Trump Confirms His Guilt

Pardons are only for guilty people; accepting one is an admission of guilt.

In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance, a confession of it.”

There's a difference between a Pardon, Commutation of Sentence and Expungement.

Trump didn't choose Commutation or Expungement. He chose Pardon.

Flynn was pardoned.

In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” Over the years, many have come to see a necessary relationship between a pardon and guilt. Ford carried the Burdick quote in his wallet, defending the Nixon pardon by noting that it established Nixon’s guilt. More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump’s pardon.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3928528117882105076

"Indeed, the grace of a pardon, though good its intention, may be only in pretense or seeming; in pretense, as having purpose not moving from the individual to whom it is offered; in seeming, as involving consequences of even greater disgrace than those from which it purports to relieve. Circumstances may be made to bring innocence under the penalties of the law. If so brought, escape by confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, — preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor — preferring death even to such certain infamy. This, at least theoretically, is a right and a right is often best tested in its extreme. "It may be supposed," the court said in United States v. Wilson (p. 161), "that no being condemned to death would reject a pardon; but the rule must be the same in capital cases and in misdemeanors. A pardon may be conditional; and the condition may be more objectionable than the punishment inflicted by the judgment.""

"This, it is insisted, is precluded by the constitutional provision which gives power only "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States," and it is argued, in effect, that not in the imagination or purpose of executive magistracy can an "offense against the United States" be established, but only by the confession of the offending individual or the judgment of the judicial tribunals."

Nothing says Flynn has to accept the pardon

So we have something in the Constitution specifically intended to get the guilty off the hook? You didn’t think this through at all, did you?

He's guilty, a pardon is not an exoneration, and like trump and his impeachment, they are badges of shame they will carry the reast of their lives. So enjoy that

What is Michael Flynn guilty of? Be specific please.

In December 2017, Flynn formalized a deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller to plead guilty to a felony count of "willfully and knowingly" making false statements to the FBI, and agreed to cooperate with the Special Counsel's investigation.

And now, with the Biden Administration, we will get to see the UN-REDACTED Mueller report, and find out exactly what they were hiding from the American people.

Mueller also stated that Trump can be charged with crimes, including Obstruction of Justice, once he leaves office and is no longer covered by presidential immunity.

Because no one was wrongfully convicted of a crime ever.

Pardons aren't given to wrongfully convicted people.

Because you assert so?

The case he cites doesn't say what he says it says. The opinion as he puts it applies to a pardon without a judgement of a crime requiring a confession to a crime.

"This, it is insisted, is precluded by the constitutional provision which gives power only "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States," and it is argued, in effect, that not in the imagination or purpose of executive magistracy can an "offense against the United States" be established, but only by the confession of the offending individual or the judgment of the judicial tribunals."