(caught up with posts, now see Josh and Banks made this point...no point waiting for a real response, I guess)
Meanwhile.....
The New York Times reported yesterday that Congressman Matt Gaetz sought a pre-emptive blanket pardon for himself from President Trump in late November 2020.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/us/politics/matt-gaetz-trump-pardon.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=HomepageThe pardon requested by Gaetz was un-targeted, i.e. it was supposed to cover any unspecified crimes committed by him during his entire life. He also apparently asked for similar pardons for a number of other close Congressional allies too. The White House turned him down.
Legal historians have been quick to point to a well-defined Supreme Court precedent in the case of Burdick v. United States 236 U.S. 79 (1915).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_StatesIn this unusual case, George Burdick city editor of the New York Tribune was imprisoned after refusing to accept an unsolicited unconditional pardon issued to him by US President Woodrow Wilson. The pardon was a legal maneuver intended to force Burdick to testify before a grand jury that was investigating whether any Treasury Department employee was leaking information to the press.
George Burdick was fined $500 and imprisoned after refusing to accept the pardon or testify, and taking the Fifth Amendment to protect his newspaper’s sources.
The SCOTUS susbsequently ruled that Burdick was entitled to reject the unwanted pardon because acceptance would have been an implicit admission of guilt. As Burdick was entitled to reject the pardon, he was also entitled to assert his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.
The dictum of the court’s opinion was that “a pardon carries an imputation of guilt, acceptance a confession of it”.
And that in a nutshell summarizes the problem Matt Gaetz now faces. Noone asks for a pardon unless they already think they might be guilty of a criminal offense, or likely to be charged with one.
Poll
