He did pardon Scooter Libby, didn’t he? I got the impression that he did from the stuff I was reading last night.
Who exactly is Scooter Libby? Ive been learning all sorts of names that were completely obscure to me even up to Trump’s election, but that’s a new one on me.
Libby was the chief culprit in the Valerie Plame scandal, when (IIRC) Plame, a covert operative, had her identity leaked by the W. Bush admin as punishment for political actions taken by Plame’s husband.
More accurately, Libby fell on the sword to protect the people higher up in the admin who were actually responsible (ie - Cheney). He did the time and refused to roll.
And while the specifics of Libby's crimes are amusing/infuriating, they aren't topic. The only point was the hilarious contrast of this popping up like the day before Trump starts ranting about Comey leaking again.
Ben Pershing is an editor for the national journal
I'm really not sure about that strategy. Waiting for rational Republicans seems foolhardy
Spoit on
+83
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
White House is prepping an effort to undermine Rosenstein
Washington (CNN)The White House is preparing talking points designed to undermine Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's credibility, according to sources familiar with the plan.
The plan calls on President Donald Trump's allies to cast Rosenstein as too conflicted to fairly oversee the Russia investigation.
The talking points are still in their preliminary form, and not yet finalized, people familiar with their preparation said.
Would Trump firing Rosenstein mean Mueller might need to extend the investigation into Trump to cover the firing of Rosenstein?
Edit:
The White House is hoping Trump's defenders will use the notion that Comey and Rosenstein are close to argue that Rosenstein is approving an ever-expanding investigation against Trump and his associates as retribution.
"It's payback for the President firing one of his best friends," a source said.
A source close to Rosenstein noted, however, that the two men are not friends.
"It was my great honour to fire James Comey" is... punchy. I'm sure that won't have any repercussions with the Feds.
Not sure what classified information he leaked?
I am beating a dead horse at this point - but tweets like this are a startling reminder of how baffling his general behaviour is. I couldn't imagine ANY president acting like this, thinking that is ok. How has he not grasped the concept of "no comment" by now? Does he really think ANYONE goes "Oh, right Comey is a liar and the president is right, lets dismiss anything from Comey" because of those tweets up there?
"It was my great honour to fire James Comey" is... punchy. I'm sure that won't have any repercussions with the Feds.
Not sure what classified information he leaked?
I am beating a dead horse at this time - but tweets like this are a startling reminder of how baffling his general behaviour is. I couldn't imagine ANY president acting like this, thinking that is ok. How has he not grasped the concept of "no comment" by now? Does he really think ANYONE goes "Oh, right Comey is a liar and the president is right, lets dismiss anything from Comey" because of those tweets up there?
We live in a reality where our President paid off a porn star and was potentially taped watching Russian prostitutes pee on a bed. In the real world, the President of the United States may have incriminated himself several times over on, among other venues, Twitter.
This is not a guy who thinks about his actions and their potential consequences. He has lived his entire life without any consequences.
It is hard to overstate my gratification that will result if and when the hammer finally drops on him. I don’t mean in a schadenfreude way, but in a “laws and rules apply” kind of way.
+35
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited April 2018
Trump complains there about how Comey handled the “Crooked Hillary” case even though the stated reason for firing him at the time was that he was unfair to Clinton and too hard. On “Crooked Hillary.”
Ben Pershing is an editor for the national journal
I'm really not sure about that strategy. Waiting for rational Republicans seems foolhardy
As a rhetorical strategy it seems pretty awful but you are gonna need Republicans on board to actually do anything about the issue.
On the other hand I think the only way to get them actually on board is if the public reaction is so overwhelmingly angry it makes them shit their pants in terror.
Dems should react publicly right away and promise that consequences are coming, but take the time to reach out to every GOP member before they propose impeachment. You only get one shot at it.
Trump is notorious about never admitting any infidelity ever. It’s part of keeping his wives completely dependent on him.
Was his chief security guy interviewed by Mueller? He had some interesting things to say about this Moscow visit...
I can see that, and I can see Melania refusing to admit these things to herself because who the hell would want to believe they were married to THAT.
But I can also see it as being the case that Melania knows this shit is all true, but wanting there to be enough plausible deniability that she's not publicly known as "the wife who's married to THAT."
I am guessing Melania is also just going LA LA LA LA to herself really loudly trying to run out the clock on donald and then walk away a very rich widow some day. But if this gets as ugly as it looks like it will she may just double middle finger this at some point and walk out and it would be hard to blame her.
The mistake is in thinking Republicans will act in good faith at all
If Rosenstein is fired, as Trump seems to be paving the way for, it shouldn’t take Democrats begging and pleading with them to make them do what’s right
They should just do the right thing regardless
But they won’t, because they value power over the good of the country
"It was my great honour to fire James Comey" is... punchy. I'm sure that won't have any repercussions with the Feds.
Not sure what classified information he leaked?
I am beating a dead horse at this time - but tweets like this are a startling reminder of how baffling his general behaviour is. I couldn't imagine ANY president acting like this, thinking that is ok. How has he not grasped the concept of "no comment" by now? Does he really think ANYONE goes "Oh, right Comey is a liar and the president is right, lets dismiss anything from Comey" because of those tweets up there?
Trump rode that dead horse of Twiitter behavior into the White House and him standing in its decomposing remains is keeping folks at bay from dragging him out (for the moment).
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
"It was my great honour to fire James Comey" is... punchy. I'm sure that won't have any repercussions with the Feds.
Not sure what classified information he leaked?
I am beating a dead horse at this time - but tweets like this are a startling reminder of how baffling his general behaviour is. I couldn't imagine ANY president acting like this, thinking that is ok. How has he not grasped the concept of "no comment" by now? Does he really think ANYONE goes "Oh, right Comey is a liar and the president is right, lets dismiss anything from Comey" because of those tweets up there?
He's a reality TV star and has been since before reality TV existed. That's the way he thinks and acts. That's what he cares about.
I think we are in for some interesting times in the next month. It sounds like mueller is sensing his time may be drawing short so it sounds like they are starting to prep the report on at least the obstruction of justice issue much sooner than expected.
He did pardon Scooter Libby, didn’t he? I got the impression that he did from the stuff I was reading last night.
Who exactly is Scooter Libby? Ive been learning all sorts of names that were completely obscure to me even up to Trump’s election, but that’s a new one on me.
Libby was the chief culprit in the Valerie Plame scandal, when (IIRC) Plame, a covert operative, had her identity leaked by the W. Bush admin as punishment for political actions taken by Plame’s husband.
More accurately, Libby fell on the sword to protect the people higher up in the admin who were actually responsible (ie - Cheney). He did the time and refused to roll.
And while the specifics of Libby's crimes are amusing/infuriating, they aren't topic. The only point was the hilarious contrast of this popping up like the day before Trump starts ranting about Comey leaking again.
Actually very possibly they could be on topic. It appears to be laying the groundwork for pardoning people guilty of lying to the FBI and obstruction of justice which if you look at the mueller investigation is seemingly very much on point. I expect after scooter gets pardoned we start seeing a lot of pardons coming out fast and furious in the next few weeks to targets of mueller.
He did pardon Scooter Libby, didn’t he? I got the impression that he did from the stuff I was reading last night.
Who exactly is Scooter Libby? Ive been learning all sorts of names that were completely obscure to me even up to Trump’s election, but that’s a new one on me.
Libby was the chief culprit in the Valerie Plame scandal, when (IIRC) Plame, a covert operative, had her identity leaked by the W. Bush admin as punishment for political actions taken by Plame’s husband.
More accurately, Libby fell on the sword to protect the people higher up in the admin who were actually responsible (ie - Cheney). He did the time and refused to roll.
And while the specifics of Libby's crimes are amusing/infuriating, they aren't topic. The only point was the hilarious contrast of this popping up like the day before Trump starts ranting about Comey leaking again.
Actually very possibly they could be on topic. It appears to be laying the groundwork for pardoning people guilty of lying to the FBI and obstruction of justice which if you look at the mueller investigation is seemingly very much on point. I expect after scooter gets pardoned we start seeing a lot of pardons coming out fast and furious in the next few weeks to targets of mueller.
This might not go like he thinks, when the local DA's start circling the pardoned like a pack of sharks.
He did pardon Scooter Libby, didn’t he? I got the impression that he did from the stuff I was reading last night.
Who exactly is Scooter Libby? Ive been learning all sorts of names that were completely obscure to me even up to Trump’s election, but that’s a new one on me.
Libby was the chief culprit in the Valerie Plame scandal, when (IIRC) Plame, a covert operative, had her identity leaked by the W. Bush admin as punishment for political actions taken by Plame’s husband.
More accurately, Libby fell on the sword to protect the people higher up in the admin who were actually responsible (ie - Cheney). He did the time and refused to roll.
And while the specifics of Libby's crimes are amusing/infuriating, they aren't topic. The only point was the hilarious contrast of this popping up like the day before Trump starts ranting about Comey leaking again.
Actually very possibly they could be on topic. It appears to be laying the groundwork for pardoning people guilty of lying to the FBI and obstruction of justice which if you look at the mueller investigation is seemingly very much on point. I expect after scooter gets pardoned we start seeing a lot of pardons coming out fast and furious in the next few weeks to targets of mueller.
This might not go like he thinks, when the local DA's start circling the pardoned like a pack of sharks.
Well just look how well firing comey worked for him this is not a long term strategic thinking whitehouse. They do stuff because it feels good in the moment but so far have proven adept at moving from scandal to scandal fast enough that it all becomes a blur. I honestly thing stuff like what is going on with stormy daniels and the state stuff probably is always where his real danger was. I just don't see impeachment ever happening or if it does it won't get through the senate but the state cases where he can't pardon people could really dig up a lot of skeletons he has paid a lot of money to keep buried.
Can takjnig a federal pardon be used against you in state charges?
Yes, taking a pardon is seen as an admission of guilt.
...but I don't think there is any court precedent to 100% say that is so.
Mostly it means you cannot claim the fifth when testifying.
So the pardoning of Libby means he can now be compelled to testify in any action against Bush II. Which was why people believed Bush commuted the sentence rather than pardon him. I expect nothing to come from it, of course, but I'm sure that there are some folks out there unhappy about the pardon.
Personally, I believe it's a first step to issuing pardons for lying to the FBI so people are used to it being 'no big deal'.
Can takjnig a federal pardon be used against you in state charges?
Yes, taking a pardon is seen as an admission of guilt.
...but I don't think there is any court precedent to 100% say that is so.
Right, the consensus is that this is academic but it follows that pardons are an admission of guilt so you can’t invoke the 5th as you’ve already a self-incriminated.
I mean like if you take a pardon for federal money laundering could that be brought up in a state money laundering case as evidence against you?
Even without the pardon states can go after crimes committed in their state and new york has some pretty crazy jurisdiction due to the financial companies headquartered there. So you could get charged on both a federal level and a state level for things like money laundering. That is why no matter what happens to mueller especially after the cohen raid there likely is enough stuff there that this spins off into a multitude of state cases.
I mean like if you take a pardon for federal money laundering could that be brought up in a state money laundering case as evidence against you?
I posted about this the other day. Rights against self incrimination aren't linked to a particular legal proceeding, they're linked to the defendant and the facts in question. If you give up your 5th amendment rights in one case you can't still claim them in another case dealing with those same facts. There is a strong argument accepting a pardon means you've waived your 5th amendment rights by admitting guilt.
I mean like if you take a pardon for federal money laundering could that be brought up in a state money laundering case as evidence against you?
I posted about this the other day. Rights against self incrimination aren't linked to a particular legal proceeding, they're linked to the defendant and the facts in question. If you give up your 5th amendment rights in one case you can't still claim them in another case dealing with those same facts. There is a strong argument accepting a pardon means you've waived your 5th amendment rights by admitting guilt.
I thought it was that the fifth didn’t apply anymore because you couldn’t face legal consequences due to the pardon so you weren’t incriminating yourself in a legal sense.
The common wisdom going around for awhile now has certainly been "accepting a pardon is actually bad for these villains" but is there any time prior to this where that scenario has actually happened? Either someone accepting a pardon and then getting reamed with state charges, or refusing to accept a pardon due to the fear? Serious question, I have no idea.
White House is prepping an effort to undermine Rosenstein
Washington (CNN)The White House is preparing talking points designed to undermine Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's credibility, according to sources familiar with the plan.
The plan calls on President Donald Trump's allies to cast Rosenstein as too conflicted to fairly oversee the Russia investigation.
The talking points are still in their preliminary form, and not yet finalized, people familiar with their preparation said.
The common wisdom going around for awhile now has certainly been "accepting a pardon is actually bad for these villains" but is there any time prior to this where that scenario has actually happened? Either someone accepting a pardon and then getting reamed with state charges, or refusing to accept a pardon due to the fear? Serious question, I have no idea.
It is a bit uncharted ground because A) most presidents are careful about who they pardon and don't do it willy nilly most believe it does remove your right to then plead the fifth so you do like they did with scooter initially and you commute their sentence. So they are still guilty but they are not in jail anymore and if brought back for future questioning could still rightfully plead the fifth.
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The common wisdom going around for awhile now has certainly been "accepting a pardon is actually bad for these villains" but is there any time prior to this where that scenario has actually happened? Either someone accepting a pardon and then getting reamed with state charges, or refusing to accept a pardon due to the fear? Serious question, I have no idea.
Most presidents do not pardon without consulting actual lawyers who are actually competent.
The common wisdom going around for awhile now has certainly been "accepting a pardon is actually bad for these villains" but is there any time prior to this where that scenario has actually happened? Either someone accepting a pardon and then getting reamed with state charges, or refusing to accept a pardon due to the fear? Serious question, I have no idea.
Most presidents do not pardon without consulting actual lawyers who are actually competent.
I would bet highly on SCOTUS ruling in favor of the pardon extending to states versions of federal laws. If states can enforce punishment on someone who is pardoned, then the president doesn't really have the power to grant pardons. It's yet another area that has existed on norms so far, rather than codified law, but that seems like a glaringly obvious case of not following the intent of the law.
Where it gets trickier is if someone broke several laws, and was only pardoned for some but not others. For example if they actively engaged in illegal campaign finance, but also bank fraud, but were only pardoned for the illegal campaign finance. If compelled testimony (which is allowed after a pardon) about their crimes for campaign finance indicates further crimes that were related but not exactly the same, I'm less sure how that would play out.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I would bet highly on SCOTUS ruling in favor of the pardon extending to states versions of federal laws. If states can enforce punishment on someone who is pardoned, then the president doesn't really have the power to grant pardons. It's yet another area that has existed on norms so far, rather than codified law, but that seems like a glaringly obvious case of not following the intent of the law.
Where it gets trickier is if someone broke several laws, and was only pardoned for some but not others. For example if they actively engaged in illegal campaign finance, but also bank fraud, but were only pardoned for the illegal campaign finance. If compelled testimony (which is allowed after a pardon) about their crimes for campaign finance indicates further crimes that were related but not exactly the same, I'm less sure how that would play out.
SCOTUS has upheld the dual sovereign model, which is why someone pardoned at the federal level can still be on the hook for state crimes.
In those conversations, he has repeated the phrase, "Here I stand," a reference to Martin Luther's famous quote, "Here I stand, I can do no other." Coincidentally, former FBI Director James Comey, whom Rosenstein fired, repeated the same phrase to President George W. Bush in a conversation that has been widely reported and that Comey describes in his forthcoming book.
I would bet highly on SCOTUS ruling in favor of the pardon extending to states versions of federal laws. If states can enforce punishment on someone who is pardoned, then the president doesn't really have the power to grant pardons. It's yet another area that has existed on norms so far, rather than codified law, but that seems like a glaringly obvious case of not following the intent of the law.
Where it gets trickier is if someone broke several laws, and was only pardoned for some but not others. For example if they actively engaged in illegal campaign finance, but also bank fraud, but were only pardoned for the illegal campaign finance. If compelled testimony (which is allowed after a pardon) about their crimes for campaign finance indicates further crimes that were related but not exactly the same, I'm less sure how that would play out.
I think a lot of this would depend on whether state level courts could exert jurisdiction over the crime in question; If you're pardoned for mass murder across three states then those states could concievably charge you, while if it was something like espionage then they wouldn't have any grounds to do so (since their is no state level punishment for that crime).
Now most states wouldn't have the balls to try this under normal circumstances, but trump's been a pain in the ass for decades in states like NY and I could see state prosecutors eagerly tearing apart any lackies (or the big man himself) if given the opportunity.
I would bet highly on SCOTUS ruling in favor of the pardon extending to states versions of federal laws. If states can enforce punishment on someone who is pardoned, then the president doesn't really have the power to grant pardons. It's yet another area that has existed on norms so far, rather than codified law, but that seems like a glaringly obvious case of not following the intent of the law.
Where it gets trickier is if someone broke several laws, and was only pardoned for some but not others. For example if they actively engaged in illegal campaign finance, but also bank fraud, but were only pardoned for the illegal campaign finance. If compelled testimony (which is allowed after a pardon) about their crimes for campaign finance indicates further crimes that were related but not exactly the same, I'm less sure how that would play out.
SCOTUS has upheld the dual sovereign model, which is why someone pardoned at the federal level can still be on the hook for state crimes.
But not the same crime. There is no way it would be legal for someone to be pardoned for say murder at a federal level and then charged for murder at a state level. It would completely undermine the power of the pardon.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
In those conversations, he has repeated the phrase, "Here I stand," a reference to Martin Luther's famous quote, "Here I stand, I can do no other." Coincidentally, former FBI Director James Comey, whom Rosenstein fired, repeated the same phrase to President George W. Bush in a conversation that has been widely reported and that Comey describes in his forthcoming book.
The White House has also put out a statement that there will be breaking news about Rosenstein between 2pm and 4pm today, EST. So yeah, here we go.
Edit - Currently unconfirmed.
I would bet highly on SCOTUS ruling in favor of the pardon extending to states versions of federal laws. If states can enforce punishment on someone who is pardoned, then the president doesn't really have the power to grant pardons. It's yet another area that has existed on norms so far, rather than codified law, but that seems like a glaringly obvious case of not following the intent of the law.
Where it gets trickier is if someone broke several laws, and was only pardoned for some but not others. For example if they actively engaged in illegal campaign finance, but also bank fraud, but were only pardoned for the illegal campaign finance. If compelled testimony (which is allowed after a pardon) about their crimes for campaign finance indicates further crimes that were related but not exactly the same, I'm less sure how that would play out.
SCOTUS has upheld the dual sovereign model, which is why someone pardoned at the federal level can still be on the hook for state crimes.
But not the same crime. There is no way it would be legal for someone to be pardoned for say murder at a federal level and then charged for murder at a state level. It would completely undermine the power of the pardon.
Cite?
Presidential pardon power has always been for federal crimes. There is precedent for the dual sovereignty model. You want a state crime pardoned, you ask the Governor.
Posts
More accurately, Libby fell on the sword to protect the people higher up in the admin who were actually responsible (ie - Cheney). He did the time and refused to roll.
And while the specifics of Libby's crimes are amusing/infuriating, they aren't topic. The only point was the hilarious contrast of this popping up like the day before Trump starts ranting about Comey leaking again.
Ben Pershing is an editor for the national journal
I'm really not sure about that strategy. Waiting for rational Republicans seems foolhardy
Looks like Trump is preparing to obstruct justice again but he's totally not planning on firing Mueller.
Edit: haha
I am beating a dead horse at this point - but tweets like this are a startling reminder of how baffling his general behaviour is. I couldn't imagine ANY president acting like this, thinking that is ok. How has he not grasped the concept of "no comment" by now? Does he really think ANYONE goes "Oh, right Comey is a liar and the president is right, lets dismiss anything from Comey" because of those tweets up there?
We live in a reality where our President paid off a porn star and was potentially taped watching Russian prostitutes pee on a bed. In the real world, the President of the United States may have incriminated himself several times over on, among other venues, Twitter.
This is not a guy who thinks about his actions and their potential consequences. He has lived his entire life without any consequences.
It is hard to overstate my gratification that will result if and when the hammer finally drops on him. I don’t mean in a schadenfreude way, but in a “laws and rules apply” kind of way.
As a rhetorical strategy it seems pretty awful but you are gonna need Republicans on board to actually do anything about the issue.
On the other hand I think the only way to get them actually on board is if the public reaction is so overwhelmingly angry it makes them shit their pants in terror.
I am guessing Melania is also just going LA LA LA LA to herself really loudly trying to run out the clock on donald and then walk away a very rich widow some day. But if this gets as ugly as it looks like it will she may just double middle finger this at some point and walk out and it would be hard to blame her.
If Rosenstein is fired, as Trump seems to be paving the way for, it shouldn’t take Democrats begging and pleading with them to make them do what’s right
They should just do the right thing regardless
But they won’t, because they value power over the good of the country
Trump rode that dead horse of Twiitter behavior into the White House and him standing in its decomposing remains is keeping folks at bay from dragging him out (for the moment).
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
He's a reality TV star and has been since before reality TV existed. That's the way he thinks and acts. That's what he cares about.
Actually very possibly they could be on topic. It appears to be laying the groundwork for pardoning people guilty of lying to the FBI and obstruction of justice which if you look at the mueller investigation is seemingly very much on point. I expect after scooter gets pardoned we start seeing a lot of pardons coming out fast and furious in the next few weeks to targets of mueller.
This might not go like he thinks, when the local DA's start circling the pardoned like a pack of sharks.
Well just look how well firing comey worked for him this is not a long term strategic thinking whitehouse. They do stuff because it feels good in the moment but so far have proven adept at moving from scandal to scandal fast enough that it all becomes a blur. I honestly thing stuff like what is going on with stormy daniels and the state stuff probably is always where his real danger was. I just don't see impeachment ever happening or if it does it won't get through the senate but the state cases where he can't pardon people could really dig up a lot of skeletons he has paid a lot of money to keep buried.
Yes, taking a pardon is seen as an admission of guilt.
...but I don't think there is any court precedent to 100% say that is so.
Mostly it means you cannot claim the fifth when testifying.
So the pardoning of Libby means he can now be compelled to testify in any action against Bush II. Which was why people believed Bush commuted the sentence rather than pardon him. I expect nothing to come from it, of course, but I'm sure that there are some folks out there unhappy about the pardon.
Personally, I believe it's a first step to issuing pardons for lying to the FBI so people are used to it being 'no big deal'.
Right, the consensus is that this is academic but it follows that pardons are an admission of guilt so you can’t invoke the 5th as you’ve already a self-incriminated.
Even without the pardon states can go after crimes committed in their state and new york has some pretty crazy jurisdiction due to the financial companies headquartered there. So you could get charged on both a federal level and a state level for things like money laundering. That is why no matter what happens to mueller especially after the cohen raid there likely is enough stuff there that this spins off into a multitude of state cases.
I posted about this the other day. Rights against self incrimination aren't linked to a particular legal proceeding, they're linked to the defendant and the facts in question. If you give up your 5th amendment rights in one case you can't still claim them in another case dealing with those same facts. There is a strong argument accepting a pardon means you've waived your 5th amendment rights by admitting guilt.
I thought it was that the fifth didn’t apply anymore because you couldn’t face legal consequences due to the pardon so you weren’t incriminating yourself in a legal sense.
Huh.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
http://lexiconmegatherium.tumblr.com/
It is a bit uncharted ground because A) most presidents are careful about who they pardon and don't do it willy nilly
Most presidents do not pardon without consulting actual lawyers who are actually competent.
See his pardoning of Joe Arpaio for details.
Where it gets trickier is if someone broke several laws, and was only pardoned for some but not others. For example if they actively engaged in illegal campaign finance, but also bank fraud, but were only pardoned for the illegal campaign finance. If compelled testimony (which is allowed after a pardon) about their crimes for campaign finance indicates further crimes that were related but not exactly the same, I'm less sure how that would play out.
SCOTUS has upheld the dual sovereign model, which is why someone pardoned at the federal level can still be on the hook for state crimes.
Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein tells confidantes he is prepared to be fired
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
I think a lot of this would depend on whether state level courts could exert jurisdiction over the crime in question; If you're pardoned for mass murder across three states then those states could concievably charge you, while if it was something like espionage then they wouldn't have any grounds to do so (since their is no state level punishment for that crime).
Now most states wouldn't have the balls to try this under normal circumstances, but trump's been a pain in the ass for decades in states like NY and I could see state prosecutors eagerly tearing apart any lackies (or the big man himself) if given the opportunity.
But not the same crime. There is no way it would be legal for someone to be pardoned for say murder at a federal level and then charged for murder at a state level. It would completely undermine the power of the pardon.
Edit - Currently unconfirmed.
Cite?
Presidential pardon power has always been for federal crimes. There is precedent for the dual sovereignty model. You want a state crime pardoned, you ask the Governor.