We are not going to know the contents of the FBI report unless some Senator(s) leak it to the public.

I trust the professionalism of the FBI as much as the professionalism of a certain DA Mitchell.

There is a surprise coming again.

is what I forget the name of. Who does Putin use to hire the Cossack thugs to beat Pussy Riot protestors? His domestic law & order & suppression agency?

consummate professionals with deeply patriotic, immovable principles that everyone has been yammering about...

Or if they are right wing ideologues who may or may not disagree with Trump about Russia but still think only Rapeblicans deserve to have power and will purposely ignore serial sexual assault and repeated lying under oath (in front of the allegedly co-equal branch of government no less) for partisan purposes.

*I* am not holding my breath for the former. Everyone else should do as they wish.

We risk nothing of substance.

Let's not fool ourselves.

I suggest you actually read the briefs before you spout legally unsupportable opinions.

All of the briefs are right here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/

Gamble has nothing to do with pardons and zero to do with somehow resulting in expanded presidential pardon power.

And yes, I'm a lawyer.

...to the prohibition against double jeopardy.

Were that to happen Trump would be unable to be prosecuted by NY State on what he has pardoned his way out of, or Scotus-ed his way out of, at the federal level.

Counsellor.

Why don't you tell me how Gamble would give Trump the power to pardon people who are convicted of state exclusive crimes?

Explain to me what type of crimes that you think Trump could issue pardons for that would immunize them from state prosecution?

Explain to me what separate sovereigns and successive prosecutions means?

Next, tell me how Gamble would allow Trump to pardon himself for evading state tax evasion charges?

Lastly, please explain how Gamble would apply to NY, or the other numerous states, that already have a state law forbidding successive prosecutions?

I'll wait.

Read again.

Ill wait.

Until you can answer those questions I'm not wasting my time. You can also search my numerous posts on this issue.

So - Tax evasion charges on the Federal Level must have different enough criminal charges from Tax evasion charges on the State Level so as not to be the same crime affecting the same legal environment.
That's actually pretty simple, as Federal tax laws and regulations are different that most State tax laws and regulations.
Likewise, the legal environment for, say, Bank Fraud charges or money laundering - must be separate enough between Federal and State, or State and State to indicate that the effects of the criminal activity are not affecting the same entities the same way.

Again, definitions and regulations concerning Fraud and "white collar" Crime can be different enough between Federal and State, especially as the Federal government has commerce clauses within their regulations (i.e., "across State Lines" clause) that some States don't have.

Physical or violent crime might be a bit more difficult; definitions and regulations for burglary or assault may be similar enough that a double jeopardy situation can more easily occur - especially when dealing with someone who had been previously convicted.

What Gamble would result in is that the various jurisdictions would have to work a little smarter and narrow or focus their charges to fit a specific set of circumstances that won't overlap to create a cascading charges or double jeopardy effect.
If someone legitimately shouldn't be looking at more than 5 - 10 years for a crime, it's frankly Unconstitutional to for a State to pull the Feds in and pile on to extend that sentence to 20 or 30 years for the very same charges just because that person might be considered Socially Undesirable.

IMO, if Ginsberg and the ACLU are able to have their input take over the ruling, the effect would result in the a reduction of lazy or sloppy investigative police work being brought to trial in an excuse to "get criminal scum out of Society" for a longer period of time by charging the same crime in both State and Federal Court.

The States and the Feds can still coordinate to build their cases for an overall picture of a crime or RICO type activity, but they would have to maintain separate jurisdictional charges at time they present to their respective court hearings.

Take as an example - the targeted charges that the Mueller investigation is sending to the Federal Grand Jury. Gamble's been on the Supreme Court docket since early 2016, and Mueller should know that both Liberal and Conservative organizations have filed amicus briefings in the case.
It's been pretty obvious from the time he began, he's been carefully separating his findings between Federal and the various States jurisdictions.
Which means it appears that his strategy with his investigation is to ensure that the eventual expected Federal pardon will not be effective against the State charges that will be brought to court by the various State AGs - and vice versa. He's taking Gamble or something similar - like a Conservative SCOTUS in Russia's back pocket, into account.
The findings may be discovered under the same investigative effort, but they will be separate and presented as different charges in the different courts as applicable.
In any court, it doesn't matter what jurisdiction found the evidence, or who found the evidence, only whether the evidence pertains to a particular charge and is accepted into evidence by the Court for that charge at a specific trial.

It just makes the case a bit more difficult to build when presenting criminal charges, but in the overall scheme of things, it's not necessarily a bad ruling if the Supreme Court finds for Gamble.

However a finding for Gamble will clog up courts across all levels as those who were charged and convicted for the same criminal complaint in both federal and state courts appeal to have one or both convictions overturned due to legal mis-conduct.

Haele

again for the same thing in the jurisdiction you were first prosecuted in. And state and federal should not be able to a dual prosecution. That is the argument in the current case and the narrow issue.

That is a far stretch from saying striking down Gamble would protect Trump from state prosecution.

Hatch is supported by the ACLU on this!