Re: Why Biden's Last Second Pardons Were SHAMEFUL.

On 1/22/2025 1:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 1/21/2025 2:19 PM, Rhino wrote:

On 2025-01-21 4:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

Dana Loesch reacts to Joe Biden's final act as President by issuing
preemptive pardons to Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley and select
members of his family.
>
https://youtu.be/1SUzugSl2zU?si=hTexzTIs3GIpS2Dq
>

>
I would be very curious to see what would happen if someone contested a
preemptive pardon in the courts. Let's say someone wanted to have Fauci
charged with something he did during the period covered by the pardon.
His lawyers would obviously cite the pardon but what if the prosecutor
didn't think a preemptive pardon was a power held by the president and
proceeded with the trial. Presumably any guilty verdict would be
challenged on appeal but then the appeal could be challenged as well. I
can't help but wonder what the Supreme Court would rule about the
presidential pardon power if the case made it to them.
>
Or have preemptive pardons already been tested in court and found to be
a valid expression of a president's powers?
>
A preemptive pardon seems like a presumption of the guilt of the
recipient by the president which would seem to go against the entire
presumption of innocence at the heart of the legal system.

>
...except that it was stated to be expressly NOT such a presumption.

 Doesn't matter what the text of the pardon says in that regard. The courts
have long held that accepting a pardon is an implicit admission of guilt by
the recipient.

If a pardon is broad-based (say, for "events related to the Capitol on Jan 6 2021") then any admission of guilt would seem to occur only if and when a court-action is brought, and only for its specific charge.  I.e., formally accepting such a pardon surely can't be an automatic confession to every crime conceivable under it.