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.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
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."
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:
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.
No better still they can have their pardon but the price is a full and frank admission of everything, a detailed account of the grift from the begining,, thousands of pages long, that donny boy has to read out in court
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Also when Bush was leaving office he pardoned several people involved in the Iran-Contra affair including Weinberger who had yet to stand trial. He, however, had been at least charged and the pardon wasn't a generic "of all wrong doing" type.
Lincoln also pre-emptively pardoned Confederate soldiers, so maybe it is a bit more enshrined and less controversial than I thought. What would be controversial, obviously, is if Trump can pardon himself.
Of course he can only pardon people at the federal level so state level could still get him and/or anyone else of any state crimes if they had committed them.
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 12-02-2020 at 01:07 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Also when Bush was leaving office he pardoned several people involved in the Iran-Contra affair including Weinberger who had yet to stand trial. He, however, had been at least charged and the pardon wasn't a generic "of all wrong doing" type.
Lincoln also pre-emptively pardoned Confederate soldiers, so maybe it is a bit more enshrined and less controversial than I thought. What would be controversial, obviously, is if Trump can pardon himself.
Of course he can only pardon people at the federal level so state level could still get him and/or anyone else of any state crimes if they had committed them.
Thanks. I was more of the mindset that at least charges would have to have been levied, not necessarily (although much more likely) that the punishment had been declared
More that a pardon I thought would apply to something known rather than a catch all for whatever that rascal may have been up to
(That is, the context for the pardon would be established).
Point stands that a USA chant is probably in order
Don't quote me, but I don't believe a pardon actually clears a criminal record or prevents a conviction. It just vacates or reduces the punishment.
If Trump grants pre-emptive pardons, it might still be worth prosecuting just to get the truth out there and see how far down the line the corruption goes.
Interesting about the Nixon case is that Nixon initially wanted to decline the pardon because he didn't want to basically admit guilt. Ford insisted he take it.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
HARRISBURG, PA. -- Republicans attempting to undo U.S. President-elect Joe Biden's victory in Pennsylvania asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to take up their lawsuit, three days after it was thrown out by the highest court in the battleground state.
In the request to the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly of northwestern Pennsylvania and the other plaintiffs are asking the court to prevent the state from certifying any contests from the Nov. 3 election, and undo any certifications already made, such as Biden's victory.
They maintain that Pennsylvania's expansive vote-by-mail law is unconstitutional because it required a constitutional amendment to authorize its provisions.
...
Pennsylvania's Supreme Court on Saturday night threw out the lawsuit, including an order by a lower court judge blocking the certification of any uncertified races.
Justices cited the law's 180-day time limit on filing legal challenges to its provisions, as well as the staggering demand that an entire election be overturned retroactively.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Supreme Court already decline to wade into the election, and that they're leaving it up to the individual states?
Also, I don't see how they would even take the case since they've been essentially thrown out of all the lower courts, including the PA Supreme Court. No doubt that Trump believes his cronies on the SC will just hand him a victory on a silver platter, but I just don't think there's any way that this happens, even with the current conservative bias on the court.
Hardcore Trump supporters are interesting to listen to (albeit annoying). We have a couple on our office and I have another Facebook friend who is one too. Not sure why, neither are US citizens but whatever.
Anyway, one of them was talking the other day and said he is coming to the conclusion the Trump may not win. He is still holding out hope for the court challenges but realizes it's a long shot now. But he still holds a glimmer of hope.
The other guy is convinced Trump will still win. Enough Republican States will apparently (in his mind) refuse to send their electoral college voters for the vote (the election was a fraud after all) and instead appoint their own to vote for Trump giving him enough electoral votes to win.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Supreme Court already decline to wade into the election, and that they're leaving it up to the individual states?
Also, I don't see how they would even take the case since they've been essentially thrown out of all the lower courts, including the PA Supreme Court. No doubt that Trump believes his cronies on the SC will just hand him a victory on a silver platter, but I just don't think there's any way that this happens, even with the current conservative bias on the court.
They didn't say they wouldn't get involved, but they did essentially say that the federal courts could not overturn the election-related decisions of the states (but they would potentially overturn results of lower federal courts). You've got the key point there, that the PA courts already threw this out.
I think the Republican SCOTUS members were essentially signalling, pre-election, that where they could help Trump is if a state legislature and state courts invalidated an election, the SCOTUS would keep the federal courts out of it. But that hasn't happened.
It's going to take something like the PA congress going out on a limb and electing their own electors without any evidence, arguing that it's their right to do so, successfully advancing that through the PA courts, at which point the SCOTUS might provide insurance such a plan could withstand any federal court challenges.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
