~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no confession of guilt required or implied by a pardon.
I suspect, however, that the pardon provides a less substantial platform for Flynn's future lawsuit than a dismissal would have, which may be one reason it was less preferred than a dismissal.
I also suspect that there are legal/tactical reasons for the pardon at this time, involving one or more of the principals (Powell, Flynn, Sullivan) and the ongoing fight over the election and the Rule of Law.
There’s nothing anyone can say or prove to change the mind of demented leftists full of rage and hate for Flynn and Trump. They deny proof before their eyes. They have TDS. Pardon or nonpardon, they have convinced themselves that he is guilty. These are beyond reach with reality.
thanQ.
:: There is no confession of guilt required or implied by a pardon. ::
I had to look some of this up. I knew about Burdick but not how\if it was used.
“Ruling for the majority in the 1915 case Burdick v. United States, Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna ruled that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.”
Some say that’s not what McKenna meant and not what Burdick was about.
Supposedly, Pres. Ford carried that ruling in a card in his pocket and used it as his justification for the Nixon pardon.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/29/washington/29pardon.html
Ford mentioned Burdick in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives. however, he didn’t mention McKenna’s statement.
There is a sector that says Sullivan can still sentence Flynn.
Flynn withdrew his guilty plea at the end of Jan. 2020.
Sullivan could also follow-up on his threat to charge Flynn for perjury because of his signing his plea agreement admitting guilt.
A lot of speculation but I can’t imagine the tactical reasons for the pardon.
Course, I have no imagination when it comes to this stuff.
The interesting parts are right now before us.