Accepting a pardon is NOT necessarily an admission of guilt.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

Last edited Mon Dec 2, 2024, 12:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Edit to add: this is in reference to people other than Hunter Biden who has already admitted guilt.

There are dozens of other Democrats and administration official that should probably receive pardons….

Plus any seal team 6 members who have a free weekend … I keed I keed


The Supreme Court case that people keep loosely referencing doesn’t say what people who quote it think it’s says.

The “imputation of guilt” was just one of the reasons cited in the Burdick case as a reason a person may reject a pardon. That statement in the opinion was “dicta” - not controlling or precedent.

Furthermore, one of the tenets of plenary pardon power has always been the power to prevent unjust prosecutions.

Yes, the Justice Department has volumes on their policies regarding acceptance of guilt. But that’s not law nor is it case law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States#:~:text=Although%20the%20Supreme%20Court's%20opinion,by%20the%20recipient%20is%20disputed.


Justice Joseph McKenna delivered the opinion of the Court in favor of Burdick. The Court ruled Burdick was entitled to reject the pardon for a number of reasons, including the implicit admission of guilt and possibly objectionable terms contained in a conditional pardon. As Burdick was entitled to reject the pardon, he was also entitled to assert his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.

Although the Supreme Court's opinion stated that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,"[1] this was part of the Court's dictum for the case.[3] Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed. In Lorance v. Commandant, USDB (2021) the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "there is no confession and Lorance does not otherwise lose his right to petition for habeas corpus relief for his court-martial conviction and sentence. The case was remanded for further action not inconsistent with the court’s opinion."[4]

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/ex-soldiers-acceptance-trump-pardon-didnt-constitute-confession-guilt-court-2021-09-23/

Ebel said no court since had ever held that accepting a pardon was akin to confessing guilt and that the ruling instead simply meant that accepting one "only makes the pardonee look guilty by implying or imputing that he needs the pardon."
"If the Court had meant to impute other, legal consequences to the acceptance of a presidential pardon, it surely would have said so explicitly," Ebel wrote.
And while Trump could have conditioned a pardon upon an admission of guilt, "the pardon was instead merely agnostic as to Lorance's guilt, not purporting to speak to guilt or innocence," Ebel