if there is no charge? So

?

[drray23]

9. Of course it is.

Just because you have not been caught or charged has nothing to do with the fact that you break the law.

[pwb]

10. Of course it is?

You said so.

[drray23]

11. Well, think about it.

If you go and shoot somebody but nobody catches you, did you commit murder or is it just not a crime because you have not been caught ?

[pwb]

13. Pardons need specificity .

We will see. Trump will try and get away with as much as he can. Everything goes to the limit with him. Your murderer can not be pardoned for it is not known. Nixon was caught and forced out. Crimes were committed and proved.

[drray23]

14. I do not think thats true.

Here is an excerpt of the Ford pardon of Nixon:

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.

Notice the use of the phrase "has committed or may have committed" . It covers all bases.

I have yet to hear a single law expert saying that the pardons need to be specific. They do say however that in certain instances, it could be challenged. For example if it can be shown it was done with a corrupt intent (like to cover oneself in the case of Trump or sell the pardons etc..)

[exboyfil]

15. Ford didn't think so

and he was relying on an earlier case. The Nixon pardon was never challenged. It was sweeping including his entire time in office.

I personally agree with you. I think a pardon should be specific. Actually I think that a pardon should only be available for crimes that have been charged with or convicted of. Unfortunately, that isn't how the Constitution is written.

[wcmagumba]

6. Hopefully but, I'm sure they will use the ole "I don't recall" ploy...

[FBaggins]

12. It isn't quite that simple

Presidential pardons only apply to federal offenses - and to only those specific crimes that are pardoned. They can take the 5th if they have a theory re: how the question applies outside of those areas. They also retain other ways to resist testifying (depending on the specifics).

[onenote]

16. +1