How Presidential Pardons Work | NBC News NOW

NBC News’ Danny Cevallos explains the broad and unique power of the presidential pardon.

Connect with NBC News Online!

#Pardons #Presidential #NBCNews

How Presidential Pardons Work | NBC News NOW

[kushking]

Our system is broken if Trump can pardon someone who worked for him that is conflict of interest

[wilburmcbride]

I always wondered about blanket pardons. A pardon before the crimes.

[mxcjs]

What happened to no one is above the law?

[neilfeinberg]

Rambo was granted the most famous pardon in history

[jesstodd]

Another POV .... In the USA in particular, pardoning someone is a judicial act. Courts in the USA already have clearly defined rules about judges recusing themselves from sitting in judgement (presiding) over any person or situations that involve the judge in any manner and which may therefor corrupt any resulting judgement. It would be difficult / impossible for any self-pardoning President to argue that his decision to pardon himself was not already fully corrupted by the likelihood of direct benefit to both 'himself' as the one receiving the pardon and 'himself' as the one granting the pardon.

[JunoStatic]

Make sure you end it with “it benefits the president” we really want to hammer that one

[dylanlafreniere]

I just want to know about the first time/moment this happened. I really wanted to know the discussion around this situation.

[teekash]

To me a pardon is how those in power make themselves above the law and getaway with crime!!

[sagravvjl]

AMERICAN PATRIOTS..
IN LEGITIMATE AND LEGAL BATTLE FOR
VICTORY 🇺🇸...

[deltamike]

This is the news, so we can do without the dramatic music. Is this infotainment or news at this point?

[STLCCRT]

Can a pardon be used multiple times for separate federal crimes that were argued in court at different times. Example: President issues a pardon to person A. Person A is convicted but uses the pardon. Person A is then indicted six months later for a different federal crime. Can person A use the pardon "again"?

[theaussiebaron]

What an interesting constitution you Americans have.

[unknownuser]

The president could use his power to free Santana Sage

[TeWzy]

Discriminatory toward the Poor. I should sue the Federal system for racism and discriminatory practices toward the poor.

[jesstodd]

The Constitution does not say that a US President can pardon to avoid impeachment. It says a President cannot pardon an impeachment. That is a huge difference. The Constitution does not say a President can pardon preemptively.The Constitution uses the term "grants reprieve and pardons for offences". This clearly states that a pardon can only be used to grant relief from the consequences of a 'confirmed' crime that has already been prosecuted and not relief from being prosecuted for an alleged crime. (Definition of 'reprieve' - 1 : to delay the punishment of (someone, such as a condemned prisoner) 2 : to give relief or deliverance to for a time.)

[D.AverageJoe]

And why can't the President Pardon state convictions? The constitution says "offenses against the United States". Unless a state isn't part of the United States, then he has the power.

[PeteHowlett]

He's setting up 'favours'...

[jesstodd]

Some people argue that it is lawful for a President to issue preemptive pardons to people accused of crimes but not yet prosecuted and convicted. Here is my POV. The Constitution uses the specific words "reprieve" and "offences" (AKA 'crimes'). When the general public and media refer to a 'crime' they are usually referring to a particular criminal deed of note. When the courts refer to a crime they are usually referencing a criminal act(s) as it relates to a person(s) alleged of committing that crime(s). All citizens are presumed innocent of any allegation of crime unless they are proven guilty by way of lawful prosecution and conviction in a court of law. This means that until a person is convicted of a crime, they are innocent and cannot ever be punished. A person would have to be near brain dead to say that there is no difference between an allegation of crime either before conviction when they are innocent and after prosecution when they are guilty. Due to this fact one can only refer to a convicted person as a criminal and not a person subject to an allegation of crime. So, in courts of law and all legal doctrines like the US Constitution where this is such an important distinguishing factor, when legal authorities use the term offense' (AKA 'crime') they would not and could not ever mean to refer to people subject to allegations of crime as well as people convicted of crimes. Please consider this, if everyone is presumed innocent unless they are proven guilty, why would the Constitution presume to empower the President to grant pardons to people who are already presumed innocent? Further, since people are presumed innocent and authorities are forbidden from imposing any form of punishment upon innocent people not convicted of a crime, why would the US Constitution presume to empower a President to pardon an innocent person and grant an innocent person 'reprieve' from punishments the authorities are already forbidden from imposing on innocent people. The pardon powers are for pardoning and granting reprieve to people convicted of crimes /offences. If any of the courts have ruled otherwise, they are clearly wrong in their misinterpretation.

[ZKG]

So basically the president is like the king?

[jesstodd]

Preemptive and pre-conviction pardons are both unlawful. To remain 100% accurate, from the societal point of view, crimes/offences are still crimes whether they have been duly prosecuted or not. From the point of view of the courts of law and the US Constitution, unprosecuted crimes/offences are only allegations of crimes/offences which cannot be lawfully penalized by the courts of law. If the US Constitution intended for Presidents to pardon people for allegations of unprosecuted crimes/offences instead of actual crimes/offences it would have said so. It does not say so. Further, since the courts cannot impose any punishment against any person subject to an unprosecuted allegation of crimes/offences there is no way for any President to grant that unprosecuted person any 'reprieve' from non-existent punishments. None of this moves to assert that an unprosecuted allegation of crimes/offences does not represent the existence of an actual crimes/offence. Further, it is impossible to plead guilty to any allegation of crimes/offences unless as part of a legitimate and successful criminal prosecution. It is actually forbidden by the same Constitution to force any citizen to self-admit guilt to any allegations of offence that have not been lawfully prosecuted in a court. Innocence is presumed unless proven guilty and it is inherently unlawful to demand people admit to allegations of unprosecuted crimes. The 'admission of guilt' concept exists more to prevent existing recipients of pardons from thereafter pleading their innocence, however, an alleged pre-prosecution crime has no real identifying quality that can specifically be identified or even admitted or denied.