Thanks

This is where political will counts.

There was not sufficient political will in 1992 when GHW Bush pardoned the Iran-contra actors including Casper Weinberger, whom many thought might implicate Bush himself when Weinberer came to trial.

The Republicans and Shawn Hannity made a hero out of Oliver North who was basically a criminal-he got off on a technicality.

I am beginning to think of the Republican Party as a quasi-criminal enterprise.

Let me google that for you:
5th pardon

Second hit (10 legal experts):
https://www.vox.com/2017/8/29/16211784/donald-trump-pardon-constitution-michael-flynn-manafort

If readers already knew what you wrote then your post was pointless. Why tell people what they already know?

If readers didn't know it then it's unreasonable to expect them to take your word without references.

Lesson: Don't be like Trump, back up your assertions, don't just make unsubstantiated claims and expect people to believe them.

but it would also in effect force them to provide testimony with no 5th amendment right to refuse and if they lie under oath they can still be charged with perjury plus potential accessory charges to what they lied about since it would technically be a new crime that took place after the pardon?

as obstruction of justice.

No one should be above the law, especially when a president whose unconstitutional actions in office have led to federal investigation.

It isn't naive or ignorant to want law and order to work this way in an eroding democracy.

executive orders. He signs them, but they are meaningless. They cannot overturn laws. Judges can rule against them. They are for show, for his ignorant 30% base and for the media and their bothsiderism.

If Congress refused to act against him, he really can do whatever he wishes. And because no law is being changed the effect on the Constitution itself is negligible.

Except of course, that people will realize that the protections in our Constitution mean nothing to a corrupt party should it gain complete power. Still, not much we/they can do about it, is there?

or not.

The laws are clear. We, through the FBI, can do something about it.

Ignorance of laws governing emoluments, obstruction of justice, trafficking with hostile foreign countries or lying under oath before Congress or the FBI is no excuse.

Ignorance is no excuse, either, for a do-nothing congress full of lawyers, who count on public ignorance of their looking the other way.

Protections of our Constitution and protecting the Constitution mean something to the FBI, every single member of which is under oath to protect and defend against corruptions.

Every FBI prosecutor who's taken the same oath as the president can indict those who've breached their oaths of office, along with their criminally corrupt employees, and even those in Congress (whose job is to monitor the executive branch) who are complicit in covering up their crimes by pretending ignorance.

also say on Friday that if anyone is pardoned then they can't take the 5th and that goes for Federal and State crimes. Even if some get out of trouble in DC they will still have to testify in NY if charges come from crimes committed there.

Usually, pardons are for specific crimes. If a person is in legal jeopardy, whether it's from the Feds or a State, in relation to a crime not covered by the pardon, that person has the guaranteed right to seek the protection of the 5th amendment.

If a prosecutor believes a pardoned person has information related to an investigation, and it's related to the crimes for which the person is pardoned, then that person will be treated as a material witness, and their testimony can be compelled.

Now, getting them to tell you the whole truth, against their will and interest, is up to the prosecutor.

Yes, Trump can pardon people, but Schneiderman being involved means those people are still in legal jeopardy, technically.

Mueller could sit down to question a pardoned individual; but since Schneiderman has participated, at least to some degree, in the investigation, no judge would compel a witness to testify and give Mueller information that a state prosecutor could then use in a legal case against them.