As promised during the campaign, President Donald Trump pardoned most of the rioters from January 6th soon after taking office. The scope of the pardon was greater than expected. Indeed, many of us opposed the inclusion of those who were convicted of violent crimes against police officers. However, one recipient quickly stood out in the group for her refusal to accept the pardon: Pamela Hemphill. The right to refuse a pardon is found not in the Constitution but in a curious line of case law treating the executive action as an offer requiring acceptance.
Ironically, Hemphill (called the “MAGA granny”) was the prototypical case cited by critics of what one of the leading Justice officials called the “shock and awe” campaign against those involved in the riot. Like many, she was convicted only of a misdemeanor for parading, demonstrating or picketing in the Capitol building. (Three other misdemeanors were dropped as part of a plea bargain).
She was still sentenced to two months in jail, three years of probation and a $500 fine to be paid into a fund.
Prosecutors cited her rhetoric in postings before January 6th and a picture holding a gun. She later said that a therapist changed her mind and she became a supporter of Kamala Harris.
Hemphill said that she viewed the pardon as belittling the attack and rewriting history.
Even those of us who expressed concerns over the handling of these cases agree with Hemphill that January 6th was a desecration of our constitutional process.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
However, the question is whether this sweeping power can be refused by the recipient. In my view, there is a strong basis for treating pardons as a one-way street. You do not have to agree with the pardon for a president to grant you the benefit of it. Pardons are a final failsafe in the criminal justice system, allowing presidents to correct what they view as a wrong in the treatment of individuals or groups. This view treats a pardon as an act in the public welfare or good, a view that I tend to favor.
Yet, in 1833, in the case of United States v. Wilson, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that this private act of grace
is a deed” which requires “delivery” and “delivery is not complete, without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.
The Court stressed that our pardon jurisprudence rests on English common law because the “[pardon] power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of [England] . . . [,] to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance.” In England, it was treated as a private agreement or act with the King. However, many have suggested that our rejection of a monarchy should militate in favor of a public purpose or public welfare view of the authority. Nevertheless, Marshall suggested that even a condemned person could refuse a pardon if it were conditional. In other words, a person could find that the “condition may be more objectionable than the punishment inflicted by the judgment.”
The Court reaffirmed Wilson in Burdick v. United States after President Woodrow Wilson pardoned a newspaper editor, George Burdick, who had refused to testify by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Wilson wanted Burdick to testify in a case and hoped that the pardon would bar the use of the privilege against self-incrimination.
Justice Joseph McKenna wrote the opinion that found that Burdick was entitled to reject the pardon for a number of reasons. In dicta, McKenna noted that a pardon is an implicit admission of guilt — a view that I have always rejected as fundamentally wrong. However, the Court emphasized that the Burdick pardon would have resulted in losing his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. That condition seemed to drive the decision.
The Court then muddled this area even further with a seemingly conflicting result a few years later in Biddle v. Perovich. In that case, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote for a unanimous Court that there was no consent required in commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment.
President Taft had reduced Vuco Perovich’s death sentence to life in prison. Perovich wanted a full pardon and challenged the change. The Court found that the president had the authority regardless of his opposition. The decision clearly rejects the view of Wilson in holding that a pardon is not a private act of grace.
I fall obviously closer to Biddle and view both Wilson and Burdick as deeply flawed, particularly the latter’s suggestion of implied guilt from a pardon.
Ironically, the implied guilt issue came up in another Trump pardon involving Clint Lorance who was convicted in the killing of two Afghan civilians. After Trump pardoned Lorance, he sought to continue to seek relief in challenging his conviction but the district court found, ala Burdick, that the pardon was an admission of guilt. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit correctly reversed the trial court and found no such admission.
Hemphill raises the reverse image of Lorance. She opposes the pardon because she feels that it removes or expunges her guilt.
The Hemphill pardon does not contain any conditions. However, this was not a commutation but a full pardon. It could be cited as a problem in refusing to testify on the underlying criminal acts (though Hemphill appears eager to discuss those acts). It does not appear to implicate other constitutional rights. (Notably, individuals are routinely compelled to testify with the grant of immunity).
I remain skeptical of the private act model in such cases. Yet, it is not a matter likely to be litigated. It is unlikely to arise without a fight over the privilege against self-incrimination. Frankly, I wish we could see a test case to allow the Court to revisit the underlying authority.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Free Derek Chauvin
‘History is a set of lies agreed upon’ -Napoleon Bonaparte
Agreed upon by our Government – J6’s history perfectly is exemplar.
There were no video recordings in Napoleon’s time, whereas most of the J6 gory details are recorded for posterity.
All fascist overlords (left, right, mafia, doesn’t matter) want to have case-by-case, discretionary power to settle all disputes.
Our country was founded on the opposite principle, the rule-of-law, majority rule via elections, courts with neutral judges and juries of average citizens…..nobody holding arbitrary power.
That makes the self-serving way these 2 Presidents just exercised the Pardon a dangerous precedent. I believe we will live to regret the Founders having inserted those few words into Article II. Because with them, only self-restraint at the top stands between our precious freedoms and lawless, violent political thuggery like Germany veered off into in the ’30s. From there…..may the most rabbid, psychopathic, fearless zealots win.
If you truly believe that I have a bridge for sale.
That makes the self-serving way these 2 Presidents just exercised the Pardon a dangerous precedent.
Now there’s a fine example of Kalifornia Democrat attempted sophomoric moral equivalency.
1. Biden pardoned his family members who were part of millions of dollars flowing into his pockets. He also preemptively pardoned Democrats within his bureaucracy who potentially committed crimes while abusing the authority and the power of their offices in order to further a political agenda.
2. Trump pardoned people who were subjected to Biden’s police state fascism in prosecutions that bore no resemblance of equal justice for all – not a single rioter that assaulted the White House just a few weeks before J6, an assault that went on for over a day, ever spent a single day in the cells the J6 trespassers, “illegal paraders”, and outright rioters spent months and years in.
Trump pardoning them after that government abuse is supposedly “self serving”.
Maybe pbinca suspects Trump sent them all a bill: $1,000 for each pardon?
Old Airborne Dog
SecDef Pete Hegseth! 🥳
Woo-hoo 🎉
Get used to that, baby. Bye-bye to the woke military, hello lethal military and the restoration of American strength.
what a stupid comment
what part is stupid ?
The difference between the right and left on the military is crystal clear.
I also find it ironic – Hedseth was removed from the National Guard indirectly as a result of Pelosi’s efforts to remove political conservatives from the military,
Now Hegseth is Sec. Def.
Hegseth is also the most difficult confirmation that Trump appointments likely face. it should be smooth sailing for the rest.
“SecDef Pete Hegseth”
The GOP votes against are interesting. Collins & Murkowski fall under the “usual RINOs” umbrella, and I pretty much expected them to vote as they did. But what would have motivated Mitch McConnell to vote “nay”? Do you think that he made sure that Hegseth had the required votes before he did so, for some reason of conscience (whatever that might have been ) or to appease some group that is important to him for some reason? If not, I’m really puzzled. To me, his legacy is mixed, with his prevention of Obama installing Garland as SCOTUS justice an unassailable high point. But if he voted against Hegseth, knowing that his vote could tank the nomination, that vote now becomes the salient item in his legacy, and tarnishes it for all time.
Article on Gateway Pundit reports:
McConnell said he voted “no” because Hegseth failed to demonstrate whether he can manage an annual budget of nearly $3 trillion and 3 million military personnel.
McConnell said he voted “no” because Hegseth failed to demonstrate whether he can manage an annual budget of nearly $3 trillion and 3 million military personnel.
For context, McConnell was one of the few GOP senators who voted to confirm as Transportation Secretary the small town mayor who couldn’t get their small fleet of city transport buses running, the Reverend Mrs. Pete Buttagieg. Now THERE’S a proven manager for a position with enormous responsibilities! McConnell recognized him as a proven manager from the moment Biden announced he was nominating a homosexual (and future chest-feeding Birthing Person).
But, that must be it: money management. Same McConnell who demonstrated he was completely unable to manage budget bills as the GOP’s leader in the Senate during Trump’s presidency and then Biden’s presidency – the perfect candidate to analyze budget management skills.
Votes like this are the story of McConnell’s grifting life in politics. The Communist Chinese know they always have some pushback in the GOP ranks as long as McConnell is still a Senator.
Old Airborne Dog
Morning!
That is the first thing that came to my mind….he has a lot of nerve criticizing anyone else’s budget managing skills considering Congress has only passed 4 budgets on time in the past 40 yrs.
We know it was just an excuse. I know I’ve heard people say ‘a president should have the cabinet he wants’ — with all the usual caveats — qualified, no scandals, yada, yada. It certainly seems as if that only holds true for dem presidents.
Yes, the person you referenced sure did seem to be a little ‘light in his….qualifications.’
😉
with his prevention of Obama installing Garland as SCOTUS justice an unassailable high point
As a majority leader of the Senate in a lame duck president’s last year of his term, rejecting that lame duck president’s SCOTUS nominee IS THE NORM – not McConnell making an exception. It’s all federal judiciary precedent and historical norms. Including before Obama’s nomination of Garland, when Bush’s final nominees were blocked by then Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy. They got exactly the same treatment Obama’s Merrick Garland got four years later.
But what would have motivated Mitch McConnell to vote “nay”?
Nothing the slightest out of character for McConnell to do that. Aside from anything else, he voted with his doppelgänger Murkowski – who is only in the Senate because McConnell campaigned for her and against her Republican nominee candidate who defeated her in the Alaska primary.
Why not use the opportunity to poke a stick in Trump’s eye with this nominee – aside from Hegseth outside of the military regularly criticizing McConnell.
Old Airborne Dog
Wow! You MAGA dumbaxxes are celebrating the death of the DOD—- a raw exercise of power that forced onto the American people a drunken loser whose own mother says he abuses women, who has NO administrative experience operating a complex operation and whose only experience operating anything— 2 veteran charities —was a miserable failure, with financial mismanagement, sexual harassment of employees and showing up drunk at work.
Hey, that sounds like Democratic Senator Teddy Kennedy! You forgot about the DUI and a blonde in every pond. We can do this allllll night long, I mean allllll night long.
Chappaquidick has no relevance to the DOD. We could talk about the sexual indiscretions of the orangutan who just got elected as President of the U.S. all night long. Funny he hadn’t come down with a few cases of Cupid’s measles.
Good one Floyd 😂
Floyd, that is FABULOUS!
what stupidity. leave it to flyood
Floyd, You rock. Let’s have a baby, oh moon of my delight.
Is Pamela Hemphill exercising her Rosa Parks stance by refusing her Pardon?
(rephrase: Is Pamela Hemphill having a Rosa Parks moment?)
She (both) wanted to demonstrate to make a Point. Pamela Hemphill doesn’t want that ‘Point’ taken away by a Pardon.
She’s taking her stand in the frontseat, not the backseat of the Bus.
Pamela Hemphill dose not want her ‘Moment of Civil Disobedience’ to be obscured and lost by a Pardon.
What if the Participants of the Boston Tea Party were all Pardoned? or the Participants at the Battle of Bunker hill?, or Marchers of the Civil Rights Movement, or Women Liberationist, or War Protesters, or … .
These Actors are “Progressives” in History as well as their own minds. So it’s understandable from their perspective that the “Moment”, the Effort(s) of Civil Disobedience, be not obscure nor lost by a nullification through a Pardon.
It’s like saying: Everyone that participated in the American Revolution are Pardoned, therefore it really didn’t happen, historically nullified, lets move on, nothing to see here. J6 is real and it’s real to those people that gave their live for it. They did not give it in vain.
The Cynics (of the Government) says that this Event (J6) was a Think Tank (Brookings/Hudosn) concoction, designed to have greater impact that the events of 911, with that greater impact of watching Planes fly into buildings and them crashing Down.
(the Sacking of the U.S. Capitol) . It may have for some, but it stands out that it was an ‘operation’ gone off target (it backfired on them), hence the Government wants to cover-up the historical tracts with Pardons. So now many find themselves on the side of Pamela Hemphill.
As for Trump’s part of Pardoning these people, Pamela Hemphill’s response does not seem to be the purposed objective of his actions (The Pardon).
“Pamela Hemphill dose not want her ‘Moment of Civil Disobedience’ to be obscured and lost by a Pardon.
What if the Participants of the Boston Tea Party were all Pardoned?”
This might be the stupidest post/assertion made here in a month, and that takes in a huge amount of territory. You do realize that Hemphill completely reversed her position from the motivation that led her to join the Jan 6 protesters, do you not? Gee, “what if the participants of the Boston Tea Party were pardoned after changing their minds and declaring that George III was the rightful ruler of Massachusetts Colony”? MORON!
You convoluted it. Your twist:”after changing their minds and declaring that George III was the rightful ruler” (Pamela Hemphill didn’t change her mind nor did the Tea Party – They meant it!)
If George III granted the Colonist a Pardon, then the British rule would have gone on unabated and lost in the Fog of history.
We would possible be British – A fate worse than Death itself.
https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/01/who-starts-cutting-costs-as-us-withdrawal-date-set-for-january-2026/
Gee, what are the odds of another pandemic? They just went up with funding cuts. But not to worry, There will be a vaccine and trump supporters won’t take it and will die. Bummer.
Trump supporters dying of the next viral outbreak… based on how repugnant these ones are I look forward to it.
That was a biological attack by China.
It was not a spontaneous pandemic.
Incidentally, China owes 195 countries $250 trillion (to be increased).
Just the possibility of China working to weaponize viruses should cause us to begin forcing WHO members to open their nations to international bioscientific audits. We should be strengthening the institution, not weakening it. It’s hard work. Trump’s “we quit” approach is petulant, irresponsible and lazy. If it doesn’t achieve the right effect, we’ll end up worse off than doing nothing.
Should America control its destiny, or should that be relegated to an institution that neither represents our interests or the interests of the world. The WHO proved itself a mouthpiece that failed its mission. Trump’s dismissal of WHO was intelligent and opens the world to many more and better opinions.
Cite where the Constitution allows the federal government to join international orgs such as these and give them our money, if you please.
DEMS told people NOT to take the TRUMP vaccine last time!
A Message To Future Insurrectionists!
by Floyd
In the future, should you wish to overthrow the country, and invade Congress or whatever – take a lesson from the Patriots of the Boston Tea Party. They disguised themselves as Hostile Indians when they boarded the British Tea Fleet.
Do the same! Wear a disguise. Dress up like Antifa and BLM protestors. Wear hoodies, and carry deadly skateboards. Holler “Black Lives Matter!” when you take a dump on Adam Schiff’s desk! Even wear blackface! The cops will be afraid to shoot you! The Legacy Media will be on your side, and rich liberals will go your bail for you!
“There’s a guy named Daniel Rodriguez. On January 5th, 2020, he texted his friends ‘There will be blood.’ On January 6th, when he stormed the Capitol, he grabbed a police officer and shocked him repeatedly in the neck with a stun gun. A jury of peers sentenced him to twelve years in prison for his violent crime. And less than 24 hours after taking office, Trump let Daniel Rodriguez back out on the street.”
Boy, but Daniel Rodriquez is an idiot! 12 years??? He should have thrown a Molotov Cocktail instead, and then it would just be 1 year!
https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-sentences-second-new-york-lawyer-molotov-cocktail-case-2023-01-27/
Or cause permanent eye damage w a high powered laser and get off scott free.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s daughter threw a Moltov cocktail on a police car; she went scot-free, as did thousands of other looters.
“Biden grants clemency to man convicted in 1999 killing of mother, son in Bridgeport”
“Before he left office on Monday, President Biden granted clemency to Adrian Peeler, a man convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in the 1999 killings of Karen Clarke and her 8-year-old son, Leroy “BJ” Brown.
“A man convicted in the killing of an 8-year-old boy and his mother in Bridgeport in 1999 has been granted clemency by now former president Joe Biden, drawing criticism across party lines.”
– NBC News
good for daniel. I keep wondering why the dems didnt help the hundred off thousands hur by blm riots.
Or why fema ignored the suffering of americans.
And this one thinks dan’s the probelm and thrump is the bad guy.
Wonder if dan is hispanic and thats why anon targeted him.?
They all should be pardoned, and all of them paid a great deal of restitution, and given public apologies for the grievous misconduct of the government on J6 and on every day since.
Then we can start with the real prosecutions for the day, a case in point, the over 200 gov undercovers in the ghost buses, and the 26 feddies admitted to, and the 6 months of plotting and infiltration to get the whole thing going with a totally lax security plan on purpose and the cops attacking the crowd (and themselves) with their percussion controls and other smoke and incendiary (then blurting out on mic “we’ve been set up”, etc.
This is all as plainly obvious as was the covid corruption, from day one.
Pure blood, pure skin, never jabbed never tested checking in.
Yeah, it all makes sense timewise. The Dems and FBI planned J6th riot 6 months in advance. One agent spoke up in caution:
“How do we know it won’t snowball into a national revolt to arrest Biden and reinaugurate Trump??”
(crickets and dour faces)
“An angel just whispered in my ear! It will end in a whimper after only 3 hours, the nation will recoil in disgust, Congress will reconvene later that evening and certify Biden. Nothing to worry about. Let’s do it!!”
(everyone relieved to be tipped off about the detailed future 6 months out)
————-
Conspiracists frequently make the mistake of failing to suppress ex post facto knowledge when weaving their narrative.