Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
This is hilariously absurd. Pre-emptive pardons are not a thing (well... as of now)
|
Again, it happened. Ford gave Nixon a pre-emptive pardon for "all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
A pre-trial admission of guilt as the key factor in an end run? Wild
|
This is where it gets fun. Many people, including Ford when he granted it, believe that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt going at least as far back as 1915 in Burdick vs United States of America:
Quote:
|
This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is non-committal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law giving protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.
|
Now you'll have extremely smart legal scholars argue all sides, that you can or can not pre-emptively pardon someone, that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt or not, etc. Anyone giving definitive answers is 'wrong'; it would obviously end up in front of the SCOTUS and I'd love to see the bookie odds on that.
But wouldn't it be great if the Trump clan accepted a pardon, legally admitting their guilt, only to have the Supreme Court reject the pardon after the fact. Too bad about the balance right now.