I have a question regarding presidential pardons.

[Pacifist Patriot]

Forgive me, but I'm not a constitutional scholar or a lawyer of any type so I may come across quite dim on this. I saw a comment on another thread speculating that Trump might preemptively pardon people thereby effectively shutting down NSA/FBI investigation, or rendering one irrelevant.

What are the constitutional limits to the presidential pardon? I would think our founding fathers would have seen the risk of a president using this power to place the office above the law.

I can certainly see Trump doing something like this once it occurs to him, or some asshole of an advisor makes the suggestion. Would it really have the potential to protect the criminals who pulled off this pro-Russian coup?

ETA: Make that two questions.

[Me.]

1. All The Criminals Except 1

Who will pardon 45?

[herding cats]

3. Pence?

As Ford did for Nixon.

[Me.]

9. You'd Have To Get Rid Of 45 1st

Kicking & screaming

[Angry Dragon]

5. The new president

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. Technically, he could pardon himself.

I'm sure he might if the soup gets too thick.

[Me.]

10. Not If He Was Impeached

[Tommy_Carcetti]

12. And removed, yes.

But he could pre-emptively pardon himself, sparing himself criminal punishment.

As absolutely crazy as it sounds.

[Angry Dragon]

2. According to Burdick v United States 1915 you have to sign

the pardon to make it legal and that you did actually did commit the crimes you are accused of

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. I would think it wouldn't affect the ability of Congress to impeach him.

As far as I know, pardon only covers criminal activity, and impeachment proceedings are not criminal proceedings.

[wishstar]

7. On MSNBC with Chuck Todd this evening, he and commentators raised this possibility

That Trump could preemptively pardon people being investigated such as Stone and Manafort and others. That would end criminal investigations against them according to the panelists. If Trump is not directly being investigated and Repubs in Congress decline to impeach Trump, current investigations would end.

This is assuming that not enough evidence yet against Trump for him to be a target and if others are pardoned, none of them would have incentive to reveal anything about Trump's collusion, so he could be scot free.

[leftofcool]

8. No, see Burdick vs the US

They would have to admit to the crimes to be pardoned.

[Me.]

11. Xactly

[SickOfTheOnePct]

13. That's not what Burdick said n/t

[gratuitous]

14. Ford's pardon of Nixon was a blanket statement

The money quote:

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

Nixon therefore had to admit to no specific crime.

Similarly, Bush's pardon just before the trial of the Iran/contra defendants in the dead of night on Christmas Eve 1992 after he had lost his run for re-election didn't mention any specific crimes: "Today I am exercising my power under the Constitution to pardon former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and others for their conduct related to the Iran-Contra affair."

President Trump may not have the brains to craft an Executive Order that accomplishes the immigration restrictions he wants, but I'm confident he'd write the pardon in such a way as to exonerate all his crooked pals while not specifying any particular crime.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

15. Exactly

there is no requirement for admission of guilt, no requirement for conviction, no requirement for charge, no requirement for indictment.