Posted on 01/20/2025 11:13:52 AM PST by Stanwood_Dave
ArtII.S2.C1.3.7 Legal Effect of a Pardon - Constitution Annotated
More broadly, the {U.S. Supreme} Court ruled in several cases ... the Court in Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915,) stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.
Don’t count on it. Roberts can round up 5 votes to overturn the Burdick decision on the grounds that “it was so long ago and outdated for today’s norms”.
Great point
This would be important in civil suits: as the standard of evidence for criminal guilt (”beyond a reasonable doubt”) is higher than in a civil suit (”preponderance of the evidence”).
I would assume Dem defense lawyers to claim “no specific crime” named: but the pardon is blanket for all crimes.
The pardons should be challenged in court.
The best way to resolve this would be to imprison without bail (”flight risk / national security risk”), and try them for anything they can think of.
If they want to hide behind a pardon, then they are admitting guilt.
Then, once guilty, even if there is not Federal criminal punishment, you now have liability by directed verdict in civil cases...
A commenter on Instapundit wrote:
“Interesting that the Biden family pardons say non-violent offences but Fauci’s covers violent as well.
Trump should just ignore these pardons and name special prosecutors on all this monkey business.”
Only if the pardon is "accepted" by being filed in a court proceeding. If that doesn't happen - and it won't unless the person is prosecuted - they can still assert the Fifth. That was the precise issue in Burdick.
No, you wouldn't. That language from Burdick is dicta.
We might need a short Constitution amendment: “The President cannot pardon any undiscovered crime.”
What’s to prevent the discovery of evidence, indictment of the perpetrator, trial, and conviction?
The fact they won’t serve prison time is the only benefit of the pardon.
Why was Fauci pardoned for violent offenses?
Why back to 2014?
Proof the scandemic was used to overthrow Trump.
I seriously doubt that these pre-emptive pardons will survive a Supreme Court review.
*******************************
It may be reviewed again and changed but the USSC has already ruled that it’s legal. Ford, Bush, Carter, and Lincoln all did it.But that’s just Federal. They have to have committed some state crimes along the way.
Maybe not directed verdict; but if you sue someone related to a crime of which they have already been found guilty, the standard of preponderance of the evidence has already been surpassed.
One would only need to show harm related to the criminal conduct.
President Ford used to carry this quote and case cite around with him when asked about his pardon of Nixon. A person who does not believe himself to be guilty doesn’t need to accept it. A person who does accept it is considered to have been guilty of the crime by the courts, although not everyone shares that belief.
Re: 20 - thank you for underscoring that point.
Read the constitution the power of the pardon is absolute and it’s not subject to Supreme Court review or congressional review.
Re: 33 - President Nixon had not been charged with any crimes.
Does the pardon go away if the witness perjures themself?
These pardons turn the movie "Devil's Advocate" into reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.