(03-21-2025, 12:44 AM)Ninurta Wrote: Initially, I wondered at the legality of the original pardons. How can one logically "pardon" someone who has no been convicted, nor even indicted, for a pardonable offense? Isn't that a little like "forgiving" someone for something they never did to begin with?
But it does have precedent - Ford pardoned Nixon in the absence of a conviction or even an indictment... but an indictment was at least on the table, unlike now, in these cases.
So it's been done before, and was done now. At least we have admissions of guilt from the guilty parties. As Shakespeare said, "methinks thou doth protest too much". Also, the Book of Proverbs has this gem: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth", which is highly applicable to this case.
Then we have the 1915 Supreme Court case of Burdick V. United States, in which the Dictum states that a "pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that its acceptance carries a confession of guilt."
So, whether the pardons stand, or whether they are vacated... regardless of whether or not the guilty parties are ever even indicted,,, we at least have their confessions of guilt in committing crimes against the United States set in stone via their pardons and their capacitance of the pardons.
May none of them ever hold office again, or enjoy any position of trust, since they have admitted guilt in committing crimes against the United States while in office and betraying the Public trust they once held.
.
So true what you posted.
Did enjoy reading through your post.
I'm enlightened,
Bally)