Interesting analysis! Thanks for your thoughts.
One minor question, though:
The limited downside, because there are so many crimes Hunter requires a plenary pardon and that means that he is open to testifying against his father and uncles after he is vested in such a pardon because there is no possibility of self-incrimination.
Has it already been legally established (prior to this) that a pardoned person cannot avail himself of the Fifth Amendment? Is there really precedence for this? (At least insofar as the matter at hand concerned the acts for which he had been pardoned?)
Would, in other words, being pardoned be functionally equivalent to having been granted immunity against prosecution?
Wouldn't any sane Prosecutor immediately grant an UN-pardoned Hunter immunity anyway, since there are "bigger fish to fry?"
Regards,
I have not actually researched the case law of loss of privilege against self-incrimination due to a pardon having been granted but I understand that to be the general consensus.
Yes, it is the functional equivalent of a grant of immunity against prosecution. I note that a federal prosecutor cannot grant immunity for state crimes; it appears that Hunter might well have committed both sorts of crimes. The grant of immunity, even if done in concert by state and federal prosecutors, unlike the scope of a presidential pardon, would have to cover every conceivable crime.
I think I noted this in a previous reply a few days ago. By the time all this gets sorted out, Brandon will be about a century old and perhaps long pardoned by his successor in office.
Best to you.
