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.
Trump can now do what Ford did (and Biden didn’t have time left to do) and explain the Pardon and how it will be good for America to understand the crimes committed and ensure that these crimes never happen again as the investigators turn over ever stone to get the details on these crimes. Biden no longer speaks for the Executive branch so all that is left for him and his people to do is preserve documents and answer questions.
“I’m quite certain there would be other countries who would just love to get their hands on him.”
Good point.
Biden wrote in a statement. “Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe these attacks will end.”
What attacks? He didn’t specify any attack much less attacks.
No - the issue is that accepting a pardon is NOT an admission of guilt. That was clearly dicta, not a holding with any precedential value.
If a pardon is for a conviction of a crime, and most of these pardons have no crime conviction, then how can they be pardons? Legally, is there such a thing a pre-pardon? Isn’t it more accurately defined as a license to commit crime? How can they be legal or upheld?
According to the 1915 SCOTUS ruling on Burdick Vs. The US accepting a pardon IS an admission of guilt.
But, whatever.
Being prosecuted for breaking the law is not an attack.
As the day goes by, I'm getting more concerned about the precedent. As others have said, a pardon is not supposed to be a get out of jail free card.
We all know about the Biden crime family, 10% for the big guy, etc, etc.
Suppose someone comes forward and accuses one of the pardonees of rape, or theft by fraud, or anything else not currently suspected.
It cannot be true that the victim has no legal redress.
The court has not had to rule on blanket pre-emptive pardons because no President has ever been bold enough to try it - until now.
But now that it has happened, we really do need to get a line drawn in the sand to better define a pardon "for offenses against the United States" when the pardon is unconnected to a specific offense.
And you really ought to be more careful criticizing others for something about which you personally know so little. Try reading Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866), which states, in pertinent part, as follows:
"The Constitution provides that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." [Footnote 6] The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control."
So the Supreme Court already has heard this issue, and disagrees with you.
Again, that is dicta, not a holding. Big difference.
Doubtful. Who’s the Plaintiff?
Well thanks for that.
It gave me the information I did not have.
They can not be granted for acts that person may commit in the future.
I do wonder if a requirement that the pardon contains some degree of specificity in terms of the actions being pardoned has ever made it up to SCOTUS.
This is definitely reviewable by the Supreme Court.
I agree. If no crime has occurred, there is nothing to forgive or waive legal consequences for.
The court could agree that while a president can issue a pardon preemptively for potential crimes, a pardon would only be applied in the sentencing phase of a crime and only if the granting president was yet in office.
The court could view pardons as EO's are viewed: they do not outlive a president's term.
Otherwise this ridiculous result: On the first day of a new term a president could grant a pardon (i.e., immunity) to every member of his government that would last a lifetime.
All those children with HIV and AIDs who were experimented with. Actually I think that was back in the 70’s.
Interesting discussion.
Presidents have made pardons for specific issues...different than Biden? - yep...specific charges(though not specifically charged) and not pre-emptive of anything else - they were in violation of the law but hadn’t been charged.
Pres. Carter granted pardons to draft dodgers via a proclamation implemented via E.O 11967.
What weight does presidential amnesty have ? better than a pardon ? I guess it depends on the conditions.
interesting that Pres. Truman and Ford issued amnesty & conditional amnesty to military dodgers in 47 & 74.
Pres. Lincoln issued pardons & Pres. Johnson issued amnesty to confederate soldiers.
The classic pre-emptive pardon(...all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in... ) that wasn’t challenged was Pres. Ford for Pres. Nixon.
I guess the big question is, does this Pres. Trump admin pursue it ? I’m guessing not.
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.
_________________________________________
The way I see it is that it will protect them from the crimes they committed, but not from future perjury they commit when asked about the crimes. Once they accept the pardon, they can be forced to testify under subpoena under oath about their criminality. This means that their criminality can and should be investigated and if they are found to lie about the pardoned crimes, the perjury committed by their answers under oath are prosecutable. We pretty well know what their crimes are, now let’s see if they will own up to them under oath. The way I see it is that the pardon puts them in a catch 22 position.
I guess the big question is, does this Pres. Trump admin pursue it ? I’m guessing not.
*******************************
I hope you do revisit it. I think it needs to be looked at again. I think the idea of preemptive pardons is ludicrous.
Ex Parte Garland 1866
Are you denying Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he MAY HAVE committed during his presidency?
Saisfied?
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.