If accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt, and the President pardons himself, and the courts...

[SamuelA]

If accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt, and the President pardons himself, the matter would go to the Supreme Court. The reason is thatit is disputed as to whether or not the President is allowed to pardon himself.

So if the President pardons himself, a special prosecutor challenges the pardon in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court strikes down the pardon…would the President’s act of accepting a (no longer valid) pardon be admissible evidence of guilt?

The prosecutor could then bring the pardon document to court, along with whatever evidence was collected, and say “we got em. Here’s the evidence of a crime, and here’s the proof tying it to the President - this document admitting guilt and issuing himself a pardon”. “Ladies and gentleman of the jury, as you can see from the video and these tweets, the president is accepting and signing his own pardon…”

[Senegoid]

In what country do you envision this happening?

[Alley_Dweller]

Let’s look at the text of the pardon Gerald Ford granted to Richard Nixon:

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

Does that mean that, having accepted a pardon, Richard Nixon has admitted to committing “all offenses against the United States” ranging from littering in a national forest to treason?

I would think that any pardon Donald Trump might grant himself would likewise be generally worded.

[Roderick_Femm]

@Alley_Dweller

Let’s look at the text of the pardon Gerald Ford granted to Richard Nixon:

Does that mean that, having accepted a pardon, Richard Nixon has admitted to committing “all offenses against the United States” ranging from littering in a national forest to treason?

I would think that any pardon Donald Trump might grant himself would likewise be generally worded.

Of course “all offenses” doesn’t mean that in the context at all. It means “all offenses which he committed” as well as, in the next bit “all offenses which he may have committed.”

To the OP, I doubt that anyone could give a definitive answer to your question, especially if the phrasing were changed to “any and all offenses which he may have committed.” Also, does the recipient of the pardon have to accept it? If 45 issues it with suitably vague language like that, ex-45 probably doesn’t have to do a thing. It prevents him from being prosecuted (I presume, being NAL) as it stands.

eta: the original question stands, of course, as to whether such a pardon is valid. But if it is voided by the Supreme Court (and I hope we don’t have to put that to the test) then the case against 45 is probably back to square one of requiring sufficient proof.

[ftg]

Accepting a pardon isn’t generally seen as admitting guilt. People have gotten pardoned due to being railroaded for a crime they were unlikely to have committed. This, IMHO, is the best use of pardoning powers.

[Loach]

Dead people have been pardoned. They didn’t admit guilt. The constitution says nothing about admitting guilt. There is a process to petition for a pardon through the justice department but that is not a constitutional requirement. The power rests with the president except in cases of impeachment.

[Loach]

Did every draft dodger Carter pardoned have to admit guilt?

[Duckster]

@ftg

Accepting a pardon isn’t generally seen as admitting guilt. People have gotten pardoned due to being railroaded for a crime they were unlikely to have committed. This, IMHO, is the best use of pardoning powers.

There is discussion under Burdick v. United States (1915) that accepting a pardon is conditional upon admitting you did the crime.