Announcement

**Proteus_MST** · June 8, 2018, 12:50

Putins Investments into Donnie finally are showing dividends ...
seems like Trump now is lobbying for reinstating russia into the G7 (from which it was removed after criminally annexing the crim)

x.com

https://twitter.com/BettyBowers/status/1005080833185734661

**Dinner** · June 8, 2018, 14:37

Trump keeps talking about pardoning Cohen and Manafort on a daily basis yet then claims he is not thinking about it. Yeah, that is why he talks about it and obsesses about it constantly, right? Because he is not thinking about it.

Of course, state charges would still go ahead and both would lose their 5th amendment rights as they would be convicted felons in the eyes of the court, legally speaking. That means both would fully have to spill the beans under oath, no taking the 5th, and if they lied under oath those would be entirely new felony counts against them.

**rah** · June 8, 2018, 15:29

I read a slightly different take on that this morning in the paper

Page not found – Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-pardons-presidential-trump-nixon-ford-kardashian-0608-story.html

about 5 myths of pardons. I won't post them all but here's number 4

MYTH NO. 4

Pardons are only for guilty people; accepting one is an admission of guilt.

In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." Over the years, many have come to see a necessary relationship between a pardon and guilt. Ford carried the Burdick quote in his wallet, defending the Nixon pardon by noting that it established Nixon's guilt. More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump's pardon.

But Burdick was about a different issue: the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just an aside — what lawyers call dicta. The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one. But pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt.

Indeed, in rare cases pardons are used to exonerate people. This was Trump's rationale for posthumously pardoning boxer Jack Johnson, the victim of a racially based railroading in 1913. Ford pardoned Iva Toguri d'Aquino (World War II's "Tokyo Rose") after "60 Minutes" revealed that she was an innocent victim of prosecutors who suborned perjured testimony in her treason case. President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger because he thought the former defense secretary, indicted in the Iran-contra affair, was a victim of "the criminalization of policy differences." If the president pardons you because he thinks you are innocent, what guilt could accepting that pardon possibly admit?

**Broken_Erika** · June 8, 2018, 15:37

Trump trying to silence his critics

**BeBMan** · June 9, 2018, 04:13

Originally posted by rah View Post

I read a slightly different take on that this morning in the paper

about 5 myths of pardons. I won't post them all but here's number 4

Yeah, to me "pardon" sounds always like an act of mercy, not an act of justice. I'd think ppl who are not quilty would rather to have their case reopended to get this confirmed in court (if possible). Not that I know legal detail tho