VP of Dominion Voting machines admitted in 2016 that votes can be easily manipulated

[Electric Skeptic]

I suspect you're right. The objective was to get Nixon out of office and that was accomplished. Anything beyond that would be a major hassle with little effect, and maybe even a bad precedent.

I've asked this question before (the general one about pardoning prior to a conviction, not specifically about Nixon) in relation to the idea of Trump stepping down, Spence pardoning him and Trump resuming the Presidency (it might have been on another forum). I wasn't at all sure how/whether that would work, but the consensus seemed to be that pre-emptive pardons could be done. Perhaps they were just going on Agnew and Nixon - I don't know. The idea seems a terrible one to me.

I was just doing some browsing trying to learn more about this and came upon this statement, here: "In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that 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.” That would seem to settle it, but there's an argument against it here which is too long for me to quote (as part of it he states "this point was not argued before the Court and therefore the precedent does not cover it". I'm not at all sure of that point. The court made a ruling, didn't they? Doesn't that settle it? He does make a couple of other good arguments which seem reasonable to me).

In short, at least from what I can find, the question is still an open one. We may yet find out. If Trump and Pence do try it, given the current makeup of the SCOTUS, I suspect that the 1866 ruling would be upheld.

[Later] Looking around further as I'm interested in this, I found that it seems to be generally agreed-upon that applying for or accepting a Presidential pardon is an admission of guilt of whatever you're being pardoned for. So in general, if a President received a pre-emptive pardon (or pardoned himself), he would be admitting the offence - which could leave him open to impeachment proceedings (obviously this wouldn't apply to Trump, as he'd be out of office long before that could happen), even though he could not be otherwise punished for the crime he just admitted to.

So, for example, in the first year of his Presidency, President Smith takes some bribes for something. In the second year, he gets found out. He steps down (claiming illness) and the VP becomes President. He pardons Smith. Smith then gets better and resumes the presidency. He can't be prosecuted for taking bribes. But he could be impeached for it, despite the fact that he could not be then charged with the crime.Interesting.

[thormas]

I'll bet a million jillion dollars Barr won't even be prosecuted, much less be found guilty and go to prison. I think Democrats have had enough of the wild goose chases.

I agree on Barr but the Dems have not been on wild goose chases. However, trump is another issue. Most of us have known this but now even Barr has said no fraud that would have impacted the outcome of the election and even gave a mild scolding to trump (leaving him unnamed). Some Republicans are there, trump appointed justices have shot him down and stated the absurdity and failure of his lawyers. Interesting that Rudy and others say one thing before a judge (don't want to lie and get disbarred) and another in the media. Seems the proof is right there: the reality is presented to the judges and dismissed and the lies continue, form the top down to his followers. Yet who are the people who give money to fight the election results when it is the case that $170M or so is going to trump for whatever??? This guy is a scam artist.

For trump to continue this lunacy is simply un-American and dangerous and for Republicans to not speak out - at this point - is simply cowardice.

[Ronson]

I've asked this question before (the general one about pardoning prior to a conviction, not specifically about Nixon) in relation to the idea of Trump stepping down, Spence pardoning him and Trump resuming the Presidency (it might have been on another forum). I wasn't at all sure how/whether that would work, but the consensus seemed to be that pre-emptive pardons could be done. Perhaps they were just going on Agnew and Nixon - I don't know. The idea seems a terrible one to me.

I was just doing some browsing trying to learn more about this and came upon this statement, here: "In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that 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.” That would seem to settle it, but there's an argument against it here which is too long for me to quote (as part of it he states "this point was not argued before the Court and therefore the precedent does not cover it". I'm not at all sure of that point. The court made a ruling, didn't they? Doesn't that settle it? He does make a couple of other good arguments which seem reasonable to me).

If Trump stepped down now and Pence pardoned him of crimes he has not been charged with, is he eligible for reelection in 2024?

Untrodden waters. My guess is he would not be eligible for the mere fact he resigned(?), but assuredly he would not be reelected by voters in any case. There is no reason that I can fathom for resigning from the presidency and expecting to run again. Like suffering from incurable dementia, a resignation should permanent.

In short, at least from what I can find, the question is still an open one. We may yet find out. If Trump and Pence do try it, given the current makeup of the SCOTUS, I suspect that the 1866 ruling would be upheld.

[Later] Looking around further as I'm interested in this, I found that it seems to be generally agreed-upon that applying for or accepting a Presidential pardon is an admission of guilt of whatever you're being pardoned for. So in general, if a President received a pre-emptive pardon (or pardoned himself), he would be admitting the offence - which could leave him open to impeachment proceedings (obviously this wouldn't apply to Trump, as he'd be out of office long before that could happen), even though he could not be otherwise punished for the crime he just admitted to.

So, for example, in the first year of his Presidency, President Smith takes some bribes for something. In the second year, he gets found out. He steps down (claiming illness) and the VP becomes President. He pardons Smith. Smith then gets better and resumes the presidency. He can't be prosecuted for taking bribes. But he could be impeached for it, despite the fact that he could not be then charged with the crime.Interesting.

Accepting a pardon is definitely not an admission of guilt. Say you were charged with a murder that you didn't commit. Would you want to go through a trial lasting several years, possibly being found guilty due to some current social craziness (think OJ) and having to go through an appeal - and maybe even then still facing conviction? Or do you accept a pardon and avoid all of that?

It is sort of like being a defendant in civil court and agreeing to settle with the plaintiff. Does that mean you're guilty? It appears like it, but if you are filthy rich and don't want to be bothered, you might agree.

Or, there is some uncertainty about who is right. I sued my former newspaper for unlawful termination. It's a long story but it became a constitutional issue and the 9th Circuit was leaning in my favor, so the newspaper figured they might not win and agreed to settle. Were they "guilty"? Not in their minds.

[Ronson]

I agree on Barr but the Dems have not been on wild goose chases. However, trump is another issue. Most of us have known this but now even Barr has said no fraud that would have impacted the outcome of the election and even gave a mild scolding to trump (leaving him unnamed). Some Republicans are there, trump appointed justices have shot him down and stated the absurdity and failure of his lawyers. Interesting that Rudy and others say one thing before a judge (don't want to lie and get disbarred) and another in the media. Seems the proof is right there: the reality is presented to the judges and dismissed and the lies continue, form the top down to his followers. Yet who are the people who give money to fight the election results when it is the case that $170M or so is going to trump for whatever??? This guy is a scam artist.

For trump to continue this lunacy is simply un-American and dangerous and for Republicans to not speak out - at this point - is simply cowardice.

What does any of that have to do Trump being pardoned or charged with something?

[thormas]

What does any of that have to do Trump being pardoned or charged with something?

Trump being charged is all up for grabs. It is a near certainty on the state level (NY) and who knows about the federal level.

[thormas]

If Trump stepped down now and Pence pardoned him of crimes he has not been charged with, is he eligible for reelection in 2024?

Untrodden waters. My guess is he would not be eligible for the mere fact he resigned(?), but assuredly he would not be reelected by voters in any case. There is no reason that I can fathom for resigning from the presidency and expecting to run again. Like suffering from incurable dementia, a resignation should permanent.



Accepting a pardon is definitely not an admission of guilt. Say you were charged with a murder that you didn't commit. Would you want to go through a trial lasting several years, possibly being found guilty due to some current social craziness (think OJ) and having to go through an appeal - and maybe even then still facing conviction? Or do you accept a pardon and avoid all of that?

It is sort of like being a defendant in civil court and agreeing to settle with the plaintiff. Does that mean you're guilty? It appears like it, but if you are filthy rich and don't want to be bothered, you might agree.

Or, there is some uncertainty about who is right. I sued my former newspaper for unlawful termination. It's a long story but it became a constitutional issue and the 9th Circuit was leaning in my favor, so the newspaper figured they might not win and agreed to settle. Were they "guilty"? Not in their minds.

Yet would pardons open the flood gates in that there is no longer the claim to the 5th and they would have to testify truthfully or that would be a crime that one was not pardoned for.

[Electric Skeptic]

If Trump stepped down now and Pence pardoned him of crimes he has not been charged with, is he eligible for reelection in 2024?

Untrodden waters. My guess is he would not be eligible for the mere fact he resigned(?), but assuredly he would not be reelected by voters in any case. There is no reason that I can fathom for resigning from the presidency and expecting to run again. Like suffering from incurable dementia, a resignation should permanent.

What if he resigned for some temporary reason? For example (not in Trump's case, but a hypothetical) if his wife were very ill and he wanted to care for her...but four years later, she'd died?

In Trump's case, what if Trump stepped down temporarily (25th), Pence pardoned him and Trump got the Presidency back when he was well again?

Accepting a pardon is definitely not an admission of guilt.

I disagree. The entire essence of a pardon is that you are pardoned from punishment for the crime; you're not exonerated. That's a very different thing.

The online legal dictionary I found defines 'pardon' as "The action of an executive official of the government that mitigates or sets aside the punishment fo r a crime." Again, it sets aside the punishment - it doesn't exonerate. I can't find a single reference online that even implies that the Presidential pardon removes the crime; it just alleviates the sentence.

I remember not long ago there was something of a controversy when Trump pardoned Susan B. Anthony for illegally voting in the late 1800's. Her supporters complained precisely because of what we're talking about - pardoning her confirms that she committed the crime, which she would never have admitted. From here: "The answer, it turns out, is that Anthony may not have wanted presidential clemency in the first place -- even though historians say it was likely available to her during her own lifetime -- both because it would have admitted guilt and because she wore her conviction with pride." (my bold italics). The same link cites Ann Gordon, a former Rutgers University professor who edited an extensive collection, The Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. "When you're asking for a pardon, you're saying, I did something wrong."(my bold italics).

Say you were charged with a murder that you didn't commit. Would you want to go through a trial lasting several years, possibly being found guilty due to some current social craziness (think OJ) and having to go through an appeal - and maybe even then still facing conviction? Or do you accept a pardon and avoid all of that?

Accepting the pardon is still an admission of guilt, from all I've read. You can't be pardoned for an offence you didn't commit.

It is sort of like being a defendant in civil court and agreeing to settle with the plaintiff. Does that mean you're guilty? It appears like it, but if you are filthy rich and don't want to be bothered, you might agree.

I don't believe it's like that.

Or, there is some uncertainty about who is right. I sued my former newspaper for unlawful termination. It's a long story but it became a constitutional issue and the 9th Circuit was leaning in my favor, so the newspaper figured they might not win and agreed to settle. Were they "guilty"? Not in their minds.

Settling is not the same. Even basic dictionaries agree - "the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty". It doesn't make the offense go away; you're just relieved of the penalty.

[LiconaFan97]

It is sort of like being a defendant in civil court and agreeing to settle with the plaintiff. Does that mean you're guilty? It appears like it, but if you are filthy rich and don't want to be bothered, you might agree.

I just want to point out that the rules for civil trials are different from criminal trials. In particular, in a criminal trial the jury is instructed not to interpret someone taking the 5th as an admission of guilt but in a civil trial you are allowed to take it as such.

[Ronson]

What if he resigned for some temporary reason? For example (not in Trump's case, but a hypothetical) if his wife were very ill and he wanted to care for her...but four years later, she'd died?

That wouldn't fly. The president - and his wife - have top-tier medical care. He doesn't need to be bringing her soup in bed. If he resigned to "take care of her" because caring for her is more important to him than running the country, then he shouldn't have the job.

In Trump's case, what if Trump stepped down temporarily (25th), Pence pardoned him and Trump got the Presidency back when he was well again?

Same answer, anyone who resigns from the presidency should be barred from ever getting the job again. Whether or not they legally can get it again because of a pardon then becomes moot to me.

I disagree. The entire essence of a pardon is that you are pardoned from punishment for the crime; you're not exonerated. That's a very different thing.

The online legal dictionary I found defines 'pardon' as "The action of an executive official of the government that mitigates or sets aside the punishment fo r a crime." Again, it sets aside the punishment - it doesn't exonerate. I can't find a single reference online that even implies that the Presidential pardon removes the crime; it just alleviates the sentence.

Same answer again. I suppose you have the option of denying or rejecting the pardon if given to you.

I remember not long ago there was something of a controversy when Trump pardoned Susan B. Anthony for illegally voting in the late 1800's. Her supporters complained precisely because of what we're talking about - pardoning her confirms that she committed the crime, which she would never have admitted.

I think in that case, Anthony had broken the law that existed at the time she broke it. The particular law no longer exists. She didn't have to admit it.

From here: "The answer, it turns out, is that Anthony may not have wanted presidential clemency in the first place -- even though historians say it was likely available to her during her own lifetime -- both because it would have admitted guilt and because she wore her conviction with pride." (my bold italics). The same link cites Ann Gordon, a former Rutgers University professor who edited an extensive collection, The Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. "When you're asking for a pardon, you're saying, I did something wrong."(my bold italics).

Accepting the pardon is still an admission of guilt, from all I've read. You can't be pardoned for an offence you didn't commit.

Sure you can. What if you were wrongly convicted of a murder but a governor grants you a pardon so you won't be executed? You know you were wrongly convicted, and the governor strongly suspects the same, but the jury wanted to throw you under the bus anyway because of some convoluted "evidence."

[Electric Skeptic]

Same answer again. I suppose you have the option of denying or rejecting the pardon if given to you.

I don't understand how the same answer applies here. This is a different issue. And yes, you do have the option of rejecting the pardon. It's been done before (Wilson, 1830 - SCOTUS ruled the pardon did not have to be accepted).

I think in that case, Anthony had broken the law that existed at the time she broke it. The particular law no longer exists. She didn't have to admit it.

Accepting the pardon would be implicit admission. That's the point.

SCOTUS said in 1915 (Burdick v. United States) "This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." That's pretty cut and dried.

Sure you can. What if you were wrongly convicted of a murder but a governor grants you a pardon so you won't be executed? You know you were wrongly convicted, and the governor strongly suspects the same, but the jury wanted to throw you under the bus anyway because of some convoluted "evidence."

You were convicted. What you might claim is irrelevant - the conviction is on the books. Of course you can be pardoned for the punishment for an offence that the record says you committed. By taking the pardon all you're admitting is that you were convicted. When you've not been convicted it's very different.

I've given a couple of citations supporting the position that accepting a pardon is implicit admission - do you have any to support the opposite? I couldn't find any.

[Ronson]

I don't understand how the same answer applies here. This is a different issue. And yes, you do have the option of rejecting the pardon. It's been done before (Wilson, 1830 - SCOTUS ruled the pardon did not have to be accepted).

Accepting the pardon would be implicit admission. That's the point.

OK. But I'd rather "admit" to something I didn't do than fight forever in court proving my innocence.

[LiconaFan97]

OK. But I'd rather "admit" to something I didn't do than fight forever in court proving my innocence.

It's a little off topic but are you familiar with an Alford plea? Essentially you acknowledge that the prosecution has a case beyond a reasonable doubt and so plead guilty but while still maintaining that you did not commit the crime in question.

[Gondwanaland]

I'm not usually one to buy into 'conspiracy theories'...... but I dare anyone to watch this video and tell us that anything remotely honest or usual was going on here. Shady as hell. https://twitter.com/i/status/1334623692492566532

[Electric Skeptic]

OK. But I'd rather "admit" to something I didn't do than fight forever in court proving my innocence.

That's fine. Some wouldn't...and for some, like Trump, admitting he did something might kill any chance of another term.

[Electric Skeptic]

I'm not usually one to buy into 'conspiracy theories'...... but I dare anyone to watch this video and tell us that anything remotely honest or usual was going on here. Shady as hell. https://twitter.com/i/status/1334623692492566532

So we can expect to see this video admitted into evidence in a court case shortly?