Bones McCoy wrote:Some interesting legal thoughts are emerging on the YouTubesphere.
I'm no Lawyer, so I'll describe as well as I can.
The assertion is that a person who accepts a pardon, accepts they are guilty of the charge, and surrenders their right to 5th amendment silence.
Let's look at the case of Bannon.
If Bannon accepts the pardon, he is in the clear, but he accepts that the crime he was accused of occurred.
Good news for Bannon, bad news for his co-accused.
Further, Bannon can be taken in and questioned (I think this is similar to Subpoena'd, but can't be sure).
He now can't "take the 5th", so will become a witness against his co-accused.
The folks explaining this suggest that the Pardon is great news for the pardonee, and very bad news for the co-accused.
Like a plea bargain, but one you can't refuse.
Bones I can can certainly clarify some of what you say. Attached is a picture of Page 179 of Gerald Ford's book A Time To Heal. It clearly says that the Supreme Court has established that the act of accepting a pardon means you are acknowledging your guilt forthe crimes for which you were convicted or at least charged with. In Nixon's case he was never charged with any crime, an indictment in the Watergate trials did have him listed as an unidicted co-conspirator but that was as far as it went.
By accepting the pardon Bannon has admitted he was guilty of fraud and the like. Quite what effect that has on his ability to raise money for other ventures, or indeed to be able to travel to some countries in order to help propogate his view of the world remains to be seen.
Simon