Can Stone be pardoned?

[BigmanPigman]

Are there any states who can charge him with crimes like with Cohen and Manafort?

[Lochloosa]

1. Yes and maybe

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

2. Every State should charge him w felony suits.

Those suits he wears sometimes....felonious.

[LakeSuperiorView]

14. His hats could probably could be considered medically necessary.

He needs a tall hat to cover that pointy head of his. Without one, he looks like a brand new white crayon.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

15. Prosthetic Chapeaus?

Agreed.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Those would probably have to be financial crimes. So far it's not clear

that he's been part of the money trail.

[empedocles]

6. 'IF' Mueller nails down some of what he is capable of,

that is convicting two cons clearly guilty of conspiring to commit several crimes - the elements of conspiracy law seem fall into place. Agreement to undertake an unlawful plan - yes. Specific intent to commit the objective of the unlawful plan - yes. Even 'overt acts' - yes. Seems like many trumpsters are vulnerable here. No guarantees though.

[RockRaven]

4. There is something that Stone can be hammered with which Trump cannot pardon...

and that is contempt of Congress. The Constitution gives the POTUS power to pardon crimes "against the United States" but that does not cover contempt of Congress. In those cases, Congress brings the charge, conducts the trial, and imposes the penalty. The only check/balance on that power is a habeus corpus petition, but so long as the Judiciary finds in Congress has cause to bring the charge, that's the end of it. [not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm not 100% correct here, but I scanned an article on Wikipedia to refresh my memory of something I had previously read]

If Stone gets pardoned, the House can drag his ass in and put him under oath and start asking questions. If he refuses to answer or otherwise obstructs, he can get charged with contempt, and the House can imprison him for as long as they see fit, or impose some other penalty.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Not so; contempt of Congress is a violation of a federal criminal statute,

2 USC § 192, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and imprisonment for up to 12 months; therefore it's a crime against the United States.

[RockRaven]

8. But prosecution under criminal law is not the only way to address contempt of Congress

According to wikipedia it was codified into criminal law so as to not be limited in punishment by the duration of the current Congressional session, and the power of Congress to handle the matter itself remains.

See the "Inherent Contempt" section of this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

The statute was written in the 1850s, but as late as the 1930s Congress tried and imprisoned someone themselves.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. The current statute is more recent (1938).

[RockRaven]

11. But it does not remove Congress's power to address the matter themselves.

Here's a WaPo opinion piece from the Bush era which outlines the same:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001802.html

[Mr. Ected]

5. Can one co-conspirator pardon another co-conspirator?

Essentially, the pardon power has thusfar been deemed to be practically comprehensive and unchecked. However, it seems constitutionally dubious that one criminal could pardon another criminal for acts done in concert with each other, prior to the pardoner being President.

I wonder how Justice Kavanaugh would rule on such a thing....

[Volaris]

12. At this point, exactly how John Roberts TELLS him to.

I expect the Frat-boy to be kept on a very short leash on ANYTHING that would influence public opinion (most of what the Court does is corporate-contract stuff, and so most people don't care).

But when it comes to His Courts legacy, I think Roberts isn't playin', and will jerk that dogs leash as hard as he needs to for say...the next 18 months or so.
YMMV.

[lunatica]

10. I think he has to be convicted first

Although, come to think of it maybe not

[beachbum bob]

13. Yes, for any federal charges