David King

Retired corporate attorney. Avid sports gambler. Passions include all sports, conservative politics (by way of Reagan not Trump) and music (Springsteen esp).

[David King @fulhaminky]

@jpodhoretz There's a little known codicil in the Faber College constitution...

[David King @fulhaminky]

@Bnicklaus7 It is way better - we get Jacob Kmatz in the deal too. Power relief-only guy who has been outstanding this year at AA.

[David King @fulhaminky]

@Pamaelic @MSUStark @riger1984 If he pitches for you for two years after this, it is two years more than you were going to get with Skubal. You may be surprised, but don't be mad because your team waited until a product was almost spoiled before it was sold. This isn't the Juan Soto situation.

[David King @fulhaminky]

@goofonroof You'll always be the race caller who called the race where my horse (well, I owned 10%) was on the lead at Hollywood Park and an earthquake hit. Your finest call. You deserve twice this much for that!

[David King @fulhaminky]

Yes, and here's the worst part: when she claimed this might free Tyler Robinson, she was probably thinking that by releasing a video that the court had ruled would adversely affect Robinson's right to a fair trial that a dismissal (without prejudice) would occur and Robinson would be released pending new charges or possibly even be granted bail.

[David King @fulhaminky]

This is hugely valuable to me as a hobbyist analyst. And I suspect there actually is a way for data to contribute meaningfully to what you are describing (and who am I to dispute you - and I've heard other pitchers like Orel Hershiser and John Smoltz say the same thing). But no one number will ever really beat that kind of insight.

If you respond to these I'd be curious for why you used Skenes as a max effort guy, though. I think he's got a TJ in him soon, for sure. But it was really stark to me watching a late season game last year in Cincy between Hunter Greene and Paul Skenes that while Greene is a 100% max effort guy, Skenes is more deft at pulling back. I'm not saying he's Greg Maddux or Curt Schilling in terms of his pitchcraft but I was curious for your thoughts.

[David King @fulhaminky]

You're fine - both of those cases hold interest to the general subject, just neither are on point.

A lie today would have been a new crime, committed on July 29th, 2026, explicitly outside the scope of the dates of the pardoned crimes. So he is invoking to protect his guaranteed right against self-incrimination from prosecution for lying to Congress - not from the underlying (pardoned) acts themselves. The first question Sen. Paul should have asked was, "do you affirm the complete testimony given under oath on xx/xx/20xx?" That is the easiest way to pull the testimony today out of the pardoned group of alleged crimes. The pardon stopped covering crimes committed after January 19, 2025. He was in jeopardy today the moment he took his oath.

The reason the question Sen. Paul asked at the end is so clever is that there is no risk of self-incrimination. He can't invoke the Fifth to avoid incriminating someone else.

[David King @fulhaminky]

Honestly you'd have to tell me how Burdick is even really on point. The question presented in Burdick is whether a pardon can be granted prior to prosecution, and is often cited for the idea that pardons carry with them a presumption of guilt and acceptance is tantamount to admission, though that language is considered dicta.

As for Brown v. Walker, you are confusing, understandably, pardons and immunity. While discussing pardons, Brown is an immunity case and one that really arises through a state statute.

This case is novel because it would not happen in any other setting besides a presidential pardon and sworn testimony after the pardon's date of effect. If he were charged with false testimony given to Congress on July 29th, 2026, he could not be standing on his pardon. He has no privilege - only the one afforded him by the Fifth Amendment. Thus the need to invoke. Neither Brown nor Burdick even come near that issue.

[David King @fulhaminky]

Yes - of course. But if you were defending him, the thinking is - why take the chance over litigation over what is false? Just avoid it all and take the Fifth. Legally it is the absolute right move. Does it bolster him and his reputation? Absolutely not. But I figure that was shot anyway.

[David King @fulhaminky]

Two sincere questions and a comment: Can a Congressional committee chair order testimonial immunity? Does the pardon include the equitable remedy of disgorgement for the personal profiteering from awards?

The comment is after this display, would the public support blanket immunity just to go after his shredding assistant or Deb Birx?

[David King @fulhaminky]

Of course it does, Matt. That's exactly what the Fifth Amendment does. But you are extending it past the application of the language itself - it only protects self-incrimination. A valid subpoena compels the testimony of any witness to tell the truth under penalty of perjury about relevant matters that wouldn't incriminate the witness themself. Again like I said earlier, in my Criminal Law class I reduce it all to O.J.: the state couldn't call OJ to the stand, but they could call Kato because Kato had no possibility of admitting to a crime in his testimony. If he did, he would have invoked.

[David King @fulhaminky]

@borgbait @jeffreytucker @grok I understand. I think you are right. I do wish more art were being put into these questions for testing at a subsequent court case. I don't expect it out of all of the members but 3-4 members should be laying out a series of questions that test the limits of his 5A rights.

[David King @fulhaminky]

@thevivafrei Could well happen. More like a motion to compel off a well-crafted question today. Not enough art going into these questions beyond Sen. Paul's.

[David King @fulhaminky]

Here's a question to ask that would be a good test for his invocation: "Did your assistant destroy emails or other documents as that term is generally understood that would have been responsive to FOIA requests had they not been destroyed?" While speculative, no self-incrimination possible. He can safely answer yes because even if he directed he is absolved of that potential crime. If he answers no, he lies, but not to protect incriminating himself, but his assistant. And that is not covered by the 5A.

[David King @fulhaminky]

@missycp9 @jeffreytucker Unfortunately no. It does make the situation a bit unusual, but preemptive pardons are allowed. Richard Nixon was pardoned by Gerald Ford when no criminal charges had been filed against him and Jimmy Carter preemptively pardoned legions of draft dodgers with no charges pending.

[David King @fulhaminky]

@erichhartmann It does. See., e.g., Richard Nixon, Vietnam draft dodgers.

[David King @fulhaminky]

@SenRandPaul Here's a question to ask that would be a good test for his invocation: "Did your assistant destroy emails or other documents as that term is generally understood that would have been responsive to FOIA requests had they not been destroyed?" While speculative, no self-incrimination possible. He can safely answer yes because even if he directed he is absolved of that potential crime. If he answers no, he lies, but not to protect incriminating himself, but his assistant. And that is not covered by the 5A.

[David King @fulhaminky]

@neoavatara Not if the pardon wasn't legitimate in the first place.

[David King @fulhaminky]

Exactly. Exactly right. And it gives rise to another very unusual thing happening here today because it is Congress: no attorney or judge would ever allow a person invoking their 5A right to take this badgering or repeated questioning. At a deposition or interview, the person would be asked a few questions and then be asked if they intended to give the same answer to all questions and if the invoker said yes, the proceeding would end. In court, a criminal witness typically does not invoke in front of the jury for fear of making a wrongful inference. But what Sen. Paul is doing here is allowed and I'd say just desserts.