Giuliani Raises Risk Of Disclosing Bad Acts With Pardon Discussion | Talking Points Memo

[trnc]

@sjay1956

Ideally, there should be a constitutional amendment to prohibit preemptive pardons. A pardon should only be allowed to undo the effect of a conviction or guilty plea.

IANACL, but I’m trying to read up more on the various discussions. I can understand how a preemptive pardon might be proper for a group of individuals in some cases, but never for an individual and never for the president or potential criminal associates. The DOJ should have been allowed to decide whether to prosecute Nixon for obstruction. It’s possible they would have declined or offered a generous plea bargain with no prison time or fine considering he was already out of office.

At least a guilty plea would create a record. Since a pardon does not expunge a record, a post-conviction pardon leaves the offense on the public record, whereas a preemptive pardon deprives the public of knowing whether an offense was actually performed or not.

[greenman66]

“Visually, it’s quite a mess.”

The pardon process or Guiliani? I say both.

[misterneutron]

And today there’s this. I’ll wager she was stupid enough to lie under oath. A lead-pipe cinch. And this is not a Federal beef, so Daddy can’t pardon her.

Ivanka Trump was deposed Tuesday in DC attorney general's inauguration lawsuit

[cervantes]

@misterneutron

And this is not a Federal beef, so Daddy can’t pardon her.

The case is in the DC Superior Court.

Two brief excerpts from a recent filing are provided.

[mys_lys]

@sjay1956

Ideally, there should be a constitutional amendment to prohibit preemptive pardons. A pardon should only be allowed to undo the effect of a conviction or guilty plea. Otherwise, you create a 007 type license to kill or commit other high crimes and misdemeanors.

@danny

How does a preemptive pardon work? If Trump felt like killing somebody, because he ran out of every other way of topping himself, could he preemptively pardon himself for murder?

@illlich

Sweeeet . . . a broad pre-emptive pardon means Rudy could go out and shoot someone or rob a bank.

Swwwweeeeeet.

“Preemptive” doesn’t mean “for future crimes”; it means “for acts already performed that haven’t yet been charged as crimes”.

[danny]

I think mine is the best of the misunderstandings.

[daveyjones64]

Again, Burdick vs. United States, confirming the United States v. Wilson case, clearly lays out that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.

This has been the standard for over 100 years.

Brian Kalt is not the on SCOTUS. He has never been a judge, or has even practiced law in a court room. He is professor, not the end all, be all on legal matters. His op-ed on this subject has also been widely disputed by other professors, lawyers and judges. All of which is meaningless as the 1915 case I cited is still the official word on the matter.

[cervantes]

@daveyjones64

All of which is meaningless as the 1915 case I cited is still the official word on the matter.

No.

If you don’t know what dicta are, maybe you should find out.

[smoscom]

Agreed. This is another illustration of the fact that just because a person says a thing and acts authoritative as if knowledgeable about the subject, does not make it so.

[cervantes]

@smoscom

Agreed. This is another illustration of the fact that just because a person says a thing and acts authoritative as if knowledgeable about the subject, does not make it so.

Setting aside the general truth of your statement, I’ll just say this: Like all of us, @daveyjones64 is correct about many things, but on this subject of pardons and Burdick and so on, he is stubbornly incorrect. (He’s not the only one.)

I and others have explained numerous times before. Here’s a repeat:

Discussion: Papadopoulos Applies For Presidential Pardon, Considers Withdrawal Of Guilty Plea

Not true, as I explained earlier. Here to back me up is Randall Eliason: You frequently hear that if someone accepts a pardon, it means they admit they are guilty. This stems from language in a 1915 Supreme Court case, Burdick v. United States, where the Court said that accepting a pardon involves a “confession of guilt.” Recently on MSNBC, Ari Melber thought he had a “gotcha” moment with Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio when he told Arpaio that accepting president Trump’s pardon for contempt of c…

[daveyjones64]

@cervantes

he is stubbornly incorrect. (He’s not the only one.)

The ruling is a matter of a fact. You can disagree with the ruling and the opinions, but that doesn’t change that it is indeed the ruling.

Stating that I am incorrect for citing the precedent on the matter, is just plain wrong. You have provided no other case law contradicting the Burdick ruling, yet you continue to yammer on about how everyone is wrong but you, because…not even reasons.

[cervantes]

@daveyjones64

you continue to yammer on about how everyone is wrong but you, because

“Everyone is wrong but [me]” and Randall Eliason (as quoted), and Brian Kalt (as quoted), and any number of other constitutional lawyers.

Can you not read?

[mxyztplk]

@smoscom

Agreed. This is another illustration of the fact that just because a person says a thing and acts authoritative as if knowledgeable about the subject, does not make it so.

My understanding is that Cervantes is a constitutional lawyer, though too modest perhaps to flout his credentials on this matter. Wouldn’t that make him slightly more qualified to speak authoritatively on this issue?

[sjay1956]

Exactly.

[sjay1956]

Right, but expectation of the availability of a blanket pardon for all possible misdeeds will lead to a 007 effect. Right now, the best thing that could happen for the overall cause of justice would be for the pardoner in chief to suddenly drop dead before everyone who’s begging for one now can get one.

[mys_lys]

@sjay1956

Right, but expectation of the availability of a blanket pardon for all possible misdeeds will lead to a 007 effect.

I am genuinely surprised that no violence has yet been done to any of the so-called “RINOs”.

[paulw]

Certainly not the elected ones – they still vote with the party whenever they’re needed.

[mys_lys]

i mean, considering the extent to which sentiments of potential violence upon “RINOs” were already festering almost a year ago.

[sjay1956]

The odds aren’t good somebody won’t be hurt for doing their job before Inauguration Day. Whatever “sins” these Republicans may have committed in the past, I’d be inclined to forgive them for considering the price they’re paying now.

[mys_lys]

@sjay1956

The odds aren’t good somebody won’t be hurt for doing their job before Inauguration Day

yeah, i’m feeling the same sort of trepidatious uncertainty as you are.

COUNTERPOINT: Raffensperger and Kemp are the two “RINOs” currently taking the most flak, and the worst calumny currently being launched at either of them is that they’re gna get primaried in 2022. So, there is at least hope that the lack of mayhem will last.