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.
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.
Well now that they are pardoned Congress can hold hearings on say, the origin of the coronavirus, and one evil little gnome can’t plead the 5th.
Of course I’m quite certain there would be other countries who would just love to get their hands on him...
I seriously doubt that these pre-emptive pardons will survive a Supreme Court review.
There is no constitutional “get-out-of-jail-free” card.
IMO, not even the President should be able to grant blanket pardons for any and all crimes that have not even been discovered yet.
“acceptance a confession of it.”
Is it possible to refuse a pardon? I’ve read that you don’t have a choice in the matter.
It seems the good news is that your Fifth Amendment rights are gone with the pardon since you can no longer incriminate yourself. That should open up avenues for in-depth investigations to expose the treacherous and treasonous Deep State, even if you cannot convict the scumbags. But there are many who did not get a pardon who might now be more easily convicted if the lucky pardoned ones are called to testify.
We have seen how NY has used state laws to create “felonies” that were not illegal and use them to further lawfare.
I sincerely hope that there are some congressional investigations that are fed to certain Red State Attorney Generals who will pick up the ball and perhaps using state RICO laws go after some of these pardoned individuals
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.
_____________________
Furthermore, those granted a pardon now no longer can take the 5th Amendment refusal of testify about their criminality.
Especially Fauci every state should have standing because Americans from every state died because of that evil prick.
There cannot be, or we may as well start calling the President our “King”.
p
This is going to come down to a matter of degree.
For example: The Ford pardon of Richard Nixon had a narrow focus and President Ford actually spoke to the nation to provide justification for his decision. I was mad about it back then but it seems quite reasonable in retrospect.
Counter example: Could President Trump, at 11:59 AM on 1/20/29, pardon “any and all members of the Republican Party, for any crimes committed at any time between their 18th birthday and this morning”? Of course not.
I have mixed feelings about attacking these pardons in the courts. But one thing is for sure - now that mass pardons for undiscovered crimes are a thing, a line is going to have to be drawn somewhere, somehow, by someone.
Congress need to subpoena Traitojoe to testify about the alleged pardons. If he can’t remember signing them or what they are about, then the pardons should be considered fraudulent documents issued by his puppetmasters.
Oh, this is going to come in handy for needling.
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)
United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 7 (1833)
IMHO, accepting the pardon, implying admission of guilt, adds fuel to a lawsuit against that person. Thus, people wrongly harmed can sue the people that Biden pardoned. And also the Dims can sue the people that Trump pardons (if a Dim can dream up some kind of fake suffering against a Jan 6 protester).
“Of course I’m quite certain there would be other countries who would just love to get their hands on him...”
The Fifth Amendment states “…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”
I don’t see anything in the Fifth that that prevents you from using it if what you say can be used in the criminal proceeding of a US State or of another country.
How often do we hear “Anything you say can and will be used against you.”
“It seems the good news is that your Fifth Amendment rights are gone with the pardon since you can no longer incriminate yourself. “
What you say could incriminate you in a State criminal case or that of another sovereign entity.
Biden pardons brother Jim Biden and other family members Monday just before his time in office expired. “My family has been subjected to unrelenting attacks and threats, motivated solely by a desire to hurt me — the worst kind of partisan politics,” Biden wrote in a statement. “Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe these attacks will end.”
Biden also issued pardons for his sister-in-law Sara, his sister Valerie and her husband, John Owens, and his brother Francis. “The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that they engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense,” Biden’s statement continued. Biden’s family has been subject to investigations from House Republicans for overseas business deals in Ukraine. Last month, Biden pardoned his son Hunter for gun and tax crimes.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in several cases ... the Court in Burdick v. US, 236 U.S. 79 (1915,)
stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt; the acceptance a confession of it.
To be clear, that statement about a pardon being an imputation of guilt, etc., was dicta, and not part of the holding of the case. It has no legal impact or effect.
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.