Nixon was charged by the Senate. And resigned before they came to a finding. he was accused of other things too. Those did not come to trial, yes, because of the pardon - but there has to be something one is found guily of by at least the president, for him to pardon you.
It is not a statement that nothing bad happened. It is FAR from a statemenr of innocence of the crime.
As I understand it, accepting a pardon is accepting that you committed a crime and it is a statement that the federal executive will not execute the law in that case. It’s a check on the judiciary (and a good one). It’s not an absolution, at all.
Instead of the executive filing charges with the judiciary, I guess the president can say, “you’re guilty as hell, and the executive brance is going to let it pass this time because [reason]”.
Lets see how it plays out? [reason] cost Ford his re-election.
Oh man, the rats that couldn’t make it off the ship are starting to turn against each other (try not to mind the uranium spin nonsense that make up the other two thirds of the video)
It is. It’s the only example of a preemptive pardon from what I remember. Nixon had been named as an un indicted Co conspirator in criminal cases rolling out of water gate. But he hadn’t been charged with a crime. Because technically the US president cant be charged with a crime while in office. He has to be impeached or otherwise removed from office before charges can be filed. Congress had already drafted articles of impeachment.
Nixon resigned to dodge impeachment. But that opened him to charges. So Ford issued a blanket pardon for “any crimes he may have committed”. Before any charges were filed or prepared.
From what I can tell its generally held by lawyers and courts that the president can do this. But there’s a good number of people who argue otherwise. Fords pardon of Nixon was never challenged in court. So we don’t have much clarity.
Basically as it stands the president can preemptively pardon. But there are plausible grounds to challenge that at court.
Well, I remember someone arguing that if he preemptively pardoned his own co-conspirators then the pardon itself might be an illegal act, and then there’s a question of whether that invalidates it. I know there are arguments about self-pardon (basically “It doesn’t say I can’t!” vs. “You’ve got to be kidding me.”) In front of the supreme court people can argue about fundamental principles of justice, not just about letter of the law.
Anyway, thanks to you and @One_Brown_Mouse for clarifying the thorny issues around it. I had been under the impression that preemptive pardons were simply a power of the president, and it seems it’s a little more complicated than that. (Though he may do it, and it might stick)
I have to point out this is not entirely correct technically. King George III was King of Britain and King of Ireland, Duke and Prince-elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg. His official titles did not include “King of England” although he regarded himself as English.
Wikipedia says “The detailed evidence of the years from 1763 to 1775 tends to exonerate George III from any real responsibility for the American Revolution”. Certainly it was the Administration that made all the really stupid decisions.
So, basically, the British in America revolted against the Government of Lord North.
Even more importantly, Trump can only pardon federal crimes.
And you can bet your lunch money that Mueller has a bunch of state AGs, definitely including New York’s, who are positively salivating at the thought of getting to go after a sitting President’s cronies in a big, high-visibility investigation & trial extravaganza.
The Us constitution is a pretty slim. Often vague document. Largely by design. So these sorts of constitutional law questions often come down to the history of their use, And legal precident. For both the treason statutes and presidential pardon. Are kind of Slim.
The treason statute has only been used rarely. And only with a really strict reading. Where the “enemies” mentioned are people were at war with and the “war” is a literal war with a formal declaration of war from Congress. And that limited definition has persisted because the constitutional clause seems to have been written that way with good reason. But you can present an alternate interpretation. One where “enemy” is broader and “war” and there by acts of war do not require declarations or active military engagements. It’s just not neccisarily going to prevail, get validated by the courts, or result in a conviction.
For the pardons there’s tons of history of their use. But very few, even controversial ones, have ever been challenged in the courts. So there are a lot of open questions.
I read a few thing arguing preemptive pardons or pardons in certain situations may be illegal or a crime in themselves. Specifically where they undermine court authority (Arpaio) or clear the way for corruption.
I don’t know how well that one will hold up. The angle that’s a lot clearer is that certain pardons can represent abuses of power. And abuses of power (along with high crimes and misdemeanors) are one of the grounds for impeachment. It’s a little bit clearer, a little easier to prove. And should apply in more situations.
That and the preemptive pardons are probably the two areas where we need some check on the president’s pardon power. Since that power is outlined in the constitution, pretty plainly and briefly. You either need a constitutional amendment. Or more plausibly. Some Supreme Court decisions validating these more restrictive readings and common sense limitations. For that you need to challenge some dodgy pardons in court.
Manafort Is probably a bad test case for a more expansive reading of treason. It makes a successful prosecution unlikely. So it takes pressure off him, And risks losing the chance to roll up more trumpsters. In exchange for a legal change we don’t really need. It might feel nice to call it treason, but it’s already chargeable under more specific or different laws we’ve created to cover these situations.
I’m willing to bet Trump is going to offer ample opportunity to successfully check presidential pardons though.
