Once Biden is gone. Who will be the nominee?

[grasshopper]

Do they have to be convicted and sentenced before the pardon?

[Harold]

not at all, not ever in American history has that been a Constitutional requirement.

Most modern presidents have set up small bureaucracies to deal with the incessant demands for pardons. Each president can, and has, individually decided what directives to give these minions. As the policies he puts in place are policies he individually chooses he can, and in virtually every instance I can think of near the end of the presidency, ala Biden right now, sets aside his own policies and does whatever he pleases, regarding the exercise of this highly indivualistic power…

[grasshopper]

Has any of the pardons in history ever been challenged in court?

[pmac]

I did hear on the radio that Biden has waited sooo long to get started on his efforts to have a Presidential Library and donors to support are now scarce that it will end up being a Bookmobile!

[Floyd_Edwards]

@pmac

I did hear on the radio that Biden has waited sooo long to get started on his efforts to have a Presidential Library and donors to support are now scarce

His pardon of his son Hunter, really upset the donors and there is talk that they will not give him the money to build it.

[Floyd_Edwards]

@Harold

Absolutely…All draft dodgers during the Vietnam war by Jimmy Carter for instance…or more specific to Mormon history after the 1890 Polygamy Manifesto, President Cleveland pardoned men who had entered into polygamous marriages which allowed for Utah to enter the Union after decades of futile attempts. Some of the men were still in prison, some were still on the run, many had never been prosecuted because the Feds tended to only prosecute the leaders, not the more common church members.

BUT, both of these instances, the people who were pardon had violated a federal law (draft dodging and Polygamy) and some instances, they were convicted of the crime.

Did a little research and found this out:
the President of the United States does have the constitutional authority to issue preemptive pardons. This power is derived from the U.S. Constitution, which grants the president broad pardoning powers. The Supreme Court case Ex parte Garland (1866) established that the president’s power to pardon is “unlimited except in cases of impeachment” and can be exercised at any time after the commission of an offense, even before legal proceedings have begun

[Harold]

@Floyd_Edwards

BUT, both of these instances, the people who were pardon had violated a federal law (draft dodging and Polygamy) and some instances, they were convicted of the crime.

to quote the most famous pardon in American history, recent or otherwise:
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

please note the “may have committed”, which is important: it stops all legal proceedings, police/FBI investigations and the like dead stop in their tracks…
no possibility of criminal proceedings pretty much puts an end to the matter.

Yes, the possibility of civil action may continue, but the state’s investigatory power is far and away stronger than any civil action, so without the state’s police powers most civil proceedings also stop.
And of course, unlike the polygamy or draft dodger pardons in which entire classes of men were released from the potential prosecution of possible past federal crimes, a specific personal pardon does not eliminate the possibility of criminal proceedings against fellow conspirators.

[Harold]

@grasshopper

Has any of the pardons in history ever been challenged in court?

There are a smattering, but Floyd’s citation of Ex parte Garland (1866) is the fountainhead. The other cases deal with ancillary issues.

This is a situation where the plain words of the Constitution are self-evident and understood and followed, at least implicetly, by all concerned parties.

[fish]

@Floyd_Edwards

His pardon of his son Hunter, really upset the donors and there is talk that they will not give him the money to build it.

Oh…they ditched Biden the second he lost it in the Debate. Everyone turned on him, it is sooooo sad how political parties treat their own… Not defending Biden one bit but he spend over 50 years in Wash DC, he was the perfect running mate for the black Massiah, and as a reward, he is cast aside like old underwear.

To be clear, Dems would burn their own mother at the stake if she was in the way of a win

[fish]

@aro

The rhetoric, the cancel culture tactics, dehumanizing political rivals are right out of the Marxist playbook. Many of the positions of the Democrats are pure Marxist. You have to educate yourself to recognize it. Most of the voting public doesn’t see it and the Marxists always lie about what they are. Lying in the culture of Marxism is no sin and the ends always justify the means and the end of a Marxist nation is one of two classes; peasants and the ruling class and mass murder and poverty.

turns out the moderates were very tuned into what was going on. Watched today, the big story…Dems lost the Pres. election because of messaging, that is their big idea!!!
Never mind that they ran the economy into the ground, opened up the border, and made Trans men a priority over women.
Never mind that their platform for getting re-elected was to mimic Trumps call to Drill baby Drill, close the border. When Kamala said, "I changed my mind on fracking, securing the border…turns out that 2 things happened:
1 People tuned out legacy media (love that new word)…Legacy. hahahahahahaha, you mean the other branch of the Dems. only about 12% watch that crap anymore. Want to piss someone off, tell them they arern’t needed anymore. love it!

2 Moderates knew what Dems stood for and knew they were taking the country down a hole of no return and they rejected it thoroughly.

[fish]

more from DC

Longtime Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler Bows Out of Leadership After Nancy Pelosi Gets Involved: Report

Who is listening to this old bag, hasn’t she done enough damage to the party?
Not complaining, next to shifty shiff and shumer, Nadler is the 3rd most toxic Dem in DC

more on the party that lost their way…
Obama, in 1st remarks since election, says ‘a line has been crossed’ if ‘one side’ makes certain moves | Fox News

says the man who declared war on Police and divider in charge. Funny, he stays completely quiet for 4 years until his precious legacy is in jeopardy. This guy could care less about the country, it was always about his legacy.