On the Issue of Pardons, Why Haven't They Been Handed out Like Confetti Already?

I just heard on CBS This Morning that a member of Trump's legal team said that pardons are not being discussed and are "not on the table."

To what extent can we believe anything coming out of the White House?

Anyway, my original question still stands: why have no pardons been issued yet? So, what is the possible mindset behind this?

Here's a thought: there have been no pardons because nobody did anything wrong. This is just a witch hunt by sore-loser Dems.

Even at the high-water mark of the investigation, Trump Jr.'s meeting, legal experts are straining logic trying to find a law this might have broken. How about a campaign finance law barring foreign donation of "things of value"? (Nope, that's intended for tangible good and services, like printing fliers or buying advertising time.) But foreign governments can't interfere in an election! (The Russian lady is not any kind of government official.) One truely desperate soul even suggested a law barring private citizens from interfering in diplomacy. (Dennis Rodman should worry about that one.)

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough
I was thinking: have people no honor anymore?

I wondered, starting weeks ago actually: why haven't people jumped ship from the White House considering all the West Wing dirt and scandal that has been putting a drag on the Executive's Branch’s performance and, for that matter, the performance of Congress, too?

In fact, a T.V. personality (I forget which one) expressed concern that there, so far, have been no significant wave(s) of resignations being announced by White House personnel as one would expect.

Maybe because the whole partisan mystique is mostly a bunch of delusional poppycock. Did that ever even cross your mind?

WaPo is the most blatant deliberately & diabolically delirious propaganda in print.

I've got some stuff you should read.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Why would they have to answer questions of congress?
This would end congress and the Senate's investigations.
Muellers team could theoretically continue without any criminal charges hanging in the balance.

a reply to: rockintitz

No but the seven to eleven o'clock hours is certainly enough time to get comprehensive information.
Or you know tune into Fox and talk about Hillary's emails some more lol.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

There not anything wrong with your summation.
That's why they attack the source.
It's S.O.P.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Anyway, my original question still stands: why have no pardons been issued yet? So, what is the possible mindset behind this?

because no crimes have been committed?

a reply to: shooterbrody

So when he does issue pardons what will that mean?
Because he's going to fire Sessions and he's going to try and fire Mueller and when that doesn't happen he's going to pardon them.
He can't pardon himself from impeachment proceedings and no president has ever pardoned themselves.
Either way he will be ruined in the social sector and his businesses will suffer.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

I just learned from MSNBC that the Supreme Court has ruled that, for a pardon to be effective, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED by the recipient, and such ACCEPTANCE IS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT! 

Pretty simple, basic common sense works really well when applied here. See...the reason it is called a "pardon" is because it grants a guilty person amnesty from punishment for what they do wrong. If someone is not guilty of any wrongdoing, there would be no reason for a pardon in the first place.

If I do something to wrong another person, and I beg their pardon for doing so, then I'm admitting the wrongdoing occurred, but asking forgiveness for having done it. And if it's granted, that person is also acknowledging my guilt, but choosing to give me another chance anyway. That's what a pardon is. If the person is not guilty, then they do not require a pardon to escape the consequences of their deliberate wrongdoing.

It would stand to reason then, that if there are pardons being given across the board, there's already an acknowledgement of guilt. There's really no way around that, if this actually happens. Accepting a pardon is admitting guilt, period.

The question is, would the guilty party turn right around and do the same thing again if given the chance? That's the biggest issue I have personally...particularly when the guilty party is in a position of power. I see no problem with forgiving wrongdoing once. It's the risk of it happening again that bothers me. I'm not sure how to feel about the idea of a group of people being pardoned en masse by the leader of their group...that sounds like an awful lot of admission of an awful lot of guilt.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Yeah they said they had no dealings or contacts with Russians too.
What's your point?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Burdick vs. United States is the case law and it only refers to people who are already convicted. It does not say anything about people being pardoned when they are never charged.

I disagree--according to justia.com, Burdick's pardon, offered by Woodrow Wilson, was in response to him being unwilling to testify during a grand jury investigation for the case of "United States v. John Doe and Richard Roe." Burdick was concerned that his testimony would be self-incriminating, so the pardon issued was a blanket pardon for, as the actual pardon put it:

Now therefore be it known, that I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States of America, ... do hereby grant unto the said George Burdick a full and unconditional pardon for all offenses against the United States which he, the said George Burdick, has committed or may have committed or taken part in in connection with the securing, writing about, or assisting in the publication of the information so incorporated in the aforementioned article, and in connection with any other article, matter, or thing concerning which he may be interrogated in the said grand jury proceeding, thereby absolving him from the consequences of every such criminal act.

As you'll note, this pardon was not offered because Burdick was accused or convicted of anything, or even facing a trial where he was the defendant, but as a way to coax him into testifying without fear of trial or conviction for anything that may have been done by him that was illegal. Basically, it was the president trying to give him roundabout immunity for his testimony, but trying to sweeten the deal by further stating that he is basically absolved of any wrongdoing for multiple things in association with his job as a newspaper editor--it appears to be an attempt at amnesty for Burdick.

Now, the first cited reason that the pardon was rejected as illegal by the court was because of its vagueness--it didn't specify any specific charges on which Burdick may have been subsequently indicted after testimony. Secondly, and probably more importantly, the court cited also that:

It is asserted besides that the pardon is void as being outside of the power of the President under the Constitution of the United States because it was issued before accusation or conviction or admission of an offense. This, it is insisted, is precluded by the constitutional provision which gives power only "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States," and it is argued, in effect, that not in the imagination or purpose of executive magistracy can an "offense against the United States" be established, but only by the confession of the offending individual or the judgment of the judicial tribunals.

My point being that a pardon is not only legal if someone is already convicted, but can be offered also when they have admitted to or been formally charged with specific crimes--a conviction does not appear to be necessary.

An interesting thing to note from reading that link thoroughly is that the state had Burdick detained because he would not testify, even with a pardon. It was a previous case, U.S. v Wilson, that determined that a pardon was tantamount to an offer of property, and that it had to be accepted and cited before being valid in the court. They basically felt that Burdick was in contempt by not testifying because he had the pardon--this was not the case. He rejected the pardon multiple times and basically "plead the fifth," which is his absolute right to do.

But here's the interesting--and important--part of it all that I think many get confused on:

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. [This is the point of the OP, I believe, and it's accurate] The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given 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.

It is of little service to assert or deny an analogy between amnesty and pardon. Mr. Justice Field, in Knote v. United States, 95 U. S. 149, 95 U. S. 153, said that "the distinction between them is one rather of philological interest than of legal importance." This is so as to their ultimate effect, but there are incidental differences of importance. They are of different character and have different purposes. The one overlooks offense; the other remits punishment.

So, yes, in the eyes of the court, a pardon, when issued, is the president saying, "Hey, we know that you committed this offense," and an acceptance and usage of said pardon is the individual replying, "Yeah, I did...thanks for letting me not get punished for it."

Also to note, many people seem to mistake a pardon as being synonymous with amnesty (as it appears even Woodrow Wilson did)--it is not, as is noted in that last quoted paragraph. Amnesty disregards the commission of an offense altogether, whereas a pardon only affects how someone is punished for an offense.

This is a fine detail, but a worthy one to note.

As for Burdick, this determination concerning the pardon and his refusal subsequent assertion of his fifth-amendment right against self incrimination, concluded the court's opinion thusly:

Judgment reversed, with directions to dismiss the proceedings in contempt, and discharge Burdick from custody.

That, everyone, is a win for individual rights, as a pardon cannot be forced upon an individual.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

So when he does issue pardons what will that mean?
Because he's going to fire Sessions and he's going to try and fire Mueller and when that doesn't happen he's going to pardon them.
He can't pardon himself from impeachment proceedings and no president has ever pardoned themselves.
Either way he will be ruined in the social sector and his businesses will suffer.

yeah and hillary was going to win the election wasnt she.....
when you get a grip on reality come on back with your predictions
at least Carnac the Magnificent was funny ....you are not

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough
Anyway, my original question still stands: why have no pardons been issued yet? So, what is the possible mindset behind this?

See my responsehere, if you want a thorough, factual answer.

But in short, pardons can only be issues in the event of someone being charge with, admitting to, or convicted of a criminal act. Blanket pardons before either of these three instances have occurred are illegal and invalid.

This is why all of those fears of Obama pardoning Clinton before he left office for things that she hadn't been charged with were unfounded fears based on ignorance. The same applies here.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Why do you think he'd pardon Sessions if he can't fire him? What would be the point in that? He's already publicly stated that he regretted appointing him. Why would he then go on and do him the favor of giving him a pardon?

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

You can't pardon someone until there is something to pardon them for.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rockintitz

No but the seven to eleven o'clock hours is certainly enough time to get comprehensive information.
Or you know tune into Fox and talk about Hillary's emails some more lol.

Oh god, 4 full hours of msnbc? I hope they pay you well.

Still have not heard who's being charged/pardoned and what for.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
My point being that a pardon is not only legal if someone is already convicted, but can be offered also when they have admitted to or been formally charged with specific crimes--a conviction does not appear to be necessary.

A conviction is not necessary for a Presidential pardon and Nixon's pardon is evidence of that. A limited use pardon is what was being challenge and scotus rejected that assertion. A pardon is also not incumbent on the person receiving it admitting guilt. The DOJ and the pardon att5ornies came up with guidelines, including admitting guilt, having been convicted and have served at least 5 years of the sentence. Those "guidelines" have no constitutional basis and is a measuring stick they use and nothing more. The sctous ruling in question dealt solely with a conviction prior to receiving a pardon.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
An interesting thing to note from reading that link thoroughly is that the state had Burdick detained because he would not testify, even with a pardon. It was a previous case, U.S. v Wilson, that determined that a pardon was tantamount to an offer of property, and that it had to be accepted and cited before being valid in the court. They basically felt that Burdick was in contempt by not testifying because he had the pardon--this was not the case. He rejected the pardon multiple times and basically "plead the fifth," which is his absolute right to do.

and it also resolved the question about the attempted limited use pardon.

In response to the questions posed about pleading the 5th if the person is not the subject of a criminal investigation there is no 5th application. There is a reduced 5th invocation in civil cases though since the constitution is specific with criminal applications.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
But here's the interesting--and important--part of it all that I think many get confused on:

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. [This is the point of the OP, I believe, and it's accurate] The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given 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.

It is of little service to assert or deny an analogy between amnesty and pardon. Mr. Justice Field, in Knote v. United States, 95 U. S. 149, 95 U. S. 153, said that "the distinction between them is one rather of philological interest than of legal importance." This is so as to their ultimate effect, but there are incidental differences of importance. They are of different character and have different purposes. The one overlooks offense; the other remits punishment.

So, yes, in the eyes of the court, a pardon, when issued, is the president saying, "Hey, we know that you committed this offense," and an acceptance and usage of said pardon is the individual replying, "Yeah, I did...thanks for letting me not get punished for it."

Also to note, many people seem to mistake a pardon as being synonymous with amnesty (as it appears even Woodrow Wilson did)--it is not, as is noted in that last quoted paragraph. Amnesty disregards the commission of an offense altogether, whereas a pardon only affects how someone is punished for an offense.

This is a fine detail, but a worthy one to note.

As for Burdick, this determination concerning the pardon and his refusal subsequent assertion of his fifth-amendment right against self incrimination, concluded the court's opinion thusly:

Judgment reversed, with directions to dismiss the proceedings in contempt, and discharge Burdick from custody.

That, everyone, is a win for individual rights, as a pardon cannot be forced upon an individual.

Sure but was it a ruling or dicta? Thats the question and until a person is pardoned without charge and its challenged, its considered to be the latter and not the former (IE dicta).

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough
Anyway, my original question still stands: why have no pardons been issued yet? So, what is the possible mindset behind this?

See my responsehere, if you want a thorough, factual answer.

But in short, pardons can only be issues in the event of someone being charge with, admitting to, or convicted of a criminal act. Blanket pardons before either of these three instances have occurred are illegal and invalid.

This is why all of those fears of Obama pardoning Clinton before he left office for things that she hadn't been charged with were unfounded fears based on ignorance. The same applies here.

I still disagree and explained shy. Nixon was pardoned. Until someone is pardoned who has not be charged and its challenged, the courts ruling on that issue is viewed as a dicta and not a ruling. Nixons pardon stood.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

You can't pardon someone until there is something to pardon them for.

A presidential pardon can be used when no charges exist.

Ironic that people will bitch about a pardon without charges yet be ok with a special prosecutor with no crime to prosecute.