"Can you be pardoned if you've not been found guilty yet?" Topic

I guess this is the right board to ask such a legal question:

if you haven't been found guilty of anything (yet – maybe you're under investigation) is it possible to have a Pardon?

Such a pardon would seem to be an admission of guilt: if I haven't done anything wrong I don't need a pardon, if I want to be pardoned doesn't that mean I have done something wrong? And, on a practical level, how would one word such a pre-emptive pardon – to cover crimes that one has yet to be charged with?

Genuine question from a confused citizen (admittedly not of the USA).

I do pardons as part of my legal practice -- is it State or Federal.. some jurisdictions allow pardons before you are charged – others later. Contact a criminal lawyer in your state

I presume we are talking about Trump pardoning himself and others. Well, this is the text:

he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

I guess one sentence would suffice: "I pardon myself for all Offenses against the United States."

So it could be very generic rather than specific. Ok, thanks!

Nixon was pardoned without having been found guilty in any case.

If you're talking about something that skates on very thin ice regarding the dreaded "politics", that is uncharted territory. L

Trump could borrow Ford's text " a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes that he might have committed against the United States as president."

Nixon was pardoned without having been found guilty in any case.

That's very true.

Although (wikipedia quoting Bob Woodward quoting Ford):

After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision which states that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt.

Yes. Nixon knew that, and at first he didn't want to accept a pardon.
But realizing that the jackals were nipping at his heels, he grudgingly accepted it.
I like to compare it to his acceptance of his defeat in 1960. Illinois was notoriously corrupt. And so was Texas. Knowing American history better than some presidents I could mention, naming no names, he knew how the Hayes Tilden election in 1876 nearly re-ignited a Civil War. So he declined to contest it.
Ford's pardon of Nixon almost magically healed "our national nightmare".
It cost him reelection.

Ford was rare among politicians. He did what was best for the country at the expense of his career.

But I'm not sure that examining what is legally sound is a good basis for speculating about what some people will actually do.

There does not appear to be many politicians and lawyers willing to do what is best for the country today, rather than what they perceive to be best for themselves.

We live in a time of small and shallow men. History will be cruel.

I wonder what was the point of the OP? Why ask that question here when it should be more logically posted on a site frequented by defense attorneys?

Because TMP is the go to place for free medical and legal advice.

The OFM has the right of it. Seeking such here makes no derned sense, but there you go.

Why ask that question here when it should be more logically posted on a site frequented by defense attorneys?

Well, war is a social endavour, so anything that affects people, affects society, and is thus related to wargaming. The question might be "to what degree?".

De jure, the The Law board does not establish a standard for strength of relationship, nor a requirement to establish such a relationship. De facto, the board is filled with an overwhelming majority of law topics not tightly bound to wargaming.

The primary enforcement of relevance is whether or not people post in reply.

Of course, that includes the freedom to express you your displeasure with others' rationale for their posts and post telling them that "you're not playing right".

It may not be apparent to those living in a certain country but to the rest of the world it looks rather odd for the Commander in Chief of that unnamed country to be saying:

"My closest advisors have done nothing wrong – so I will be pardoning them for all the things that they never did do anyway."

And the first two responses seemed to have cleared up the query – yes it can be done and is perhaps not so unusual as it looks.