"Is accepting a pardon an admission of guilt?"

[DetlefK]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/26/is-accepting-a-pardon-an-admission-of-guilt/?utm_term=.22c63196b93a

1. In 1915, the Supreme Court indeed said, of pardons, that “acceptance” carries “a confession of” guilt. Burdick v. United States (1915). Other courts have echoed that since.

2. On the other hand, a pardon has historically been seen as serving several different functions, one of which is protecting people who were convicted even though they were legally innocent. ... The Justice Department Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitioners also expressly contemplate the possibility of “pardon on grounds of innocence or miscarriage of justice,” though they unsurprisingly note that such applicants “bear a formidable burden of persuasion” (since the Justice Department’s strong presumption is that people convicted in federal court were indeed justly convicted).

3. Another function of a pardon has historically been protecting people who were seen as legally guilty but morally innocent. ...

4. Of course, pardons have also been seen as having various other functions as well, such as decreasing the punishment of someone who is legally and morally guilty, for instance when “the situation and circumstances of the offender, though they alter not the essence of the offence, ought to make [a] distinction in the punishment”. ...

Legal authorities, then, are split on the subject of how the law should understand pardons; but because some pardons are understood as being based on the pardoned person’s factual innocence, I doubt that any judge today would genuinely view acceptance of pardon as always being an admission of guilt. And my sense (though I realize that it might be mistaken) is that most people’s moral judgment today would be that, even if a pardon is offered just as a gesture of mercy and not as exoneration, the recipient may honorably accept it even if they continue to deny their factual guilt or their moral guilt.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/about-office-0

In general, a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner's demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence.

Post-conviction conduct, character, and reputation.

Seriousness and relative recentness of the offense.

Acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement.

Need for Relief.

Official recommendations and reports.

So, No, if Trump pardons himself, that's not automatically a confession of guilt. It would be up to the courts to decide whether it's an admission of guilt. And then it would depend on HOW and WHY Trump pardoned himself:
Was it after conviction?
Was it because he's legally guilty but morally innocent?
Are there external circumstances that make it necessary for him to be pardoned?
Was the pardon an act of mercy for a person in great suffering?

[RDANGELO]

1. If a President cannot perform his duties with crimimal intent,

pardoning himself would almost always be with criminal intent. If he is taken to court over it, I would imagine that that would be one of the arguments.

[cbreezen]

2. Food for thought...

legal scholars must be gnashing their teeth. For every offense there is a possible defense. I guess that's why they get paid the big bucks. I know it makes me dizzy.

[3Hotdogs]

3. #3 is the answer.

He will argue that he had and has nothing but the best interests of his country in mind with all his actions.

[rock]

4. Logic grasps you by the throat and forces you to accept that

"You cannot be forgiven for something you did not do."