LOL.
I think it really depends on the popularity of the GOP congress, which is sinking like a rock at the moment and it’s probably got more to do with anger among the tea party types who are pissed at the inability of the GOP to repeal Obamacare.
That’s better than letting Pence-Ryan dismantle healthcare, environmental protection, and the very social contract.
BTW Trump’s net approval (approve % minus disapprove %) among whites without a college degree — his core demographic — has fallen from +26 in March to -7. :eek: 
That’s “minus 7” with an M.
It doesn’t matter if pardons work the way Trump wants then to work or not, if the real goal is to throw a bucket of sand into the Congressworks. If he declares that he his pardoning himself, his family and his cronies from all past and future unnamed crimes, then Congress is going to spend the rest of his administration fighting over what to do and how to do it, by which time the he can say “It doesn’t fucking matter, because I am outta here. Losers!”
And *finally *prevent them from getting anything done?
Hey, that could happen anyway.
Is there any reason Trump can’t announce “I pardon everyone I know for all past (federal) crimes!” (Or “everyone everywhere”, even) and have it take?
'Cause if I was Trump, the minute anybody hinted they were going to impeach me, I’d threaten to announce that in the last minutes prior to the impeachment vote. I’d threaten this because I’m an asshole, but he’s one too, so it seems plausible he might do it if he’s able to muster enough brain cells to think of it.
Isn’t the Mooch gonna be single? Oh, yeah, too short…
Rumor has him seeing Fox’s leg model Kim Guifoyle.
again, too short according to Roger Stone.
Whatever he tries to do, it seems likely that after we’re shut of him, some new laws are going to be proposed—as when, after JFK’s death, there was a collective urge to stop Presidents from appointing their relatives to Cabinet posts.
There’s a whole lot of things we’ve trusted Presidents to do right, that we won’t want to leave up to trust anymore.
Bricker, a legal question, if you will: Say Trump issues blanket pardons for everybody. Then these people, lacking 5th Amendment protection, are forced to testify before Congress. This testimony is picked up by 50 State AGs, who immediately prepare indictments for anybody and everybody who ever set foot in their state during the “criminal period.” At that point these guys are fucked, right? All the evidence and testimony is fair game for State AGs? New York, Florida, etc. can go after them with impunity?
As I mentioned in another thread, I’m still thinking that Mueller has found evidence of money laundering, he has already subpoenaed Deutsche Bank. If he can track even a couple bucks through there, and send a nice 'gator skin briefcase with a copy containing yellow highlights to Fraulein Merkel, Trump’s Pardons won’t do shit in Berlin.
How did that work out?
It worked as intended. No president since has appointed relatives to Cabinet posts. The posts to which Trump has appointed his relatives have all been outside of the cabinet.
If Trump actually is guilty of serious things that he suspects Mueller is going to, or already has, uncover, then what is his best move right now?
Perhaps Edward Snowden is looking for a roomie?
No.
The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled testimony being used against a defendant. One jurisdiction in our federal system may not compel a witness to give testimony which might incriminate him under the laws of another jurisdiction. This was made clear in Murphy v. Waterfront Commission.
The state AGs can prosecute any violations of state law, to be sure, but the testimony given by the accused in federal court could not be used against him in state court, not could evidence derived from that testimony be used, and the burden rests on the government to prove the evidence was NOT derived from the testimony (Kastigar v. US).
This is true only in your scenario. If the accused chooses to testify in a federal proceeding, as opposed to being compelled, then his testimony is fair game in state court.
It might well be that wholesale abuse of the power would give rise to Congressional support for a constitutional amendment of some kind.
But since the pardon power arises from Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, Congress cannot constrain it by passing laws.
August 4th: Mueller Impanels Grand Jury; Begins Issuing Subpoenas.
Sure it can.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the pardon power is the sort of Presidential power that survives scrutiny under Jackson’s “third category” in Youngstown. This only means that Congress cannot prevent the President from using it. It does not mean Congress cannot punish the President for using it.
At a minimum, Congress could pass a bill saying it will not, say, appropriate money to the executive branch if the President issues this or that kind of pardon.
It could also, potentially, impose criminal liability for certain kinds of exercise of the pardon power. Just as Congress could charge the President or his subordinates with murder for sending the military to murder his political opponents, so too could they write a statute that makes it obstruction of justice to issue certain pardons in certain circumstances. The two issues would be whether the President can be charged with a crime and whether he can pardon himself, but neither is settled and I think there are pretty good arguments that he can be charged with a crime and cannot pardon himself.