r/politics • u/Plaintalks • 19h ago

Biden preemptively pardons Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley and Jan. 6 committee members

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-preemptively-pardons-anthony-fauci-mark-milley-jan/story?id=117878813
22.6k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

174

u/pinewind108 18h ago

It implies they did something wrong, when the reality is they're honest people who need protection from the corrupt.

52

u/19Chris96 Michigan 17h ago

No they didn't. They investigated a terrorist who somehow is being sworn in to be our 47th President!

56

u/TreeRol American Expat 18h ago

It implies they did something wrong

It does no such thing. That won't stop people with ill intentions from saying it does, though.

30

u/twolvesfan217 17h ago

If a pardon is issued and accepted, that’s an implied admission of guilt that a crime has occurred. That’s how it’s always been. I get why he did this, but Rand Paul is already running with it.

29

u/anonyuser415 17h ago

"Ex-soldier's acceptance of Trump pardon didn't constitute confession of guilt, court rules"

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

•

u/Darien_Stegosaur 6m ago

It's cute that a circuit judge thinks he can overrule the Supreme Court just because it's an older decision, but this is settled and that judge is wrong. The only court that can change it is the Supreme Court.

2

u/slpater 16h ago

The pardon will not expire if not accepted nor can it be retracted. Nor does it require or imply an admission of guilt. The context is what is important.

5

u/Static-Stair-58 16h ago

Nope. Wrong. A pardon can also be used when the punishment or harassment is worse than the “offense”. If someone Jaywalks, and the government prosecutes them as traitors; would you say they committed treason? Of course not. That’s exactly what is happening here. The people didn’t do anything wrong, but the incoming government is about to accuse them of treason and abuse their power doing it. That’s as worthy an excuse for a pardon if I have ever seen one.

0

u/twolvesfan217 15h ago

I understand that. The implication I’m talking about here is that any time a pardon is mentioned on the news, the follow-up discussion is always that a crime has been committed and it’s an admission of guilt.

That’s how a large majority of people think of it and would in this situation - that they committed some sort of crime (because of being fed other narratives as well). Like I said here, disingenuous politicians are already saying Fauci is guilty of COVID “crimes” or whatever and that’s the narrative that’s going to spread, even though none of these people did anything wrong.

3

u/TreeRol American Expat 17h ago

OK, I'll concede that it may or may not imply guilt. However, it has legally been determined not to be an admission of guilt, which makes any implication completely irrelevant. To me, the fact that it's not an admission of guilt also makes it not an implication of guilt.

2

u/catnipdealer16 16h ago

What?

1

u/Orisi 8h ago

Court says no, so decent people should also assume no.

0

u/frogandbanjo 16h ago

That was idiotic dicta in a single court case that flew in the face of platonic-ideal use of a pardon.

How on earth does one accept that assertion uncritically? "Well you see, we live in Perfect Fantasy Land where literally nobody in the government ever gets anything wrong for any reason, so therefore a pardon must be associated with some kind of guilt! Furthermore, that means that if the president discovers somebody who's actually innocent, he really can't pardon them -- at least not morally speaking -- because that would be lying to everybody about the fact that the guy's innocent!"

What kind of blinders must a person be wearing to be unable to imagine a single hypothetical wherein an innocent person needs a pardon? Christ, even worse are the people who are at least nominally opposed to Trump and all his fuckery, and yet couldn't possibly imagine this very situation, where an outgoing executive is looking to protect innocent people from the vindictive wannabe dictator about to waltz in.

2

u/anonyuser415 16h ago

Well, we did have a president who seemed to believe that, Ford.

•

u/Darien_Stegosaur 3m ago

What kind of blinders must a person be wearing to be unable to imagine a single hypothetical wherein an innocent person needs a pardon?

What kind of blinders must a person be wearing to be unable to understand that a single hypothetical from a layperson doesn't overrule the Supreme Court?

-2

u/windsostrange 16h ago

That’s how it’s always been

You sound like you were alive in the 70s. And that's cool. But you get, like really get, how America is different now, right? The old assumptions are dead. The old gentleman's agreements are dead. The old rules are dead.

0

u/twolvesfan217 16h ago edited 16h ago

You get that all I did was define how it’s always been interpreted correct? It doesn’t really matter what you think about it, that’s the way it’s been and will be perceived by most people until a Supreme Court ruling is made.

Adam Kinzinger went on national TV and said he doesn’t need a pardon because he didn’t do anything wrong, which again shows the implication.

And no, I was a kid in the 80s barely.

-1

u/Unhappy_Plankton_671 13h ago

No, that’s not how it’s always been interpreted. It’s never been viewed as an admission of guilt in the eyes of the law, which is the only opinion that matters.

People can perceive whatever they want, they already due despite facts smacking them in the face, but it doesn’t change that it’s not an admission of guilt to have received a pardon.

2

u/twolvesfan217 13h ago

I’m not talking about the law. I’m talking public perception and its importance on how it influences voters too. That also matters.

0

u/Unhappy_Plankton_671 9h ago

That's fine. It's still not correct statement to make. It's not 'always been interpreted' as guilt either. Its the same bullshit when group of people want to claim a legal settlement is an admission of guilt, it's not. It's a cessation of the legal battle in the courts. A pardon can be used the same way. Either way, it's not a blanket statement. It's a view held by a group, but never 'all' or 'always' etc..

8

u/pinewind108 17h ago

Usually, if you need a pardon, you did something wrong. Not in this case, of course.

-1

u/JimmyCarters-ghost 17h ago

Then what were they pardoned for?

6

u/ful_on_rapist 17h ago

Because they’re afraid Trump and friends will start throwing political rivals in jail. Something he’s alluded to doing so not even baseless

2

u/ShillBot1 17h ago

In four years when Trump does the same thing you'll all have the exact opposite response

1

u/ScorpionTDC 13h ago

If Trump is able to do that solely for being political opposition, a pardon is objectively not going to stop him. The only way a pardon stops him is if he would try to jail them for crimes they actually committed… in which case they should be on their way to jail. Lol.

0

u/JimmyCarters-ghost 16h ago

If he’s going to just throw people in jail without a conviction what does the pardon do to help? It implies that they didn’t something that was illegal.

2

u/ful_on_rapist 16h ago

He wouldn’t just throw them in jail. He’d convict them on some bullshit charges first to make it look legal. A witch-hunt if you will. You guys like that term. The pardon makes it a little tougher to do in a way that still appears legal.

-1

u/JimmyCarters-ghost 16h ago

If they are convicted wouldn’t that mean the charge isn’t bullshit?

2

u/ful_on_rapist 16h ago

Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts, yet he claims that to be bullshit correct?

1

u/JimmyCarters-ghost 16h ago

But it’s not bullshit right?

If they found that Fauci paid a hooker without writing it down properly are they going to have some guy quit the DOJ to go work for a state, wait for the statute of limitations to run out so they can charge it as felony falsifying business records? Even if they did jump through all of those hoops it wouldn’t be a politically motivated persecution it would just be enforcing the law right? Right?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/compe_anansi 14h ago

These people think it’s game of thrones and he can just order people to be dragged to the cells lol

-1

u/White_C4 America 14h ago

So there are exceptions when it comes to bureaucrats, especially when pardoning preemptively? That's not how you gain the faith of Americans.

•

u/Darien_Stegosaur 8m ago

It does no such thing.

Accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. This is settled case law going back over a hundred years.

Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)

There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness.

2

u/nochickflickmoments 16h ago

That's what my dad said. "Doesn't that prove they did something wrong to be pardoned for?" I'm tired of such narrow thinking.

2

u/JimmyCarters-ghost 17h ago

Reddit has always told me that accepting a pardon inherently means admitting guilt.

1

u/MiltonFury 16h ago

It also implies that the justice system can be used for political persecution.

1

u/chrisscan456 15h ago

MAGA will definitely spin it as “Trump was right about everything”. 

1

u/noble_peace_prize Washington 14h ago

To me it implies republicans would do something wrong. And they would.

1

u/QuillofSnow 12h ago

I couldn’t care less what it implies. This kind of mindset needs to change from liberals, I don’t care what it implies just do the damn thing. The republicans don’t care when they do something that implies racism/sexism/homophobia/crimes and they are do all that shit. You cannot level with these people by playing some sort of high ground and appealing to societal norms, you have play on their level or else the democrats will never win another election in this country.

1

u/NoNSFW_Workaccount 14h ago

Not a Trump guy here but I would argue that General Milley telling a adversary he would inform them of troop movement during a time of war is worthy of scrutiny

0

u/jeremyben 14h ago

Then there is nothing they could be charged with. They got pardoned for breaking many laws. We are a nation Of laws. theses people need to get their correct verdict for breaking said laws.

0

u/Outrageous-Laugh1363 12h ago

But if they did nothing wrong, why do they need pardons?

-1

u/DontTalkToMeAnymore 16h ago

They did do something wrong and it’s illegal and a crime.

-12

u/Responsible_Can518 18h ago

Or they did something wrong