Thread by @jedshug

Are you worried about the Supreme Court's upcoming double jeopardy case because it might allow Trump to pardon his way out of trouble?
It won't.
Don't fear it. Embrace it.
My new @Slate piece with @Teri_Kanefield: slate.com/news-and-polit…
cc:@AshaRangappa_ @RDEliason @CBHessick

2/ On Gamble v. U.S.: "Now that Mueller has so many major figures (Manafort, Flynn, Cohen) cooperating or facing a wide range of potential charges, the danger of pleas followed by leverage-removing pardons is probably inconsequential." @emptywheel @aravosis @joshgerstein

3/ Gamble would not really change the rules for Mueller. The relevant states already had such double jeopardy protections (NY, VA, PA, CA), so he already had to strategize around this problem: slate.com/articles/news_…

4/ The lone Manafort hold-out juror ironically helped Mueller with a mistrial, preserving state prosecution on those charges. And Manafort's plea deal is essentially pardon-proof: slate.com/news-and-polit…

5/ The problem remains only for
A) conspirators who committed too small a number of crimes; AND
B) which would be covered by both federal and state law; AND
C) are in states that do not have double jeopardy protections already (NY etc. already have such laws) AND...

And D) those conspirators are close enough to Trump or have such incriminating information beyond what Manafort, etc. have provided that Trump would finally use his pardon power, after not using it so far. That’s an unlikely combination.
@davidrlurie @KDbyProxy @ZephyrTeachout

7/ In the Trump era, it is understandable to worry about obstruction, pardons, and conspiracies. But we should not let a current crisis blind us to a bigger problem in ordinary cases: prosecutorial overreach and incarceration. Gamble could be a small step for crim justice reform.