We all know you can't plead the 5th if you're immune from prosecution, but what if there's a remnant of lesser activity in late 2013 that wasn't pardoned and related to what Hunter did in Ukraine, China, etc?

Couldn't Hunter still plead the 5th because his testimony could incriminate him for much lesser crimes in 2013?

I don't believe Biden (or really his handlers, lawyers, etc) would be stupid enough to allow a scenario where Hunter could be forced to testify regarding what happened.

I believe Jan 1, 2014 was a date strategically picked for this reason, but would love to hear from someone who understands this better.

Does the pardon include immunity from all prosecution or just federal charges? Can a state or County DA still prosecute him?

He has been pardoned on federal crimes. Possible state crime implications that "da fif" would be needed?

The 5th comes into play if he is called to testify before Congress. With immunity he can no longer use the 5th to refuse to answer.

"I don't recall".

But what if by answering, it incriminates him for a crime committed prior to 2014?

dustin999 said:

---

But what if by answering, it incriminates him for a crime committed prior to 2014?

---

I would assume he had a frank discussion with his Dad about all of the crimes he committed and when it started. If you had a get out of jail free card why would you lie about that? Also statute of limitations for a crime committed prior to 2014 would likely have run out unless he killed a hooker or something.

Hunter was pardoned, but Joe's two corrupt bagmen brothers weren't.

Ol Rock said:

---

Hunter was pardoned, but Joe's two corrupt bagmen brothers weren't.

---

(soon)

I guess what I'm saying is, the pardon means he can't be charged, but it also means he loses his 5th amendment protections from testifying, thus opening the door for others (including Joe) to be indicted.

If the pardon timeline (Jan 1, 2014 - Dec 1, 2024) only covers 99% of the illegal activity, couldn't that give him the ability to 1) avoid prosecution for the major crimes while 2) preserving the 5th amendment protections if there's still a residual amount of illegal activity not covered?

bonfarr said:

---

dustin999 said:

---

But what if by answering, it incriminates him for a crime committed prior to 2014?

---

I would assume he had a frank discussion with his Dad about all of the crimes he committed and when it started. If you had a get out of jail free card why would you lie about that? Also statute of limitations for a crime committed prior to 2014 would likely have run out unless he killed a hooker or something.

---

oh snap! There's no statute of limitations on that????

Burdick v. United States, 1914

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/

A pardon does not remove a person's 5th amendment right and does not compel them to testify. Immunity and a pardon are not the same thing. It is still unclear as to whether or not a person accepting a pardon can compel them to testify.

Okay this is from chatgpt after sending it that link, but here's what it says:

Quote:

---

A person who has been pardoned by the president cannot generally plead the Fifth Amendment before Congress (or in any legal proceeding) concerning the pardoned offenses, as they no longer face legal jeopardy for those offenses. However, they may still invoke the Fifth Amendment for other offenses not covered by the pardon. The reasoning in Burdick indirectly supports this conclusion by clarifying the nature and implications of a pardon.

---

So if the pardon doesn't cover 100% of Hunter's illegal activities related to Ukraine as an example, he could still plead the 5th right? If there are other offenses not covered by the pardon (eg things related to Ukraine he did in 2013)?

And to further elaborate, let's say he didn't start taking money and arranging meetings in the white house until 2014, but in 2013, he started conspiring to do this, or maybe he was in touch with someone in 2013 in a way that was illegal leading up to selling access in 2014. Maybe it's not a life in prison/death by firing squad kind of thing, but like a Steve Bannon prison kind of thing.

I would think if his testimony related towards events in 2014 could incriminate him for things like this hypothetical of events in 2013, he could still plead the 5th for most if not all of his testimony?

I think the SCOTUS decision has a little more weight than ChatGPT

You shared a link with a bunch of legal jargon, that I then passed to chatgpt to ask it to interpret it for me and that was the conclusion chatgpt gave me which I shared in my post. If there's something incorrect about chatgpt's interpretation let me know but this isn't me trying to say chatgpt knows more than scotus, this is me trying to interpret a complicated document that I have little chance of comprehending.

kb2001 said:

---

I think the SCOTUS decision has a little more weight than ChatGPT

---

In the SCOTUS case, Burdick refused to accept the pardon. Not so with Hunter.

In the SCOTUS case, Wilson gave the pardon for the express purposes of forcing testimony. Not so with Hunter.

The two cases are distinguishable.

I think that Dustin has an interesting point.

He's a friggin crack head. Of course his recollections are vague/poor.

jokershady said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

dustin999 said:

---

But what if by answering, it incriminates him for a crime committed prior to 2014?

---

I would assume he had a frank discussion with his Dad about all of the crimes he committed and when it started. If you had a get out of jail free card why would you lie about that? Also statute of limitations for a crime committed prior to 2014 would likely have run out unless he killed a hooker or something.

---

oh snap! There's no statute of limitations on that????

---

Well, sounds like Craig James is ****ed!

The answer is simple. If there is still a crime out there for which he could potentially be prosecuted, he can still plead the fifth amendment and not testify.

So if he committed a crime in 2013 and the statute of limitations has not run, he can plead the fifth.


Also, you do not "lose" your fifth amendment rights. If it is a situation where you cannot be charged due to limitations or immunity or a pardon, etc., then you literally cannot incriminate yourself. Thus the fifth amendment does not apply to the situation

BMX Bandit said:

---

The answer is simple. If there is still a crime out there for which he could potentially be prosecuted, he can still plead the fifth amendment and not testify.

So if he committed a crime in 2013 and the statute of limitations has not run, he can plead the fifth.


Also, you do not "lose" your fifth amendment rights. If it is a situation where you cannot be charged due to limitations or immunity or a pardon, etc., then you literally cannot incriminate yourself. Thus the fifth amendment does not apply to the situation

---

Well,look at who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.





Oh, and....

Quote:

---

Well,look at who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

---

La Quinta. Con tu hermana

There's also the issue of state crimes. The pardon can't cover those.

dustin999 said:

---

Okay this is from chatgpt after sending it that link, but here's what it says:

Quote:

---

A person who has been pardoned by the president cannot generally plead the Fifth Amendment before Congress (or in any legal proceeding) concerning the pardoned offenses, as they no longer face legal jeopardy for those offenses. However, they may still invoke the Fifth Amendment for other offenses not covered by the pardon. The reasoning in Burdick indirectly supports this conclusion by clarifying the nature and implications of a pardon.

---

So if the pardon doesn't cover 100% of Hunter's illegal activities related to Ukraine as an example, he could still plead the 5th right? If there are other offenses not covered by the pardon (eg things related to Ukraine he did in 2013)?

---

Perfect. If hunter pleads the 5th on a topic, that means it's not covered by his pardon. Now investigators know where to drill down.

Or.

"I was high."

dustin999 said:

---

I guess what I'm saying is, the pardon means he can't be charged, but it also means he loses his 5th amendment protections from testifying, thus opening the door for others (including Joe) to be indicted.

If the pardon timeline (Jan 1, 2014 - Dec 1, 2024) only covers 99% of the illegal activity, couldn't that give him the ability to 1) avoid prosecution for the major crimes while 2) preserving the 5th amendment protections if there's still a residual amount of illegal activity not covered?

---

Not of the questions address specific date ranges or actions taken on specific dates or in those ranges only. If he goes before congress or a grand jury as a witness, and they ask questions intelligently, they can set him up for perjury if he doesn't answer consistent with other evidence or established fact.

It is difficult to understand the differences between a courtroom setting wherein the rules of evidence apply and objections to particular questions can be made and Congressional testimony under oath. But there is a vast difference.

Because of the breadth of the scope of the federal pardon, both in time and universality of potential crimes covered any future criminal prosecutions for that time period. Anything he may have done before that time frame is time barred by the statutes of limitations. That horse has long left the barn so just forget about that.

So what is left to be considered is a potential perjury trap in Congressional testimony under oath. Hunter voluntarily appears for a closed door sessions? His lawyers will be with him and able to object and instruct him not to answer. There will be some drama inside the hearing room and ultimately the committee would decide whether to do a criminal referral to DOJ.

Again, is the juice worth the squeeze? Is the subject matter of sufficient import? Or just a small side issue having little consequence?

From a political standpoint, just the fact that he refused to answer a particular question or questions have some utility? Different question.

My personal opinion is that Congress should have other priorities over going after the Bidens much anymore. They are disgraced, out of power never to rise in politics again.

Quote:

---

My personal opinion is that Congress should have other priorities over going after the Bidens much anymore. They are disgraced, out of power never to rise in politics again.

---

Wise words!

I think Congress will agree with you!

While it would be fun to see the Biden in front of Congress testifying, GOP has bigger fish to fry!

This is Congress we're talking about. Do you think they would rather put on a dog and pony show and preen in front of the television, or write legislation?

Waffledynamics said:

---

"I don't recall".

---

Don't recall anything from the last 10 years is a hard one to swallow for the majority of the population.....with Hunter it's probably true.

Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 16 S. Ct. 644, 40 L. Ed. 819 (1896).

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

My personal opinion is that Congress should have other priorities over going after the Bidens much anymore. They are disgraced, out of power never to rise in politics again.

---

Wise words!

I think Congress will agree with you!

While it would be fun to see the Biden in front of Congress testifying, GOP has bigger fish to fry!

---

lol, other priorities. It isn't like Congress does much anyway, they should be able to multitask. Letting the bidens get away with things only encourages those that follow to do the same thing.

This is an interesting take. I'm not a legal mind so I don't know if it's right and I doubt the pervert kid would ever do anything against his pervert Dad, unfortunately Biden's judgment will come in the next life, but it's still interesting.

Joe Biden may have made a mistake by issuing a blanket pardon for Hunter Biden. Listen to this..pic.twitter.com/rkMeMPFY3G

— Sandfort (@Sandfort_) December 4, 2024

In that second clip, the guy says "here is something not a single person has picked up on yet" and then talks about what EVERYONE has literally been talking about: whether the pardon means Hunter can be forced to testify!

Quote:

---

This is an interesting take. I'm not a legal mind so I don't know if it's right and I doubt the pervert kid would ever do anything against his pervert Dad, unfortunately Biden's judgment will come in the next life, but it's still interesting.

---

It is a completely legit analysis. Biden did what Hunter asked for. So the real legal idiot is Hunter and his lawyers.

And this goes all of the way back to the plea deal that the judge blew up. Hunter's legal team screwed the pooch in court on that one, not ironically along the same lines, blanket immunity for other crimes that were not charged. That is what Hunter wanted back then and that is what he wanted from his Dad.