Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   In Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt, and acceptance carries a confession   (politico.com) divider line
80
    More: Giggity, President of the United States, White House, Ivanka Trump, presidential advisers, Donald Trump, President Donald Trump, wealthy neighbor, last-minute pardons  
•       •       •

5216 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Dec 2020 at 9:30 PM (19 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



80 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Be polite walk on the right
2020-12-04 11:17:27 PM  

Mugato: Why do we even have a presidential pardon?


because its not illegal when the president does it GOD HAVENT U BEEN PAYING ATTENTION THE LAST 250 HEARS

/WHY DO I EVEN BOTHER
 
jaytkay [OhFark]
2020-12-04 11:18:10 PM  

quizzical: Do you lose your right to vote if you accept a pardon?


USDOJ - Does a presidential pardon expunge or erase the conviction for which the pardon was granted?

"No.  Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President.  Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record.  Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record. However, a pardon will facilitate removal of legal disabilities imposed because of the conviction, and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from the conviction.  In addition, a pardon may be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment."
 
red5ish
2020-12-04 11:18:52 PM  
Wow. We were on safer ground when we were discussing the Middle East.

Suffice it to say that if Trump* pardons himself there will be a massive legal cluster Fark. Arguing will occur, yelling even. Fists will pound desks and fingers will be wagged and pointed. Pundits will weigh in and nuts will prove once more that they are indeed nuts.
And during this confusion many bank transfers will be made and one-way tickets purchased.
 
BMulligan
2020-12-04 11:23:12 PM  

monsatano: Subby be trolling


Subby be making up shiat that just ain't true. Consider, for example, a pardon granted on the basis of actual innocence.
 
BMulligan
2020-12-04 11:26:43 PM  

MaliFinn: Pardons are only exercised after conviction.  Also, pardons are an admission of guilt and are a great basis for suing someone into the poorhouse.


Every word of this is completely wrong.
 
BMulligan
2020-12-04 11:29:48 PM  

HideAndGoFarkYourself: MaliFinn: Pardons are only exercised after conviction.  Also, pardons are an admission of guilt and are a great basis for suing someone into the poorhouse.

Tell that to Nixon.

There's so much disinformation about pardons going around that I'm beginning to think pardons, HIPAA and Section 230 are outside the realm of understanding fir any human person.


Wait til you get to substantive due process, the Eleventh Amendment, or the Rule Against Perpetuties. In one famous case, a California court held that simply misunderstanding the Rule Against Perpetuities cannot, by itself, constitute malpractice because no one really understands the Rule Against Perpetuities.
 
BMulligan
2020-12-04 11:31:57 PM  

t3knomanser: If you've been pardoned for a crime, especially if you've received a blanket pardon for ill defined crimes, that means that any testimony you give is pretty much immune to self-incrimination, which means you have no 5th amendment protections and can be compelled to testify. So, y'know, we've got that to look forward to.


Okay, so this part is correct. No legal jeopardy means no possibility of self-incrimination. In that sense, a pardon is equivalent to a conviction - both remove the possibility of exposure to legal jeopardy.
 
BMulligan
2020-12-04 11:33:42 PM  

quizzical: Do you lose your right to vote if you accept a pardon?


To the contrary, a pardon restores a convict's right to vote.
 
monsatano [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-12-04 11:40:41 PM  

BMulligan: monsatano: Subby be trolling

Subby be making up shiat that just ain't true. Consider, for example, a pardon granted on the basis of actual innocence.


Like I said - subby be trolling
 
jm105 [BareFark]
2020-12-04 11:46:10 PM  

namegoeshere: vudukungfu: just remember the next president can revoke a pardon granted by the last.
checkmix

Is this true?


It's true. This man has no dick.
 
LurkerSupreme [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-12-04 11:48:59 PM  
Ctrl+F on TFA: Supreme

No results found.

F*ck you subby.
 
Magorn [TotalFark]
2020-12-05 12:07:26 AM  

vudukungfu: just remember the next president can revoke a pardon granted by the last.
checkmix


Doubtful.

However.   Accepting a pardon removes your right to remain silent under the 5th amendment since no legal jeopardy can attach.   S Congress...say the House oversight and government reform committee, could subpoena every pardon recipient and ask them essentially to give a full confession of all the illegal acts they committed which were subject to the pardon.    If they answer fully and truthfully, we have a record in thier own words, and should be able to ferret out their un-pardoned co-conspirators.

If they lie or omit or otherwise testify falsely, well, their pardon only worked for crimes committed up to the day it was granted, not new crimes...
 
Stibium
2020-12-05 12:52:37 AM  
For Fark legal scholars, why didn't the prosecution offer immunity to Burdick after he refused the pardon and before it went to SCOTUS? It would have seemed to have been much more simple to have offered immunity in the first place because the prosecution had that power and right, as opposed to going out of their way to get a pardon.
 
Aquapope
2020-12-05 1:26:51 AM  
So if the SCOTUS has ruled that way historically, how can a pardon be for an undefined crime?  As in "I pardon Flynn for anything he might have done related to the Mueller investigation."  How can that carry an imputation of guilt for a crime not enumerated?  Or is he guilty of, and confessing to, every single crime alleged, or even implied, by the Mueller report?  No investigation or trial necessary, he's already confessed.
 
Stibium
2020-12-05 1:38:55 AM  

Aquapope: So if the SCOTUS has ruled that way historically, how can a pardon be for an undefined crime?  As in "I pardon Flynn for anything he might have done related to the Mueller investigation."  How can that carry an imputation of guilt for a crime not enumerated?  Or is he guilty of, and confessing to, every single crime alleged, or even implied, by the Mueller report?  No investigation or trial necessary, he's already confessed.


This was essentially the argument Burdick made when he rejected his pardon. I don't think it would have a chance of surviving legal challenge. Then again with *rump's SCOTUS, who knows? An unconditional, blanket may be useful, but it would assume the pardoned individual is a cooperating and truthful witness acting in good faith. I would think defense would bring some sort of objection* that could get elevated to SCOTUS if they really wanted it hard enough.

/* not sure what that objection would be to, considering such confession is not being coerced
//"the prosecution made my case look bad!" isn't that objection
 
Gyrfalcon [TotalFark]
2020-12-05 2:02:55 AM  

qorkfiend: HideAndGoFarkYourself: MaliFinn: Pardons are only exercised after conviction.  Also, pardons are an admission of guilt and are a great basis for suing someone into the poorhouse.

Tell that to Nixon.

There's so much disinformation about pardons going around that I'm beginning to think pardons, HIPAA and Section 230 are outside the realm of understanding fir any human person.

Ah, well the dirty secret of the Nixon pardon is that it wasn't ever exercised. No one ever actually charged Nixon so he never actually had to try and use it.


Ding!

Also dirty secret of the Nixon pardon is that after the release of the Nixon tapes, everyone knew he was in it up to his shifty eyebrows. He was done. Ford's pardon essentially forestalled a fait accompli in the courtroom--Nixon was guilty, there was zero question; he also wouldn't have been able to get a fair trial anywhere in the solar system. All the pardon did was quash another decade of legal wrangling.
 
Aquapope
2020-12-05 2:05:06 AM  

Stibium: Aquapope: So if the SCOTUS has ruled that way historically, how can a pardon be for an undefined crime?  As in "I pardon Flynn for anything he might have done related to the Mueller investigation."  How can that carry an imputation of guilt for a crime not enumerated?  Or is he guilty of, and confessing to, every single crime alleged, or even implied, by the Mueller report?  No investigation or trial necessary, he's already confessed.

This was essentially the argument Burdick made when he rejected his pardon. I don't think it would have a chance of surviving legal challenge. Then again with *rump's SCOTUS, who knows? An unconditional, blanket may be useful, but it would assume the pardoned individual is a cooperating and truthful witness acting in good faith. I would think defense would bring some sort of objection* that could get elevated to SCOTUS if they really wanted it hard enough.

/* not sure what that objection would be to, considering such confession is not being coerced
//"the prosecution made my case look bad!" isn't that objection


Could investigators use his presumed guilt of anything involving the Mueller report to pressure him to spill his guts about everybody involved, ultimately locking Flynn up for obstruction if he doesn't cooperate?  That obstruction wouldn't be covered under the pardon because it's new.  Right?  Maybe?
 
PunGent
2020-12-05 5:32:18 AM  

abb3w: vudukungfu: just remember the next president can revoke a pardon granted by the last

(No, he can't. The next president can, however, refuse to deliver it to the recipient if the recipient has not obtained it, thereby nullifying the effect.)


We'll probably get to find out if Twitter counts as "official delivery"...

/farking clown show
 
JustSayYo
2020-12-05 7:41:45 AM  

qorkfiend: Mister Peejay: Jake Havechek: Yar.  It's not a "clean slate".  It means you admit you did all the bad stuff you were convicted of but you're not getting punished for it.  It's still on your record, like convicted felon Dinesh D'Sousa.

Wouldn't that also open you up to being unable to defend against civil suits?

It depends. There's not always a civil cause of action.

If someone was convicted and then pardoned for murder, you could probably introduce that into a civil proceeding about wrongful death or negligence or something (similar to what happened to OJ). However, it would be impossible to sue someone else who was pardoned for, say, tax fraud (unless he was perhaps also your accountant and the fraud was related to your taxes). There's generally no remedy to be had even if you could show harm.


But if someone is giving a blanket pardon, then can't you just civilly sue them for anything and everything, since that is what they been pardoned for?
 
mrmopar5287
2020-12-05 9:05:54 AM  

edmo: As in in advance of conviction?


Yes, a pardon can be issued before a crime is discovered by authorities, before it is investigated, before someone is charged, and before someone is convicted.

Or in advance of the crime?

No, this cannot be done.
 
mrmopar5287
2020-12-05 9:06:48 AM  

Jake Havechek: It means you admit you did all the bad stuff you were convicted of


It does not. How do you explain people pardoned for innocence? You think innocent people are required to admit to crimes they didn't commit?
 
ukexpat
2020-12-05 9:09:01 AM  

mrmopar5287: Jake Havechek: It means you admit you did all the bad stuff you were convicted of

It does not. How do you explain people pardoned for innocence? You think innocent people are required to admit to crimes they didn't commit?


...or posthumous pardons...
 
mrmopar5287
2020-12-05 9:10:18 AM  

MaliFinn: Pardons are only exercised after conviction


No, pardons can be issued to prevent someone from being arrested, tried, and convicted of a crime. In my city there was a notable case of wrongful conviction to where a man's murder conviction was overturned and a new trial ordered. My governor pardoned the man based on innocence so that the state could never bring him to trial again. This was done to prevent him from having to live his entire life with the threat that the state could come arrest him for murder at any moment, which would have been psychological torture to live his life like that.
 
richardfitztightly
2020-12-05 9:12:04 AM  

Aquapope: Stibium: Aquapope: So if the SCOTUS has ruled that way historically, how can a pardon be for an undefined crime?  As in "I pardon Flynn for anything he might have done related to the Mueller investigation."  How can that carry an imputation of guilt for a crime not enumerated?  Or is he guilty of, and confessing to, every single crime alleged, or even implied, by the Mueller report?  No investigation or trial necessary, he's already confessed.

This was essentially the argument Burdick made when he rejected his pardon. I don't think it would have a chance of surviving legal challenge. Then again with *rump's SCOTUS, who knows? An unconditional, blanket may be useful, but it would assume the pardoned individual is a cooperating and truthful witness acting in good faith. I would think defense would bring some sort of objection* that could get elevated to SCOTUS if they really wanted it hard enough.

/* not sure what that objection would be to, considering such confession is not being coerced
//"the prosecution made my case look bad!" isn't that objection

Could investigators use his presumed guilt of anything involving the Mueller report to pressure him to spill his guts about everybody involved, ultimately locking Flynn up for obstruction if he doesn't cooperate?  That obstruction wouldn't be covered under the pardon because it's new.  Right?  Maybe?


According to my internet experience understanding of the law, you are somewhat correct. Failure to testify would be contempt of court, not necessarily obstruction of justice. Lying to the court or law enforcement would be obstruction of justice or perjury. If those offenses occurred after the pardon, they would be prosecutable.

However, another angle that I haven't seen mentioned is Flynn's son was rumored to be in legal jeopardy way back when and Gen Flynn's guilty plea agreement had an agreement that his son wouldn't be prosecuted. His son wasn't pardoned. I didn't bother to research anything to see if my memory was correct, so take that with a big grain of salt
 
mrmopar5287
2020-12-05 9:12:15 AM  

Mister Peejay: Wouldn't that also open you up to being unable to defend against civil suits?


Probably depends on if you filed for (requested) the pardon based on your admission of guilt and asking for clemency.

In my state you can request a pardon based on innocence, and it can be granted the same way. Doing that doesn't mean you admit to any guilt, and I presume it would carry that same weight in the defense of a civil suit.
 
mrmopar5287
2020-12-05 9:15:01 AM  

DemonEater: So if you've been convicted and accept the pardon to get out of jail, you admit guilt


Just this week the Illinois Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that pleading guilty to a crime does not preclude a later appeal with a claim of innocence. I wonder how that ruling would affect civil cases where a pardon is involved.
 
mrmopar5287
2020-12-05 9:16:23 AM  

t3knomanser: that means that any testimony you give is pretty much immune to self-incrimination, which means you have no 5th amendment protections and can be compelled to testify


No, you still face potential perjury charges for your testimony. You can assert your 5th Amendment right to avoid perjury charges.
 
mrmopar5287
2020-12-05 9:18:24 AM  

quizzical: Do you lose your right to vote if you accept a pardon?


A pardon is largely about the restoration of rights. People request pardons for lots of reasons, but some of them want the right to vote restored.
 
mrmopar5287
2020-12-05 9:19:21 AM  

Mugato: Why do we even have a presidential pardon?


Because our criminal justice system sucks and sometimes it requires a last chance where a top executive has the power to right wrongs done to people.
 
mrmopar5287
2020-12-05 9:23:51 AM  

jaytkay: Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President.  Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record.  Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record.


Weird. My state allows a person to request a pardon and the governor, if they approve, can approve expungement of convictions. You can take that pardon to court, file for expungement, and the judge is obligated to approve it.
 
Displayed 30 of 80 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

$10 a month since 19 aught diddly.

learn more | sign up

On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.