Timeline for What is the meaning of “High crimes and misdemeanors”
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 24, 2019 at 16:40 | comment | added | grovkin | Also, there was an attempt to claim that Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich was not effective until the pardon papers were delivered to Mr Rich. President Bush decided not to pursue this attempt. So again, the court didn't get to weigh in. But if the current standing is that a pardon need not be delivered to he person pardoned, then it is not the case that one must "accept" a pardon for it to be in effect. Which means that a pardon cannot automatically carry an admission of guilt. A President can't pardon someone to make them seem guilty. Otherwise, for example, Trump can pardon Hillary. | |
| May 24, 2019 at 16:34 | comment | added | grovkin | @zibadawatimmy I didn't mention that SCOTUS used the Black's Law dictionary definition for nothing. The fact that they used a dictionary definition rather than a reference to a previous opinion is telling. SCOTUS hasn't opined on whether a pardon can preempt a conviction. | |
| May 24, 2019 at 16:31 | comment | added | grovkin | @zibadawatimmy from DOJ link: "It (the pardon) does, however, remove civil disabilities – e.g., restrictions on the right to vote, hold state or local office, or sit on a jury – imposed because of the conviction for which pardon is sought, and should lessen the stigma arising from the conviction. It may also be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment. Under some – but not all – circumstances, a pardon will eliminate the legal basis for removal or deportation from the United States." The link explicitly differentiates it from a sentence commutation. | |
| May 24, 2019 at 12:13 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | @grovkin It's probably easier to just google search it; the DOJ site has a FAQ, for example. The pardon does not protect one against civil claims (it's a criminal pardon, for a federal or state level crime, depending on if issued by the President or Governor), and can be used by a judge in sentencing you (for some other crime) as a previous crime committed. | |
| May 24, 2019 at 6:28 | comment | added | abby yorker | @zibadawatimmy: Yes, I was aware of the differences between the two Nixons. My point was precisely that that the law as defined by the lesser Nixon may not be a precedent for a trial of a President. I apologize for not making that clear. | |
| May 24, 2019 at 3:32 | comment | added | grovkin | @zibadawatimmy a good test would be if there was anyone in modern history who, after receiving a Presidential pardon, committed and was subsequently convicted of a different Federal felony crime. Would they be considered a repeat offender or a 1st time offender? Would it be a 2nd or 1st conviction for the purposes of the 3-strike law? | |
| May 24, 2019 at 3:09 | comment | added | grovkin | @zibadawatimmy There are various privileges which are lost by someone convicted of a Federal crime. There may also be compensatory claims against people found guilty. And while loss of privilege maybe viewed as a punishment, compensatory claims are more akin to demands to repay debt. Having said that, if you have a source which shows that one must accept a guilty plea to receive a pardon, it would be informative. It would also mean that one can reject a pardon (in order to clear one's name at trial). And it's not clear that this is the case. | |
| May 24, 2019 at 3:01 | comment | added | grovkin | @zibadawatimmy a trial is as much a chance for a defendant to clear their name as it is a chance for the government to punish the guilty. If a pardon only removed the ability to impose a punishment, it would not be possible without a guilty plea or a finding of guilt. I am not sure if the distinction is as academic as you claim. | |
| May 24, 2019 at 2:51 | comment | added | grovkin | @abby yorker President Nixon was not impeached. He resigned. Nixon in the case of Nixon v DOJ was an impeached Federal judge with the same last name as the former President. | |
| May 23, 2019 at 23:45 | comment | added | abby yorker | "The notion that an impeachment need not be (to borrow a phrase from a different setting and context) adequately premised is currently the the law of the land. It's been decided in Nixon v US (1993) that impeachments are not justiciable." Would this law necessarily apply to a presidential impeachment, which seems to have the "special" circumstance of being presided over by a supreme court justice. Was any judge presiding over Nixon? | |
| May 23, 2019 at 23:41 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | Pardoning before or mid-trial or punishment doesn't change the fact that the pardon hasn't overturned a judgment. It has eliminated the possibility for punishment and the need to render a judgment (accepting the pardon is accepting guilt in the alleged crimes, though in most cases this is just an academic distinction). So in some sense it does usurp the tribunal's function, but there's lots of evidence that this was a permitted feature. The Founders were concerned that the Executive would need such an immediate, overriding clemency power to deal with rebels and restore peace, for example. | |
| May 23, 2019 at 14:15 | history | edited | grovkin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| May 23, 2019 at 7:00 | history | answered | grovkin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |