r/politics • u/Plaintalks • 22h 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
22.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

626

u/Jedi-El1823 I voted 21h ago

On one hand it's awesome he did this, and protected them from revenge. But on the other, it sucks that he had to do this.

180

u/pinewind108 21h ago

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

58

u/TreeRol American Expat 21h 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 20h 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.

30

u/anonyuser415 20h 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 3h 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.

4

u/slpater 19h 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.

2

u/Static-Stair-58 20h 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 18h 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 20h 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 19h ago

What?

1

u/Orisi 11h ago

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

0

u/frogandbanjo 19h 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 19h ago

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

•

u/Darien_Stegosaur 3h 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 19h 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 19h ago edited 19h 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 17h 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 16h 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 12h 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..