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
    More: Giggity, President of the United States, White House, Ivanka Trump, presidential advisers, Donald Trump, President Donald Trump, wealthy neighbor, last-minute pardons  
•       •       •

5200 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Dec 2020 at 9:30 PM (11 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



80 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-12-04 3:39:29 PM  
Ya thunkit?
 
2020-12-04 4:12:25 PM  
Hard to run for president when hiding out in Switzerland or Russia.
 
2020-12-04 4:18:36 PM  
just remember the next president can revoke a pardon granted by the last.
checkmix
 
2020-12-04 6:18:28 PM  
Just how far into the future does this extend? It's preemptive? As in in advance of conviction? Or in advance of the crime? Perhaps they have blanks checks to commit crimes the rest of their lives as if sinning their life away knowing they're forgiven?
 
2020-12-04 6:57:57 PM  
It only so caries in re politica, not de jure.
 
2020-12-04 6:59:15 PM  

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.)
 
2020-12-04 7:00:15 PM  

edmo: Just how far into the future does this extend? It's preemptive? As in in advance of conviction? Or in advance of the crime? Perhaps they have blanks checks to commit crimes the rest of their lives as if sinning their life away knowing they're forgiven?


An offense must have been completed before it may be pardoned.  Prospective and ongoing offenses may not be pardoned until completed.
 
2020-12-04 7:08:17 PM  
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.
 
2020-12-04 7:13:29 PM  

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


Is this true?
 
2020-12-04 7:14:41 PM  

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.)


Aw, man...
 
2020-12-04 9:31:36 PM  
Subby be trolling
 
2020-12-04 9:31:52 PM  

abb3w: edmo: Just how far into the future does this extend? It's preemptive? As in in advance of conviction? Or in advance of the crime? Perhaps they have blanks checks to commit crimes the rest of their lives as if sinning their life away knowing they're forgiven?

An offense must have been completed before it may be pardoned.  Prospective and ongoing offenses may not be pardoned until completed.


So since trump will still be a traitor in debt to russia and doing their bidding of destroying the US from the inside with his lies and BS after hes out of office, all the pardons he gives himself are null and void.
 
2020-12-04 9:34:55 PM  
Every accusation pardon is a confession
 
2020-12-04 9:35:45 PM  
 
2020-12-04 9:37:26 PM  
Pardons are only exercised after conviction.  Also, pardons are an admission of guilt and are a great basis for suing someone into the poorhouse.
 
2020-12-04 9:37:58 PM  
The entire point to TFA was that nobody knows what will happen if and when Trump tries mass pardons, blanket pardons and maybe a self pardon.

SCOTUS ain't said squat yet.
 
2020-12-04 9:39:02 PM  
I'd love to hear Biden say something along the lines of "If Trump can pardon himself and his family, then I'm allowed to do the same". The GOP would lose their shiat.
 
2020-12-04 9:39:34 PM  

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?
 
2020-12-04 9:40:37 PM  

lolmao500: abb3w: edmo: Just how far into the future does this extend? It's preemptive? As in in advance of conviction? Or in advance of the crime? Perhaps they have blanks checks to commit crimes the rest of their lives as if sinning their life away knowing they're forgiven?

An offense must have been completed before it may be pardoned.  Prospective and ongoing offenses may not be pardoned until completed.

So since trump will still be a traitor in debt to russia and doing their bidding of destroying the US from the inside with his lies and BS after hes out of office, all the pardons he gives himself are null and void.


Depends whether you can establish an ongoing crime of conspiracy. Treason usually is a more cohate offense; acts of aid and comfort to the enemy must be specific (and have two witnesses), and therefore generally can't be an ongoing crime (unless the aid and comfort is an ongoing offense, such as holding a kidnap victim hostage).

It might also only be void for those ongoing offenses, as opposed to various tax evasion offense charges he might have outstanding.
 
2020-12-04 9:40:55 PM  

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

Is this true?


Doubtful.
 
2020-12-04 9:44:00 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.


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.
 
2020-12-04 9:45:18 PM  

MaliFinn: Pardons are only exercised after conviction.


Not true. They may be presented at any point subsequent to being charged before a court, which in turn may make presenting such charges sufficiently pointless that a prosecutor is unlikely to even file if a prosecutor knows that an offender has received pardon for that offense.
 
2020-12-04 9:46:05 PM  
"Non traditional" is a farked up way of spelling "farking insane".
 
2020-12-04 9:46:32 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.


It probably doesn't help that for each of those things there's "How it's supposed to work" and "How it actually works because our laws were stupidly written," so I can't really blame people for being confused.  We actually used to have laws, that we sometimes enforced.
 
2020-12-04 9:47:29 PM  
I have not really dug hard into the details, but I have a hard time with the "Flynn was railroaded" narrative.

Dude was tapped by the President to be the National Security Advisor and he got trickerated by some fancy talkin' FBI types into perjuring himself? All the best people, indeed, It was probably best that he didn't get the job. One can only wonder how he would have been played by other countries.
 
2020-12-04 9:48:21 PM  

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

Is this true?


No
 
2020-12-04 9:49:12 PM  

abb3w: It only so caries in re politica, not de jure.


I saw someone explain that it counts only if you *use* it. So if you've been convicted and accept the pardon to get out of jail, you admit guilt, but if you're being investigated and they pack it in because you have the pardon in your pocket so it'd waste their time to continue, you admit nothing.

I read this on the internet though so while it seems reasonable, it should be taken aporopriately
 
2020-12-04 9:51:52 PM  
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.
 
2020-12-04 9:53:26 PM  

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.
 
2020-12-04 9:53:50 PM  

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.)


Be a downright shame if there was something wrong with the mail mail mail mail mail mail mail mail.

/been drinking
//love Tex Avery
///who doesn't?
 
2020-12-04 9:55:17 PM  
The result is yet another looming showdown between Trump and the broader Republican Party.


Ha, ha, ha, no.

The Republicans will allow him to do whatever he wants, establish the precedent, and when a smarter more evil Republican becomes President, will just sit back and say it's a-ok when they do something on par or even worse.
 
2020-12-04 9:57:14 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.


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.
 
2020-12-04 10:00:48 PM  
And without a word from the GOP, they secretly want to see if this will stand up in court, because if it does, they will commit crimes with impunity knowing they will never receive punishment beyond an admission of guilt.
 
2020-12-04 10:02:51 PM  
"Imputation of guilt" does not mean "they did it."

People really ought to first examine the definition of "impute" and then read the actual Burdick decision. Burdick wasn't going to get the same protection by a vague pardon as he would have gotten with a more specific immunity deal, and that's why he did not accept it. The fact that it "makes you look guilty" was secondary, and was not part of the original question brought to SCOTUS, which was whether or not you could force a pardon on someone. The imputation of guilt is immaterial to that decision, so it carries little weight for future consideration.

Furthermore, if such a thing were actually true, and not just a feature of public perception, why would it even be written into the Constitution? To say "a pardon means you are definitely guilty" would imply that truly innocent people cannot be pardoned; how could you be innocent if you accept a pardon?
 
2020-12-04 10:03:50 PM  
Do you lose your right to vote if you accept a pardon?
 
2020-12-04 10:04:21 PM  
Well. This is useful.

I wonder what the ghosts of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford have to say about this.

But you know, the deal which was struck for the pardoning of Nixon was based on such a mountain of norms and traditions and traded favors and mutual understandings that it probably does not very much apply to the situation today. I feel confident in saying that the Nixon resignation deal could not be done in today's America.
 
2020-12-04 10:05:15 PM  
Why do we even have a presidential pardon?
 
2020-12-04 10:05:49 PM  

edmo: Just how far into the future does this extend? It's preemptive? As in in advance of conviction? Or in advance of the crime? Perhaps they have blanks checks to commit crimes the rest of their lives as if sinning their life away knowing they're forgiven?


It's preemptive in the sense that future prosecutions can not be carried out for crimes that have already been committed. Pardons cannot cover future crimes.
 
2020-12-04 10:09:34 PM  

harleyquinnical: And without a word from the GOP, they secretly want to see if this will stand up in court, because if it does, they will commit crimes with impunity knowing they will never receive punishment beyond an admission of guilt.


If I were a cynic, I'd wonder if the Democrats want to "heal and move on" because they know that setting the precedent of holding the rich and powerful accountable for their many crimes could end up exposing them too, even if it's an order of magnitude less.

Which is, of course, why it (holding them accountable) must be done and we should be prepared for a few losses on our side as well, even after subtracting Republican projection and lies.
 
2020-12-04 10:13:15 PM  

iron_city_ap: I'd love to hear Biden say something along the lines of "If Trump can pardon himself and his family, then I'm allowed to do the same". The GOP would lose their shiat.


No, then the GOP will start acting pragmatically.
 
2020-12-04 10:13:36 PM  

Stibium: "Imputation of guilt" does not mean "they did it."

People really ought to first examine the definition of "impute" and then read the actual Burdick decision. Burdick wasn't going to get the same protection by a vague pardon as he would have gotten with a more specific immunity deal, and that's why he did not accept it. The fact that it "makes you look guilty" was secondary, and was not part of the original question brought to SCOTUS, which was whether or not you could force a pardon on someone. The imputation of guilt is immaterial to that decision, so it carries little weight for future consideration.

Furthermore, if such a thing were actually true, and not just a feature of public perception, why would it even be written into the Constitution? To say "a pardon means you are definitely guilty" would imply that truly innocent people cannot be pardoned; how could you be innocent if you accept a pardon?


TL;DR: Subby is a troll.
 
2020-12-04 10:18:26 PM  

Stibium: "Imputation of guilt" does not mean "they did it."

People really ought to first examine the definition of "impute" and then read the actual Burdick decision. Burdick wasn't going to get the same protection by a vague pardon as he would have gotten with a more specific immunity deal, and that's why he did not accept it. The fact that it "makes you look guilty" was secondary, and was not part of the original question brought to SCOTUS, which was whether or not you could force a pardon on someone. The imputation of guilt is immaterial to that decision, so it carries little weight for future consideration.

Furthermore, if such a thing were actually true, and not just a feature of public perception, why would it even be written into the Constitution? To say "a pardon means you are definitely guilty" would imply that truly innocent people cannot be pardoned; how could you be innocent if you accept a pardon?


So you are saying the people that accept plea bargains because the trial would be too costly and take too much time should have those expunged?
 
2020-12-04 10:22:27 PM  
Trump may be doing Biden a favor. There's a lot of pressure on Biden to either go after Trump and his associates or to just let it go.  If Trump pardons them this takes the pressure off of Biden while allowing the states, like New York, to still go after them.
 
2020-12-04 10:25:45 PM  
Anyone can get a pardon these days..

Pardon in a can
 
2020-12-04 10:28:28 PM  

haknudsen: So you are saying the people that accept plea bargains because the trial would be too costly and take too much time should have those expunged?


If that is specifically true, then they should pursue expungement if they so desire. Unfortunately that tends to be the equivalent of pissing up a rope unless you were a minor or somehow get lucky enough to obtain some sort of relief to that effect from a higher authority. Your fight is made all that more difficult because you agreed to the plea bargain in the first place. Now you have to prove that the original deal was made under some sort of duress. That's not always easy, nor is it always objectively apparent.None of that has anything to do with imputation of guilt and Burdick though.
 
2020-12-04 10:29:52 PM  

Stibium: "Imputation of guilt" does not mean "they did it."

People really ought to first examine the definition of "impute" and then read the actual Burdick decision. Burdick wasn't going to get the same protection by a vague pardon as he would have gotten with a more specific immunity deal, and that's why he did not accept it. The fact that it "makes you look guilty" was secondary, and was not part of the original question brought to SCOTUS, which was whether or not you could force a pardon on someone. The imputation of guilt is immaterial to that decision, so it carries little weight for future consideration.

Furthermore, if such a thing were actually true, and not just a feature of public perception, why would it even be written into the Constitution? To say "a pardon means you are definitely guilty" would imply that truly innocent people cannot be pardoned; how could you be innocent if you accept a pardon?


This is it in a nutshell. And let's not forget that pardons have been issued in cases of a clear miscarriage of justice that, for whatever reason, is not subject to further judicial appeal, and in cases where the pardoned person is dead - in neither of those cases it is logical for there to be an admission of guilt.
 
2020-12-04 10:48:30 PM  
It was established that you can't prove your innocence after accepting a pardon in Bear Anus v. Woods.
 
2020-12-04 10:54:03 PM  

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.


Look, everyone knows if Trump pardoned you that you were on your knees licking him clean after he soiled his diaper.
 
2020-12-04 11:01:57 PM  

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.


Assuming no civil recourse, let me translate what you just said into sociopath:

1) Commit crime.
2) Collect loot / gain benefit of crime.
3) [Optionally charged and/or convicted]
4) Pardoned whether for perceived loyalty, bribery, kickback, whatever., as long as the pardoned gets to keep the loot.

Fark user imageView Full Size


"So lemme get this straight. I may or may not have commited a crime, but a pardon means I get to keep the loot from whatever crimes I may or may not have committed."
"Correct, but it's also an admission of guilt!""
"Whatever, the question I'm asking is I keep the loot, right?"
"Right, but it's an admission of gui-"
*clicks accept-pardon button*
"What if you weren't guilty? Like, even if you pleaded not guilty the first time you went to court"
*clicks accept-pardon button again*
"But someone might call you 'convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza' instead of 'totally innocent Dinesh D'Souza!'"
*clicks accept-pardon button two more times to collect a fourth dose of loot*
 
2020-12-04 11:12:03 PM  

qorkfiend: 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.


There's nothing secret about it. Nixon was not prosecuted because of the pardon.
 
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
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
2020-12-04 11:48:59 PM  
Ctrl+F on TFA: Supreme

No results found.

F*ck you subby.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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...
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 80 of 80 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





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.