[Action80]

The Biden family did not receive "general pardons."

They received "preemptive pardons."

[honk]

Okay? It doesn't really matter what term you use. The point is that the idea that receiving a pardon legally signifies an admission of guilt becomes nonsensical when you take into account people who haven't been charged with any crime and have been pardoned of all possible crimes. The Bidens have no more admitted they're guilty of whatever corruption scheme you have in mind than Nixon admitted he was guilty of smuggling cocaine in from Colombia.

[Action80]

The US Supreme Court has disagreed with you:

"...:a 1915 Supreme Court decision. In Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that a pardon carried an "imputation of guilt" and accepting a pardon was "an admission of guilt.”. Thus, this decision implied that Nixon accepted his guilt in the Watergate controversy by also accepting Ford’s pardon."

So, even a scumbag like Nixon knew the deal.

[Lord Dave]

The US Supreme Court has disagreed with you:

"...:a 1915 Supreme Court decision. In Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that a pardon carried an "imputation of guilt" and accepting a pardon was "an admission of guilt.”. Thus, this decision implied that Nixon accepted his guilt in the Watergate controversy by also accepting Ford’s pardon."

So, even a scumbag like Nixon knew the deal.

Yep, he did.
Now, what crime is the Biden family admitting guilt to?  I'm sure a legal body has assigned it to them, right?

[honk]

The US Supreme Court has disagreed with you:

"...:a 1915 Supreme Court decision. In Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that a pardon carried an "imputation of guilt" and accepting a pardon was "an admission of guilt.”. Thus, this decision implied that Nixon accepted his guilt in the Watergate controversy by also accepting Ford’s pardon."

So, even a scumbag like Nixon knew the deal.

The Supreme Court didn't "rule" any such thing. I'm not surprised that Ford would have been eager to believe this, but the National Constitution Center should have known better than to phrase it so misleadingly. The actual ruling of Burlick had nothing to do with whether or not accepting a pardon meant admitting guilt. They said it in the majority opinion, and maybe it really was how they felt, but it wasn't their ruling. It was dicta, one line among many in the majority opinion explaining how they made their ruling, not a legal ruling in and of itself. You could come up with a thousand radical new legal rulings if you combed through the SC's majority opinions and treated each separate line in them as a ruling unto itself. But that's not how case law in this country works, as a federal court of appeals has ruled. The only ones who can overrule them now are the SC.

[Action80]

The US Supreme Court has disagreed with you:

"...:a 1915 Supreme Court decision. In Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that a pardon carried an "imputation of guilt" and accepting a pardon was "an admission of guilt.”. Thus, this decision implied that Nixon accepted his guilt in the Watergate controversy by also accepting Ford’s pardon."

So, even a scumbag like Nixon knew the deal.

The Supreme Court didn't "rule" any such thing. I'm not surprised that Ford would have been eager to believe this, but the National Constitution Center should have known better than to phrase it so misleadingly. The actual ruling of Burlick had nothing to do with whether or not accepting a pardon meant admitting guilt. They said it in the majority opinion, and maybe it really was how they felt, but it wasn't their ruling. It was dicta, one line among many in the majority opinion explaining how they made their ruling, not a legal ruling in and of itself. You could come up with a thousand radical new legal rulings if you combed through the SC's majority opinions and treated each separate line in them as a ruling unto itself. But that's not how case law in this country works, as a federal court of appeals has ruled. The only ones who can overrule them now are the SC. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!! I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL WIKIOZ!!! I KNOW MORE THAN THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER AND ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE LAWYERS AND HAVE SAID VERY CLEARLY THAT ACCEPTANCE OF A PARDON IS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT!!!

FTFY...NNTM...

LMMFAO!!!

It was not "dicta." It was part of the actual basis leading them to the decision they rendered in the case.

Honk just straight-up lies about the matter and expects others to accept it.

Disgusting.

GTFO.

[Action80]

No actual crime has been assigned to the Biden family.

That is why the idea of "preemptive pardons," is an ouroboros and must be weeded out of all human undertakings dealing with law and justice.

[Lord Dave]

No actual crime has been assigned to the Biden family.

That is why the idea of "preemptive pardons," is an ouroboros and must be weeded out of all human undertakings dealing with law and justice.

I agree.


By contrast, this means all 1,500 people Trump pardoned for rioting and one for sedition, admit to doing that.

[honk]

It was not "dicta." It was part of the actual basis leading them to the decision they rendered in the case.

...which is called dicta, and is distinct from the ruling itself. Look at the link to Burdick I posted. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court:

• A pardoned person must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon is considered a private matter, unknown to and unable to be acted on by the court.
• No formal acceptance is necessary to give effect to the pardons. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject.

The ruling doesn't say that accepting a pardon means that the recipient has admitted guilt, therefore the SC didn't rule that accepting a pardon means that the recipient has admitted guilt. It really is as simple as that. As per the Constitution, courts can only rule on specific cases that specific parties have brought before them. They aren't allowed to go on a tangent and issue as many rulings as they like on related subjects within the majority opinion. Again, it just isn't how case law works in this country.

I'm not fazed by your transparent appeals to authority, although it is a funny argument coming from you, of all people. People make mistakes all the time, even experts in their own areas of expertise. I suspect that whoever wrote the article for the National Constitution Center just added a bit of trivia without double-checking to see if it was true, as their focus was on writing an article about Nixon and Ford's pardon of him.  I must have missed the occasion where every member of Congress apparently made a unanimous statement about how accepting a pardon legally means that the recipient has admitted guilt, but even if they really had done that, they would still be wrong.

[Action80]

Sadaam believes court decisions are based on whim.

It is difficult to be fazed when enveloped by utter ignorance.

At the end of the day, it is absolutely fucking ridiculous to believe an innocent person would be in need of any sort of pardon from the President of the United States or any other world leader.

[Lord Dave]

Sadaam believes court decisions are based on whim.

It is difficult to be fazed when enveloped by utter ignorance.

At the end of the day, it is absolutely fucking ridiculous to believe an innocent person would be in need of any sort of pardon from the President of the United States or any other world leader.

How the fuck can you say that here?
This forum is full of people who think the government is corrupt and evil.  A government who will convict innocent people (like Trump) of horrible crimes that aren't crimes.  So a president, being able to pardon someone who is innocent because he feels justice was done by The Deep State and not a fair court, is very real and how can you even think it isn't?

[Action80]

What you describe isn't even the same type of situation.

Trump has gone through his trials and tribulations and has not even been a recipient of any type of executive pardon.

[Lord Dave]

What you describe isn't even the same type of situation.

Trump has gone through his trials and tribulations and has not even been a recipient of any type of executive pardon.

Yet.
But Trump was just an example I threw in. 
Basically:
Innocent people can be convicted in courts.  Thus, innocent people can be pardoned.

[Action80]

Are you making some sort of previously "unknown" point here, LD?

Do these innocent persons "convicted" by a court receive a "preemptive," pardon?

Do you love to swim in muddy waters?

[Lord Dave]

Are you making some sort of previously "unknown" point here, LD?

Do these innocent persons "convicted" by a court receive a "preemptive," pardon?

Do you love to swim in muddy waters?

Do you believe in corrupt justice departments?
Do you believe they could convict an innocent person just to send a message or for popularity or just out of spite?

[Action80]

LD, it would be beneficial for you to state your point.

I believe in corrupt governments and judicial systems, the most notable examples (in my lifetime) being that of the Nixon, Ford, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and Biden administrations.

Trump was able to do little, if anything, to clean them up.

[Lord Dave]

LD, it would be beneficial for you to state your point.

I believe in corrupt governments and judicial systems, the most notable examples (in my lifetime) being that of the Nixon, Ford, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and Biden administrations.

Trump was able to do little, if anything, to clean them up.

So, then if all those administrations had corrupt justice systems, it stands to reason the next non-trump one might also be corrupt.  Thus, giving out pre-pardons to ensure they can't be persecuted by a future corrupt administration.

I understand why Biden did it.  I just don't agree with it.

[Action80]

I should amend my prior post to read, "It is absolutely fucking ridiculous to believe an innocent person would be in need of a preemptive pardon," given your example.

[Lord Dave]

I should amend my prior post to read, "It is absolutely fucking ridiculous to believe an innocent person would be in need of a preemptive pardon," given your example.

Only in a justice system that can't be corrupted is that true.  Where an innocent person can't be charged with made up crimes and sent to jail because a leader installs loyalists to get revenge on his behalf.

[Action80]

So, Uncle Hairy Legs was acting on his belief the US government and DOJ is corrupt in the issuing of his preemptive and blanket pardons of his family.

Okay.

Good thing Trump has publicly stated this out loud for everyone to hear and I look forward to reading your future supportive statements of his policies designed to correct this issue.