If someone is pardoned, they can no longer invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying

They pissed old Joey off. Now he and his family have a little leverage against Pelosi.

Interesting...

This is Joe's big "frick you" to Dems who kicked him out. Now, there is a witness that can be compelled to testify all the way back to 2014.

WTF was in the Whitehouse with Biden in 2014?

I'm not sure you're right about this

this issue kind of came up with Trump pardoning Sheriff Joe

I think also whether there's been a conviction or pardon before conviction comes into play I'm sure this is gonna go before the Supreme Court or at least a part of it if they try to get Hunter to testify

I don't know if they align with pardons, but there are cases where a guy was given immunity, then told he had to testify, he refused on grounds of invoking the 5th. I believe the court held him in contempt and jailed him, and iirc SCOTUS said that was wrong. I wish I could remember the case.

I don't believe the Constitution says your right to not self-incriminate is invalidated if you've received immunity or a pardon - there are punishments that go beyond legal when talking about self-incrimination, like your reputation.

The point is, I'm not sure he can be compelled to testify.

ETA
I did find this footnote to a write-up on this topic:
249 Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896). The majority reasoned that one was excused from testifying only if there could be legal detriment ?owing from his act of testifying. If a statute of limitations had run or if a pardon had been issued with regard to a particular offense, a witness could not claim the privilege and refuse to testify, no matter how much other detriment, such as loss of reputation, would attach to his admissions. Therefore, because the statute acted as a pardon or amnesty and relieved the witness of all legal detriment, he must testify. The four dissenters contended essentially that the privilege protected against being compelled to incriminate oneself regardless of any subsequent prosecutorial effort, id. at 610, and that a witness was protected against infamy and disparagement as much as prosecution. Id. at 628.

So, things like reputation may not suffice to help in invoking the 5th, but there are state crimes to be considered. Even if Biden gives Hunter the broadest possible pardon, it may not stop him from invoking the 5th unless they can demonstrate that only federal crimes are at issue. I'm not sure how they could do that unless the testimony was sealed and only available to federal officials. They could probably do this and use national security as justification. Maybe there's a way to wiggle around this. If they go down this road, they better do it immediately, because it's going to play out in the courts for a long time.

Not quite true

If a sealed or closed door session no, he can't claim the 5th. His testimony would be classified and since all classification stems from the office of the president that testimony would enjoy privilege even if leaked.

If public and on the record he could claim it because of incrimination outside the coverage of the pardon and/or state prosecution.

quote:

---

can't be compelled to testify

---

so ignoring a congressional subpoena is cool right? I mean, Hunter did it and nothing happened.

quote:

---

so ignoring a congressional subpoena is cool right? I mean, Hunter did it and nothing happened.

---

if they prosecuted him for obstruction or more likely contempt of congress it would be covered by this pardon.

However, the fact that no charges were even contemplated much less put before a judge points to the corruption of the DOJ. Keep in mind this is just before Navarro went to jail and as Bannon's jail time was being strategically placed just before the election.

Yes, a presidential pardon has supremacy over the congress. In most things the congress, especially the House, is supreme. This is one of the checks and balances.

And yep, the 5th amendment is absolute. If there is even a hint or possibility being compelled to testify could, even if remote, incriminate him there should be no "back door".

On the same note the 5th is just as absolute as 1A and 2A the dimocrats attack incessantly and they shouldn't have "back doors" either such as govt using private entities to do the censorship for them or onerous registration/licensing laws.

I did not say that, but he could not be compelled to testify. He could literally go in front of the committee and say "frick You" and he could get away with it. BTW so could you. Complying means you merely have to show up, you don't have to be cooperative.

quote:

---

I had no idea Malloy had been pardoned.

---

That is an incorporation case, not a case involving a pardon.