I’m still not convinced that a president can pardon any crime that has not been accused in the court of law at a minimum and prosecuted and convicted. What crime did he pardon all these people for? He can’t just say “whatever it is, I pardon them”. I don’t think (though I don’t know really) if that is even constitutional, let alone valid.
I mean, if a President can just blanket pardon without a specific crime and case (let a lone a legit reason), then maybe another president can hire a hit man (hypothetically) and take out several opponents, then pardon the hit man. In other words, a blanket pardon is basically a license to commit crime. Any crime.
Some details on the story behind Melania Trump's inaugural hat: Eric Javits stitched it almost entirely by hand and had it hand-delivered to Mrs. Trump by her stylist, Hervé Pierre, after having the first version crushed in the mail. Javits had no idea whether Mrs. Trump would… pic.twitter.com/wVvH5GSWHJ— John 👽 (@JxhnBxnder) January 20, 2025
In Ex parte Garland, which involved President Andrew Johnson’s pardon of a lawyer who had served in the legislature of the Confederacy, the court indicated that the president’s pardon power covers all federal offenses. The president can issue a pardon at any point after a crime is committed and before, during or after criminal proceedings have taken place. The president cannot, however, pardon someone for future crimes. A pardon covers both the offender’s conviction for the crime and the sentence for that crime.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/333/
In Burdick v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed the case of a newspaper editor who declined to testify before a grand jury, invoking the Fifth Amendment, even after the president pardoned him. Burdick declined to accept the pardon, and he was held in contempt for refusing to testify. The question before the Supreme Court was what effect, if any, the unaccepted pardon had. The court ruled that a pardon becomes effective only if it is accepted. The court also compared immunity, granted by Congress, and a pardon, explaining that the differences are “substantial.” Unlike immunity, the court reasoned, a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/
If they accept the pardon then they are confessing that they committed the crimes. A pardon carries an imputation of guilt.
A President cannot pardon for future crimes. But the President can issue a pardon after the crime has been committed but before criminal proceedings have taken place.
So if they accept the pardon they are admitting that a crime took place, they participated in the crime and are guilty of the crime even though criminal proceedings have not taken place. It does not apply to any crimes they may commit in the future.
Fauci, the “J6” committee, Mary McCord the lawfare queen, the Biden family, General Miley etc, by accepting the pardon are admitting they participated in a crime even though criminal proceedings have not taken place.
Vague, yes, especially since no criminal proceedings, i.e. charges filed stating the crime, have taken place, but they have to admit guilt in order to accept the pardon.
The pardon also means Thoroughly Modern Milley can act as an agent for the CCP without filing as a Foreign Agent and would be immune.