Mr. Clemency
-
Seen on X:
"The pardons are actually great news. No one who was just pardoned will be able to refuse to testify in a civil, criminal, or congressional proceeding based upon the 5th Amendment. "
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
Seen on X:
"The pardons are actually great news. No one who was just pardoned will be able to refuse to testify in a civil, criminal, or congressional proceeding based upon the 5th Amendment. "
Nice to see that Milley, Fauci et al admit their guilt.
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), is a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the nature of presidential pardons and their acceptance. The case centered on whether a pardon must be accepted by the recipient to take effect and the implications of accepting a pardon on one's legal status.
Key Facts:
- Background: George Burdick, the editor of the New York Tribune, was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury investigating customs fraud. He refused to answer questions, invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- Presidential Pardon: President Woodrow Wilson issued Burdick a full pardon for any offenses he may have committed in connection with the investigation, effectively removing the risk of self-incrimination.
- Refusal to Accept: Burdick declined the pardon, arguing that accepting it would imply an admission of guilt. He continued to refuse to testify.
Supreme Court Decision:
The Court ruled in favor of Burdick, holding that:
- Pardon Must Be Accepted: A pardon is a voluntary act that must be accepted by the recipient to be effective. The Court stated that "a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance carries a confession of it."
- Implications of Refusal: By refusing the pardon, Burdick retained his Fifth Amendment rights and could not be compelled to testify.
Significance:
- This case established that a presidential pardon is not automatic and requires the consent of the individual being pardoned.
It clarified the constitutional limits of executive clemency, emphasizing the autonomy of individuals to reject such acts. - The ruling has been cited in subsequent cases and discussions about the nature of pardons and their implications for legal rights and reputations.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Seen on X:
"The pardons are actually great news. No one who was just pardoned will be able to refuse to testify in a civil, criminal, or congressional proceeding based upon the 5th Amendment. "
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
Seen on X:
"The pardons are actually great news. No one who was just pardoned will be able to refuse to testify in a civil, criminal, or congressional proceeding based upon the 5th Amendment. "
Meh. “I do not recall….”
-
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
Seen on X:
"The pardons are actually great news. No one who was just pardoned will be able to refuse to testify in a civil, criminal, or congressional proceeding based upon the 5th Amendment. "
Nice to see that Milley, Fauci et al admit their guilt.
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), is a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the nature of presidential pardons and their acceptance. The case centered on whether a pardon must be accepted by the recipient to take effect and the implications of accepting a pardon on one's legal status.
Key Facts:
- Background: George Burdick, the editor of the New York Tribune, was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury investigating customs fraud. He refused to answer questions, invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- Presidential Pardon: President Woodrow Wilson issued Burdick a full pardon for any offenses he may have committed in connection with the investigation, effectively removing the risk of self-incrimination.
- Refusal to Accept: Burdick declined the pardon, arguing that accepting it would imply an admission of guilt. He continued to refuse to testify.
Supreme Court Decision:
The Court ruled in favor of Burdick, holding that:
- Pardon Must Be Accepted: A pardon is a voluntary act that must be accepted by the recipient to be effective. The Court stated that "a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance carries a confession of it."
- Implications of Refusal: By refusing the pardon, Burdick retained his Fifth Amendment rights and could not be compelled to testify.
Significance:
- This case established that a presidential pardon is not automatic and requires the consent of the individual being pardoned.
It clarified the constitutional limits of executive clemency, emphasizing the autonomy of individuals to reject such acts. - The ruling has been cited in subsequent cases and discussions about the nature of pardons and their implications for legal rights and reputations.
-
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
Nice to see that Milley, Fauci et al admit their guilt.
In normal times sure. Today it’s just reflective of believing Trump when he says he’s committed to lawfare.
-
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
Nice to see that Milley, Fauci et al admit their guilt.
From that libtard Ed Whelan.
@jon-nyc said in Mr. Clemency:
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
Nice to see that Milley, Fauci et al admit their guilt.
From that libtard Ed Whelan.
I'll see your libtard and raise you two MAGATs.
Make it three.
Four:
The Ultimate MAGAT, the ODGCM:
-
By the way, why does the Fauci's pardon backdate to 2014?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
By the way, why does the Fauci's pardon backdate to 2014?
Are all of them backdated to then? Maybe he did a cut and paste on the hunter memo.
If his alone went to 2014 that would be suspicious.
You were warned.
-
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
By the way, why does the Fauci's pardon backdate to 2014?
Are all of them backdated to then? Maybe he did a cut and paste on the hunter memo.
If his alone went to 2014 that would be suspicious.
@jon-nyc said in Mr. Clemency:
@George-K said in Mr. Clemency:
By the way, why does the Fauci's pardon backdate to 2014?
Maybe he did a cut and paste on the hunter memo.
You misspelled “they.”
-
And in his final moments he pardoned all his family members.
Looks like the Biden crime family is a thing.
@Mik said in Mr. Clemency:
And in his final moments he pardoned all his family members.
Looks like the Biden crime family is a thing.
It seems like it was only four years ago that we were told that there would be a return of decency to the White House.
