If IQ45 pardons himself guess what? He will have to admit that he is guilty.

[Maraya1969]

And then he would have to be impeached.

How could congress not impeach him if he openly admits he was working with Russia to help his campaign? And he would have to admit he was trying to obstruct justice and made illegal campaign donations and was trying to tamper with witnesses.

He would have to admit all of that and it the information would be all over the MSM and if congress ignored it I believe it would destroy their party.

I think little donnie is f&^*cked, as is the republican party.

[donkeypoofed]

1. A pardon IS admitting guilt

In fact, Gerald Ford used to wonder why people were mad at him for pardoning Nixon. And he used to say "but don't people.realize I made.him admit he was guilty.". Also- the.GOP will not impeach Drumpf. They have too much to hide (ie money laundering and suspicious Russian money flowing in) for them to ever do anything. Notice they're saying and doing NOTHING to stop this b.s. and it's cause they're.terrified! Also, they suck, large!

[Maraya1969]

2. He could say he is only pardoning himself because he was convicted of something

he didn't do. But for him to accept his own pardon he would have to admit his guilt.

He would not admit guilt if he was just issuing himself a pardon. He would blame the Democrats for their fake conviction and say he was railroaded and that he was innocent.

But to accept the pardon he has to openly say he is guilty.

[FBaggins]

6. This isn't actually true

Ford was wrong. Ignoring the minor point that it is the acceptance of a pardon (rather than the pardon itself) that is arguably an admission of guilt (And there might be no need or opportunity for Trump to formally accept his own pardon), the ruling that is usually cited was not made on that basis. In other words, it is dicta.

There are plenty of cases where a presidential pardon explicitly says that it is being made because the accused is innocent. Obviously, the acceptance of such a pardon would not be an admission of guilt.

[onenote]

3. An admission of guilt is not a prerequisite for a pardon

[Maraya1969]

4. There was a big thing when Sheriff Arpaio was being pardoned and he was on

some news show......like on MSNBC or CNN and the host was telling him that him accepting the pardon means he was admitting guilt.

Maybe for the president to offer a pardon does not mean the person is admitting guilt but accepting the pardon means you have to admit guilt. I heard that Martha Stewart said she would not accept his pardon. There is a 2 part process as far as I can tell

[Dave Starsky]

5. No, but accepting a pardon IS an admission of guilt.

You literally cannot be pardoned for something you did not do.

[FBaggins]

7. The first part is arguable, but the second is not true

Some pardons have explicitly said that they were being made because of the actual innocence of someone who had even been convicted and/or That there had been a miscarriage of justice.

[Dave Starsky]

8. Well... maybe.

Burdick v United States (1915) may say different.

[FBaggins]

11. Except that Burdick v United States doesn't really say differently.

In 1915, Burdick did indeed include a statement about acceptance of a pardon carrying "an admission of guilt". However, that statement wasn't part of the legal rationale for the ruling and therefore the comment doesn't imply a legal precedent. It merely reflects the then-current opinion of most of the justices.

They didn't, for instance, take notice of the court's 19th century ruling in Ex parte Garland that said (also dicta):

"A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender . . . it releases the punishment
and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense . . . it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity."

The confusion here is that there are two different types of pardons. An executive (Governor/President) can pardon a guilty person and remove the punishment... but not remove the fact that he was guilty - but he can also pardon someone he believes to be innocent - which removes both the punishment and "blots out the existence of the guilt"

28 U.S. Code § 1495. This is the law that says that you can sue the government for damages if you were wrongly convicted of a crime that you didn't commit. §2513 of the same chapter lays out the standard of proof for your innocence. Including: "that he has been pardoned upon the stated ground of innocence and unjust conviction"

[onenote]

9. You don't have to admit something you did was criminal to be pardoned.

First, a pardon can be granted to someone who hasn't been convicted. In fact, a pardon can be granted to someone with respect to an act for which the person hasn't been charged with a crime. Ex Parte Garland (1866): The pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."

Moreover, while the DOJ guidelines generally indicate that an expression of remorse (which implies an acknowledgment of guilt) is a factor in whether a pardon will be recommended, it is not required. Furthermore, one of the purposes of pardons is to provide relief to an unjustly convicted individual. The law providing for compensation of unjustly convicted persons expressly acknowledges that such compensation is available to someone who has received a pardon on the "stated ground of innocence and unjust conviction."

Undoubtedly, many would regard the grant and acceptance of a pardon as an acknowledgment that the recipient is guilty of a criminal act, but if the grant expressly states it is being made because the person is being unjustly accused, the recipient's supporters will go to their graves believing in the recipient's innocence.

[TheBlackAdder]

10. Won't Trump also lose his ability to plead the Fifth in subsequent charges, ie. with his own kids?