3 ms·
That's not true. Nixon was preemptively pardoned by Ford with no charges pending.
by pseingatl 6y ago
That's not true. Nixon was preemptively pardoned by Ford with no charges pending.
- shadowgovt 6y agoAnd no subsequent President challenged that pardon. That's the operative factor here. Nobody's ever tried to claim the President lacks authority to pardon for crimes untried. What would happen if it was tried is unclear; there's no precedent. Trump's enough of an outlier that his successor might actually test the hypothesis.
- function_seven 6y ago> The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. The Constitution makes no mention of trial, or of conviction. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that pardons can be offered prior to a conviction in Ex parte Garland[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Garland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Garland
- shadowgovt 6y agoCorrect on "Crimes untried," and my error. Ex parte Garland clearly covers that. However, subsequent rulings call into question the absolute scope of Ex parte Garland (https://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1815&context=lawreview https://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...). In particular, in case of dispute, the Court has the authority to adjudicate the dispute. It's the authority the Court used to hear Ex parte Garland in the first place. And to my knowledge, there has never been a case that considers the President's ability to pardon for all possible crimes that could be filed related to some action. So if a subsequent President chooses to tack on a fourth crime to the list of three Snowden is currently charged with, a Trump pardon would likely not attach. At least, it would be up to the Court to decide if it attaches.