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.”
Far more concerning is the therapist failing Granny.
Another therapist might’ve converted her to lesbian or transgender or both, in which case sticking her with a pardon could be a form of sodomy she doesn’t practice.
* Ms Hemphill’s next therapy session involves dog collars, handcuffs and whips… she’s required to yell more more, harder harder. 😂
Enuff
“. . . a therapist changed her mind . . .”
And convinced her to shun her family during the holidays?
Why don’t you believe the person that is talking?
You know better? Who are you do declare you know why someone else thinks?
She admitted what she did, took part in an insurrection to keep the guy in power that just lost the election.
“Why don’t you believe the person that is talking?”
What on Earth are you talking about?
She’s the one who said that her therapist changed her political convictions.
You know who else used psychology for political “re-education?” The Soviets.
I think she’s smoked too much hemp on the hill!
This is an example of an old school Turley post. Commentary on law without taking a political position. It is a solid post that I agree with. I wish we had more of these posts, like we had 10 years ago.
Yep. Lots of admission that what trump is doing is flagrentely unconstitutional yet he continues to support the orange god. That lucre from Fox must be nice.
Anonymous @ 9:35am
Where is that in this article? Guess I wasn’t “reading his mind” like you obviously were…
“Lots of admission that what trump is doing is flagrentely unconstitutional yet he continues to support the orange god.”
And another bitter pedophile, fearing his freedom is now endangered, cries out in anguish that The Pedophile In Chief, President Daddy-Daughter Inappropriate Incest Showers is no longer the Oval Office house plant whose puppetmasters will protect him.
I had to read it twice as the first time I thought it said a rapist changed her mind. I immediately thought that Bill Clinton had gotten to her…
@Anonymous
We were not dealing with the modern left in anything like this capacity ten years ago, they deteriorated with lightning speed, the past four years being the pinnacle. I personally think the Professor’s gravitas and focus have been amazing given the circumstances – even he himself has been targeted. Just my opinion.
I do agree though that this reprieve is nice. I have always enjoyed the legal perspectives here.
Under Title 18, Section 216, the AG. DAG, or any Assistant AG, may petition the chief judge of a district court to convene a special grand jury “because of criminal activity in the district.” Pardoned witnesses do not enjoy 5th Amendment privileges because they have been pardoned and face no possible self-incrimination. The proceedings are secret and cannot be subpoenaed by state district attorneys or state attorneys general; thus, witness statements and testimony cannot be shared with state authorities without the permission of the supervising judge. Thus, a pardoned witness who might claim a 5th Amendment privilege to preclude state prosecution can be protected from such exposure by the chief judge’s withholding of federal grand jury material and testimony, which in a complicated case like this would almost be pro forma.
From the outset, a special grand jury may be authorized to investigate rather than prosecute, in which case no indictments would be returned under this hypothetical example. This would be consistent with the status of pardoned targets of the grand jury. The supervising court can instruct a special grand jury to investigate and prepare a report that the court may disclose in part or in full at its discretion. Pardoned witnesses may be identified as “unindicted co-conspirators” or “unindicted participants,” etc. The object here is twofold: 1) thoroughly investigate claims of wrongdoing by the Biden Crime Family, and 2) lessen the likelihood that future POTUSs will misuse their pardon authority to protect themselves and family members (because doing so likely will result in a special grand jury exposing their crimes and those of the pardoned persons and co-conspirators).
@JJC: thank you for that informative post.
I, along with many others, have seen Hunter Biden as the lowest hanging of the Biden felony fruit. That is, if Republicans weren’t too terrified to pick it, believing it to be forbidden fruit. I believed that would be true whether he was actually pardoned or instead at EOS after a paltry sentencing.
The question I would ask you regarding the existence of Fifth Amendment protections for the Bidens and Biden Administration Democrats is this:
This pardon shields them from prosecution regarding federal felonies. Presumably many of their felonies also violated state laws. A presidential pardon cannot be issued for state crimes. Democrats have gleefully pointed out a presidential pardon cannot be issued to Trump for New York state convictions.
Do Hunter Biden and the rest of those Biden pardoned still have Fifth Amendment rights if subpoenaed to testify? Using a claim that they could incriminate themselves and be prosecuted for felonies committed violating state laws?
Thanks again,
Old Airborne Dog
In the comments to one of yesterday’s columns, I advocated that a task force be formed to investigate whether any state crimes had been committed by any whom Biden pardoned, with the objective of securing the prosecution of any such crimes in the court systems of at least the red states.
I am not able to like your post so I am posting a like and a thank you for the info.
I do not believe “desecration” is an appropriate term to refer to political goings on at the Capitol building in Washington. Religious fervor should be reserved for….religion.
With respect to J6 pardons.
There are two issues.
First always previously – though sometimes excessively, we under charge and under sentence criminal acts committed as part of protests.
and we should. BLM protoestors that engaged in violence towards police received very low sentences. Two lawyers that tossed molatov cocktails in an occupied police car received 18 months of probation. That was egregiously light. There is no J6 protestor actually guilty of something that should have received a sentence longer than 4 years.
Next, the prosecution of J6 was egregiously corrupt. Defendants were denied the right to confront their accusers, denied the right to exculpatory evidence, denied due process, denies first amendment defenses, just denied their constitutional rights right and left.
The process was corrupt and MUST be thrown out.
Arguably it was so corrupt as to be irredeemable.
I understand and concur that SOME J6 protestors committed crimes that warranted prosecutions, convictions and prison.
But the lawlessly corrupt prosecutions that took place MUST be tossed.
I beleive Trump commuted sentences of violent protestors rather than pardoned them.
That means the conviction itself still stands, only the sentence has been shortened.
That is appropriate.
In my opinion, the blanket pardon of the J6 defendants is wrong.
Trump is not the first American President to do this. In 1865 Andrew Johnson pardoned thousands of Confederate officials and soldiers and made it a requirement for them to swear a loyalty oath to the United States and to free their slaves.
I think it remains to be seen . There are many unanswered facts that need to be addressed. There is video evidence of the police inciting the crowd- who authorized this and why?
What about the pipe bombs found at the exact time to have maximum negative impact on security at the Capitol.
Why was the security insufficient in the first place?
All the law enforcement officers present that day were pardoned, why was that necessary if they were strictly victims? Odd.
Police fired flash grenades, and I believe other ordinance, into a rowdy, but non-violent crowd…injuring many people. That is when the crowd became angry and violent.
The security was inadequate because President Trump’s directions were ignored by the people under him.
WASHINGTON – Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) revealed that days before January 6, 2021, President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders urging them to do their jobs to protect lives and property. The transcripts released show Trump gave senior Pentagon leadership directives to keep January 6 peaceful – including using the National Guard – which the Pentagon leaders ignored. This revelation directly contradicts the conclusions drawn in the flawed DoD IG reporton January 6, 2021.
“Pentagon leadership prioritized concerns of optics over their duty to protect lives,” said Chairman Loudermilk. “President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders and directed them to make sure any events on January 6, 2021 were safe. It is very concerning that these Senior Pentagon officials ignored President Trump’s guidance AND misled Congressional Leaders to believe they were doing their job, when they were not. The DoD IG’s report is fundamentally flawed. It does not draw conclusions from the interviews they conducted, but pushes a narrative to keep their hands clean. We have many questions for them, and we will continue to dig until we are satisfied the American people know the truth.” https://cha.house.gov/2024/9/transcripts-show-president-trump-s-directives-to-pentagon-leadership-to-keep-january-6-safe-were-deliberately-ignored
Trump pardoned all of them; there were no commutations.
The majority of BLM rioters were charged under state laws, not federal law, which is why their sentences were shorter. The January 6 (J6) rioters, on the other hand, assaulted federal law enforcement officers. It’s important to remember that Washington, D.C., is not a state, and the Capitol grounds are under federal jurisdiction. BLM protesters were charged under state law because law enforcement in those instances was handled by state or city police. This is the reason for the disparity in sentencing. Comparing BLM protesters charged under state law to J6 protesters is not a valid comparison.
Every single J6 rioter received due process. They were tried under federal laws, which often carry harsher penalties. Additionally, participating in a riot on federal property carries a different set of consequences. Trespassing on federal property is a crime, and doing so while participating in a riot results in even harsher penalties. Consequently, claims of unfairness or corruption regarding J6 prosecutions are misplaced. Using BLM protesters as a benchmark to argue about the fairness of J6 prosecutions is incorrect; one involves state laws while the other falls entirely under federal law.
Totally false, George. Trump did NOT pardon, but commuted sentences of 14 offenders, almost all of them Oath Keepers or Proud Boys.
https://www.newsweek.com/every-january-6-prisoners-donald-trump-not-pardon-capitol-2018211
reading comprehension problems or just an inability to understand the meaning of big words?
George is a pathological liar of the same magnitude as Joe Biden. He just fakes the reading comprehension cognitive mental handicap in hopes it gives him cover.
George
Many BLM rioters should have been charged under federal laws but were not (damage/destruction to federal property within a state IS a federal crime). If you want to focus simply on DC we can look at the 2020 riots. How many of the rioters were tracked down and thrown in jail for years? Or held for years without bail?
The justice system cannot exist when there are 2 tiers of justice. Obviously the majority of America agrees with this concept. Trump never hid that he was going to issue these pardons (not like other presidents who lie then do it anyway).
You attempt to belittle a entirely accurate and valid comparison by blowing it off and misrepresenting (i.e., lying) about it does not invalidate it.
There were no “two tiers of justice.” The rioters were charged under state or city ordinances, which applies to most BLM protesters. A few were charged with vandalism of federal property.
There are state, city, and federal offenses, each with very different penalties for violating their specific criminal codes.
Like John Say and others, you want to compare the treatment of BLM protesters with that of the January 6 protesters and rioters, but they are not the same.
All January 6 protesters and rioters who were charged with crimes faced federal statutes because they assaulted federal law enforcement, destroyed federal government property, and trespassing on federal government property while participating in a riot. These crimes carry harsher penalties.
In contrast, BLM protesters and rioters were largely charged under city and state criminal codes, many of which were first-offense misdemeanors or simple assaults on city police or state troopers. While these actions are still crimes, the penalties are less severe. Therefore, calling the January 6 prosecutions “unfair” and “corrupt” is not a valid argument.
Federal courts operate differently than local city or state courts. Federal judges have more authority more leeway when it comes to deciding detention times before trial. Speaking disrespectfully and insulting a federal judge and showing no remorse will nearly guarantee a revocation of bond.
“Trump pardoned all of them; there were no commutations.”
George Svelaz, Ignorance and arrogance is a bad combination. Since what you write is made up, why does anyone read your drivel?
“BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
This proclamation ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and begins a process of national reconciliation.
Acting pursuant to the grant of authority in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, I do hereby:
(a) commute the sentences of the following individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, to time served as of January 20, 2025:
• Stewart Rhodes
• Kelly Meggs
• Kenneth Harrelson
• Thomas Caldwell
• Jessica Watkins
• Roberto Minuta
• Edward Vallejo
• David Moerschel
• Joseph Hackett
• Ethan Nordean
• Joseph Biggs
• Zachary Rehl
• Dominic Pezzola
• Jeremy Bertino
(b) grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted “
The majority of BLM rioters were charged under state laws, not federal law, which is why their sentences were shorter.
Today George begins with one of his favorite genius tactics: Democrat Double Standards Different.
George, those other riots in Washington DC, like the earlier assault on the White House that went on for over a day, where the White House church was torched and over 50 Secret Service and Capitol Police were sent to hospital with wounds suffered from repelling the attackers.
That was ALSO federal property; those were ALSO federal felonies. The White House, like the Senate, is ALSO the home of a branch of our constitutional republic.
How many of the Black Liars & Marxists and Antifa rioters who attempted to murder those White House federal LEOs with Molotov Cocktails got the exact same “due process” as you claim the J6 rioters fairly received?
Do you have an answer/excuse/defense with an answer that is other than “Not a single one of them got the exact same treatment as the later J6 rioters got”?
Old Airborne Dog
Those BLM “rioters” were not attacking law enforcement. Law enforcement was attacking them. Vandalism is still a misdemeanor in Washington, D.C.
There was no assault on the white house. Protesting in front of the white house is not an assault.
Throwing water bottles from the standpoint of a crowd makes it very difficult to ascertain who exactly injured an officer.
J6 protesters literally dragged officers into the crowd and beat them. Using bear spray on capitol police is felony assault.
BLM protesters were peacefully marching until law enforcement provoked the crowds by attacking them.
You have a very poor understanding of how the law works. Its not a transactional endeavor.
Such lies.
UPDATE June 13, 2020: In assisting the USSS with their protective mission of the White House Zone, more than 50 U.S. Park Police Officers sustained injuries, some being hospitalized, throughout the operational period starting on May 29th. This illegal behavior by the protestors also resulted in several structure fires and significant property damage. This is indisputable.
Following the violence that continued on May 30th where officers were hit with bricks and assaulted, the USSS and USPP had initial discussions regarding adjustments to the collective posture in Lafayette Park and potentially obtaining fencing. As violence and destruction continued in Washington, DC, putting both the public and law enforcement at risk, on Sunday, May 31, USSS confirmed with USPP that the anti-scale fencing would be procured and potentially delivered on Monday for installation along H Street.
On Monday, June 1, USPP received confirmation from the USSS that the fencing would be delivered during the day with the expectation of being installed in the evening. Both agencies concurred with a plan to clear H Street to prevent a repeat of the protestors’ attacks and destruction that occurred on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and to create a safe environment for the fence to be installed. Pedestrians were to be moved from the immediate area of the 1600 block of H Street to the following points: H Street & Connecticut Avenue on the west, 16th & I Streets to the north, H St. east of Vermont Avenue to the east.
To curtail the violence that was underway, the USPP, following standard operating procedures, issued three warnings over a loudspeaker to alert demonstrators on H Street to evacuate the area. Horse mounted patrol, Civil Disturbance Units and additional personnel were used to clear the area. As many of the protestors became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, grab officer’s protective equipment, and even attempted to grab one officers’ weapon, officers then employed the use of smoke canisters, stinger balls, and pepper balls. On June 1, USPP officers and other assisting law enforcement partners operating under the command of the USPP did not use tear gas or Skat Shells to close the area at Lafayette Park. Subsequently, the fence was installed.
This operation to secure the area and install the fence – that had been discussed as early as two days prior – was completely irrespective of the President’s later movement from the White House and unbeknownst to U.S. Park Police.
So sorry. Citation for above…
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/uspp/june-13-acting-chief-gregory-t-monahan-issues-statement-about-the-protective-mission-of-the-white-house-zone.htm
Those BLM “rioters” were not attacking law enforcement. Law enforcement was attacking them. Vandalism is still a misdemeanor in Washington, D.C. There was no assault on the white house.
George, you are a piss poor liar. Hoping semantics will save your pathetic ass isn’t going to save it. Which is why you were selected to play the part of Larry in The Three Democrat Marxist Stooges.
Save your “I’m a Confederate constitutional expert with an internet law degree and you suffer from reading comprehension” Bull Schiff for somebody gullible.
AT DON’S DOOR 50 Secret Service agents wounded in White House riots as President Trump is evacuated to ‘terror attack’ bunker
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11752998/trump-secure-bunker-friday-george-floyd-protests-white-house/
rioters were seen throwing bottles and Molotov cocktails at law enforcement officers. Others were spotted parking cars near the ‘President’s Palace’ filled with incendiary materials for future use
George, tell the world how attempting to murder Secret Service and Capitol Police with thrown Molotov Cocktails is “vandalism” and a misdemeanor in Washington DC?
You must be a member of the Washington DC Bar Association!
Old Airborne Dog
The courts have overly complicated this. Nearly all executive action is unilateral.
There only constraint in the constitution is that a pardon must be for an offense.
The president can not pardon you for anything you might have done.
The pardon must be for things you have actually done.
The pardon must in some terms specify the offences that are being pardoned.
Otherwise there is no pardon.
A pardon is not conditional. It is an act of presidential power. There is no right to refuse.
It directs that government may no longer prosecute.
Therefore you have immunity.
It is does NOT establish guilt – though people are free to assume that those pardoned are guilty.
There is no guilt as a matter of lawer.
A pardon does not erase your conviction record. If you are found guilty of an offense, a pardon does not automatically expunge that guilty finding—this is a separate matter. A pardon means that the president has unilaterally waived your punishment for the offense, and no further legal action regarding those charges can be pursued.
It’s important to note that a pardon does not protect you against new offenses.
Presidents have been giving pardons without specifying an underlying action for decades or longer.
I think she’s in it for the fame and money. MSNBC will give it to her.
“I think she’s in it for the fame and money.”
And you think this because she says truth about what happened on January 6? She is mistaken?
It really is a cult when cult members poo poo anyone that says anything disparaging about the cult leader.
Look in the mirror, this is exactly what is going on. Read the comments. Everyone know ore about this woman than the woman herself.
You are all pitiful and I have no doubt, none, that when the cult leader is at the end of his rope and it is all crashing down around him, he will take the kool aid and you will to. All dictators/cult leaders eentually end this way.
Sad.
While I disagree with Professor Turley on the Burdick v US issue of “guilt”. I further argue that preemptive criminal Pardons are outside the Constitution and have no meaning in fact and case law. There must first be an act that precipitates a Pardon. If the framers had any notion that a Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy would issue such a sweeping decades long “get out of jail free” card they would never had written the power into the Executive Branch.
Spot on. Hopefully the Reps will mount an attack to question the validity of the “preemptive” pardons.
Turley,
You’re wrong in your view that accepting a pardon is not an implicit admission of guilt.
What happens when you know you’re innocent but take a plea deal to avoid a long prison sentence or a lengthy and costly legal battle that bankrupts you?
You are admitting to guilt to avoid longer term ruin.
That would apply to a pardon. You’re accepted the help of the POTUS even though you may or may not have done something that would require it. The logic being that if you are getting a pardon, you had to have done something to deserve it. Note that a Pardon can only cover past acts…
-G
” wrong in your view that accepting a pardon is not an implicit admission of guilt.”
That wasn’t my take on Prof. Turley’s primary claim, which is that there is no necessity for acceptance by the pardon recipient at all. However, I do agree with you that his interpretation is wrong. I very much agree with Justice Marshall’s argument, which I regard as compelling. Turley also fails to make any compelling case for the “social benefit” conferred by such pardons. I suspect that means that he doesn’t have a cogent argument for that position. And citing an opinion by Holmes, who was largely ridiculous as a SCOTUS justice, imo doesn’t exactly bolster his position.
Pardons and plea deals are not the same.
Nothing in the constitution says that a pardon is bilateral – an agreement.
A plea deal is an agreement.
I would further note many plea deals are not admissions of guilt.
Sometimes a plea deal preserves SOME appellate rights.
Some are “no contest”
What is in common is that both convey immunity from further prosecution.
Therefore there can be no future 5th amendment claim.
“Nothing in the constitution says that a pardon is bilateral – an agreement.”
That is my belief as well. A pardon is a one way street. In this case the President forgives the offense without exacting a penalty. The recipient has nothing to do with it.
@John Say,
Sorry, I need to clarify. (This is what happens when you post before morning coffee(s) )
The comparison was that with a plea deal, you’re pleading guilty to a lesser crime as to avoid longer term ruin.
(Go broke fighting and if you lose, your stuck in jail for a long time)
You take a pardon which SCOTUS in 1915 said was an implicit admission of guilt.
Turley disagreed. That you could still be innocent but accept the pardon as a way to protect yourself.
In the first, the plea deal requires that you admit guilt to a charge.
In the second, you don’t accept the pardon unless you’re guilty of something.
Both are similar in that you can still be an innocent man, but for safety, you admit to guilt.
-G
The logic being that if you are getting a pardon, you had to have done something to deserve it.
That’s the same “logic” used to justify honor killings.
There is no logical connection between the pardon power and the recipient’s actual guilt or innocence. The only logical connection is between the power and who is receiving it. Remember, cases like Tom Robinson in “To Kill A Mockingbird” are rooted in the same injustice.
@Olly
Uhm … not what I was saying.
The problem w pardons is that they can be provided at any time after the act has been committed, even if not charged or the crime yet discovered.
So the only reason you get a pardon is if you have committed an act that requires one. So that there is an assumption of guilt even if you are not guilty.
I mean you can be an innocent man found guilty and still go to jail.
So accepting a pardon implies you’re guilty… you were found guilty at trial, but you could also be innocent.
So on this point I agree with you.
Where I have fault w Turley is that the implication of guilt is there, regardless of your true guilt or innocence.
Think of the guy who got charged in the J6, didn’t take a plea deal and was denied bail. He sat in the ‘gulag’ for years awaiting trial where the prosecution and the system violated his constitutional rights.
The Presidential Pardon is a vestige of monarchy, and an insult to the Jury system for determining facts and guilt or innocence. With the latest reckless expansions of its use at the point of transition, I now think Americans will live to regret its very existence, as it becomes used for premeditated, politically-driven lawbreaking. Self-restraint was the only thing that kept it from metastasizing these past 249 years.
It’s the abuse that has made it a mockery. It’s intended use was to be limited.
The reality is LAWFARE has corrupted the judical system and the dems used every dirty trick to destroy small and big alike.
Americans, especially the victims need to know that someone has their back.
Do you know what is an insult to the Jury system? Kangaroo courts, lawfare, selective prosecution, keeping someone in a jail for four years without trial. I could go on.
The fact tyhat we have seen lots of abuse of presidential pardons does not mean we should get rid of them.
The adage that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man is punished fits here too.
The J6 pardons were a correction and a rebuke for a system that went amuk.
I support Trump’s pardoning or commuting everyone – regardless of what they might have actually done,
Because none of these got a fair trial, they did not get honest prosecutors, judges or juries.
That does not mean that every single J6 protestor is innocent. Only that they were all treated unfairly and more important unconstitutionally.
I am really offended by several high profile Biden Pardons.
But there are many that were real justice.
Both Biden and Trump have pardoned drug posession where the parson pardoned had a long sentence for a small offesnse and appeared to get their life back together.
Trump’s pardon of Ross Ulbricht was absolutely warranted. His charges, conviction and sentence were egregious.
“The Presidential Pardon is a vestige of monarchy, and an insult to the Jury system for determining facts and guilt or innocence.”
Two things can resemble each other and not be the same thing. Yes pbinca, you can claim the Framers intended to preserve a vestige of monarchy in the Constitution.
Unless you ever bothered reading Madison’s Notes on the debates of the Constitutional convention. Had you read that, one of the more noticeable elements of the debates is a repeatedly expressed revulsion at the chances of a vestige of the monarchy creeping into the Constitution and governance of their new country.
The other thing you will also notice (if you actually do read Madison’s Notes), is their deep concern about both preventing and if necessary curing emotional mob rule and correcting injustices inflicted by government on individual citizens by those elected and abusing their power.
A good example would be the manner in how the J6 defendants were dealt with by Washington DC prosecutors and judges – while the same prosecutors gave similar riots that happened just weeks earlier assaulting the White House a complete pass.
No BLM/Antifa rioter who weeks earlier was assaulting the White House and attempting to murder Secret Service and Capitol Police with Molotov Cocktails spent a single day in those cells the J6 trespassers and rioters occupied for months and years. The FBI and the same Washington DC prosecutors gave them a complete pass.
Or James Comey’s Special Counsel who, failing to take down his target VP Cheney, convicted and jailed Scooter Libby, who he knew was innocent rather than indicting the person who everybody knew committed the crime.
You can’t read the debates of the Framers and believe that after those deliberations they wanted to keep a vestige of the monarchy – rather than provide one last venue to correct police state fascist abuses of political office.
Old Airborne Dog
Prosecutors sometimes abuse their powers, judges sometimes abuse their powers, and juries are sometimes wrong.
There are innocent people in prison.
The overzealous prosecutors of the DOJ need to be stripped of their immunity and made available for civil suits. Same with the DC Mayor and penal system participants that abused and persecuted these people. This is not justice any way you look at it. If left alone the seeds of dissent will grow.
Remember Ashli Babbitt
@Traveler,
I think this raises a good question.. .does accepting a pardon remove your right to a civil lawsuit against malicious prosecution?
-G
Good question! I would have to believe the answer would be no. Especially in cases of political persecution. Acceptance of guilt would not be an open ticket for surrendering your fundamental rights or for the prosecution to abuse their power. Further, apparently the acceptance of a pardon does not necessarily mean acceptance of guilt. I would believe that General Flynn evidenced the Feds favorite methods for destroying to conviction is through legal fees. Only a billionaire could withstand such a monetary punishment to fight for their innocence.
“The overzealous prosecutors of the DOJ need to be stripped of their immunity”
Frankly, I’m highly skeptical that civil or criminal presumptive immunity should exist for any public official. I’m well aware of the argument that few would seek such positions without that immunity, but in this time of tremendous government over-reach, and the prevalence avaricious, corrupt, self-serving politicians, I must ask whether that wouldn’t actually leave the rest of us better off.
Perhaps some statutory restrictions that would better rein them in from abuse. If their prosecution met certain criteria and/or conditions then they could find themselves being open to civil suits. Lawyers aren’t real great at self policing their own profession. There was a reason why lawyers didn’t advertise in the past, look what that has delivered.
Meh. Most high-level politicians are lawyers, with beau coup business connections, and capable of leverage those attributes to make fortunes after they leave office. I don’t envision the threat of lawsuits of the scope that would typically result from their conduct in office to be much of an incentive against corruption. There are, of course, always exceptions. One result of removing presumptive immunity might be to eliminate those who get into politics strictly for financial benefit, which seems to be a vast majority of politicians today.
Any chance of a lifetime pardon for a baby that hasn’t been born yet?
After seeing the baseless and false investigation of Trump by Mueller, the later prosecutions of Trump (Jack Smith, Fanni Willis, Leticia James, etc.), along with Flynn, Bannon, Navarro, etc., and the one sided Jan 6th committee, in all honesty that scared the living heck out of me. For the first time in my now senior citizen life, I was afraid to say anything. No Facebook, no Twitter, never answered a poll, nothing. I didn’t donate to any political campaign, dropped out of two pro 2nd amendment organizations, didn’t contribute to any pro life organizations, I laid low, trying not to attract any unwanted attention. Indeed I felt this country was in the Dark Ages where you dare not speak out against anything for fear of a swift and terrible Stalinistic retribution. If I had been convicted or even charged on one of those fake political crimes, I would have sworn my allegiance to Kamala Harris in a heartbeatI am by far not the only one, my friends and family felt the same way. Just keep your mouth shut.
That’s what they want you to do Calvin, good men to remain silent as they steal your liberty and freedom.
I am 77 years old. Married for near 55 years. I worked hard my entire life for what I have. Why should I waste my life and my kids inheritance fighting stupid political prosecutions simply to prove a point? Flynn lost his millions, nobody repaid him. I am not about to lose mine.
There are effective ways to obfuscate or conceal your true identity without going completely “dark”: use of a good VPN to conceal your native IP address; use of throwaway email addresses; use of the Tor/Onion proxy. Also, you can make certain you don’t reveal any personal information that could be used (or pieced together) to drastically narrow the possibilities for your true identity. You can still make statements relative to “who you really are” by using analogous/equivalent information that is not literally accurate. There are costs and vulnerabilities even within those technologies and practices, but, with a bit of effort, it is possible to obscure your identity for any except an adversary that is highly motivated and has virtually unlimited resources. Is that as desirable as being able to assert your opinions while confirming your legal identity: name; residence; employer; affiliations? No, it clearly is not. However, it does allow you to make those opinions publicly known without the (legitimate) fear of retaliation as a result.
Using a VPN now, but everything still goes through the Utah data analysis center so the effectiveness of a VPN is still questionable. Very difficult to hide on the internet. Obviously political contributions or advocacy membership dues can’t be hidden.
Calvin
Just curious, at 77 years old and displaying your fears of retribution, your slot age and I was wondering if you served in Vietnam?
” Obviously political contributions or advocacy membership dues can’t be hidden.”
ActBlue seemed to do a pretty good job on (small) political contributions for the Dems. I have contributed to more than one 2A advocacy organization anonymously. If nothing else, you could always send cash to an organization that you trust implicitly. Might disappear into someone’s pocket, but it might not.
I think a bigger story yesterday was the revelation of 2 Politico journalists about how their stories about Hunters Laptop were suppressed or outright blocked from being published.
And of course there is the ongoing saga of the Balmy Bishop who is now getting hellfire from others in her profession.
She might want to consult Grandma’s therapist also. They can discuss that Greek concept of Hubris.
I have my doubts regarding their character – they are not noble. Once an assassin, and that’s what they are, always … and it gives them notoriety and jobs, something they can bank on, just like Zuck, Bezos etc…
Think Hutchinson and what she did for fame…. and money.
1-Well first of all the refusal to accept the pardon costs this person basically nothing. I would be more impressed if she faced more than 2 months, likely already served, and a $500 fine plus probation.
2- that must have been a helluva therapist. It also begs the question as to whether this grandma was crazy or impaired at the time of the riot or is she crazy or impaired now. Also suggests no real deep seated thought process to be so easily turned. Maybe other substances were involved.
3-To me this is no real story except for the subject about whether accepting the pardon implies guilt.
4-Lastly a constitutional amendment should be discussed and submitted to clarify the breadth of pardons, and restrictions, especially in light of Joe Biden’s abuse of the power for the benefit of his family.
5-Maybe Mr Hunter Biden should take the same route and proclaim that he found Jesus and is willing to accept all the judgement that has been visited upon him in light of his legion of misdeeds. I hear that it is good for the soul. Maybe Hunter should consult with the Grnadma’s therapist.
” It also begs the question as to whether this grandma was crazy or impaired at the time of the riot or is she crazy or impaired now. ”
Agree. I haven’t read that much about Hemphill’s background, but… We know there were many FBI informants planted among the J6 demonstrators. It is therefore a plausible suspicion that there may likely have been agent provocateurs, as well. Could Hemphill have been one of those? Could she be using (or have been instructed to use) “therapist’s advice” as a way of deflecting criticism and possible retribution for showing what have all along been her true colors? I don’t pretend to know the answers to those questions, but in the quest for shining more intense light on the events of January 6, 2021 and the motivations and motivators behind those events, I think the questions are valid.
Was the counseling part of her sentencing or plea deal? Sounds like she was “re-educated” by a counselor.
The psychology profession is dominated by the insane hard Left. I would love to see the phone records of this “impartial” therapist.
Also very true in many circumstances. But then again, it is also not “hard science”.
Some may object to my broad claim, but many psychiatrists and psychologists who treat neurotic patients frequently struggle with their own neuroses. This issue appears to be more pronounced among those on the political left.”
Put the lotion on the skin or you’ll get the hose again!
I couldn’t get past, “She later said that a therapist changed her mind and she became a supporter of Kamala Harris.” Therapist? Sounds more like the Biden progressive re-education camp! It would be understandable to come to a knowledge of one’s action being wrong, but to change one’s entire political philosophy reaches far beyond…or maybe not. Perhaps Ms. Hemphill blows with whichever wind gives her the most attention.
Saw that too. Leads me to think she’s like the notoriety.
Or she’s experiencing late stage dementia.
Not trying to insult her.
More likely Stockholm Syndrome.
Or, maybe, just maybe, she figured out that Trump is a big, fat liar–that he misled her and others into commiting crimes they otherwise wouldn’t have because he is a sore loser, that what she did was wrong and that Kamala Harris was the better candidate.
maybe, just maybe, gigi has been ridiculed in the past and feels the need to a.retaliate, b. engage in self-affirmation, c. project, d. prove to no one who is listening that she is right, e. prove to herself that she is worth the space she consumes on this site every day, f. pretend that she is someone she is not, and 8. deny she needs therapy herself. what a complete, ugly, vindictive loser.
I hit mine before yours showed up- should’ve waited, you expressed yourself much better than I! GMTA!🤣
Patty Hearst?
LOL
EM you’re dating yourself, nobody even remembers who the SLA was or what happened. The Days of Rage, Fritz the Cat and Freak brother comic books are lost to time!
Furry Freak Brothers! Freewheeling Frank! Fat Freddy’s cat! Good sh1t (in shoes or not) at the time, thank you for reminding me!
To know death, Otto, you have to eff life… in the gall bladder!
Would also be nice to know if this therapist prescribed drugs during this so called treatment
Who and how many protestors actually assaulted the police? Is there evidence of such and can we see such evidence. If those cases exist, did the police strike first? I keep hearing about the assault on police but show the evidence and make sure the individual is not an FBI plant or part of Antifa, and that it was not self defense. I’m very open to seeing the evidence uncensored.
Having trouble comprehending the article? Nowhere is assualt mentioned.
Open to evidence. Go find it yourself.
Ok. Change assault to violent crimes against police officers. Define violent crimes.
Do your research, get smart, then repost. Or just stay invisable. Please.
Well, research has been completed, I am smarter, and you don’t know how to spell invisible…..
You spelled invisible wrong…
Oh, my.
Here’s one person who would rather read Invisible’s comments than yours.
There is NO “self defense” when a criminal is committing a crime and a police officer tries to stop them. If “self-defense” applies at all it is to the police officers who were beaten by Trump supporters on January 6th. They had no right to break through police barriers, to enter the Capitol, to rifle through offices, defecate, urinate, deface the John Lewis Memorial, or anything else they did. The First Amendment right to “protest” does not include assaulting police officers, forcing your way through police barriers, breaking doors or windows, or any of the other criminal conduct Donald Trump got his fans to commit.
What SHOULD have been done is for Capitol Police to start spraying the crowd with bullets when they started trying to force their way past the police barriers–when Officer Byrd was forced to shoot Ashli Babbitt, it stopped the rest of them from trying to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby. The Capitol Police were told not to do that–but, in retrospect, it might have been the better course. Would have saved us taxpayers millions of dollars in damage to the Capitol, the serious injuries inflicted on the Capitol Police officers. Ashli Babbitt would probably still be alive. And, they had a noose, a gallows, and were chanting “Hang Mike Pence”–they clearly were intending to kill or harm him because Trump told them to–so the use of deadly force to prevent Pence from being killed or injured would be warranted.
gig, just stop, ok?
Please watch the documentary on Epoch Times with fresh eyes and an open mind. It’s revealing. All was not what we are still being told.
There is NO “self defense” when a criminal is committing a crime and a police officer tries to stop them… What SHOULD have been done is for Capitol Police to start spraying the crowd with bullets when they started trying to force their way past the police barriers
The terrible mistake Capitol Police made was when they DIDN’T machine gun the Democrats’ BLM and Antifa rioters assaulting the White House just a few weeks earlier!
Pour encourager les autres… as Voltaire would explain it. Provide a little bit of deterrence using the Democrat Slaughter Rule?
If only they had done that, not only would 50 of their officers escaped suffering wounds that sent them to the hospital, but there never would have been a J6 (or any other riot) after that!
Any cowardly Anonymous Democrat have a reason/excuse they shouldn’t have slaughtered BOTH groups of rioters equitably (and equally)? Provide a little bit of deterrence using the Democrat Slaughter Rule?
Old Airborne Dog
Expect a filing soon by her law firm Schiff, Kinzinger and Cheney