So of the ~1500 pardoned, 2 (that I'm aware of) were able to demonstrate accountability for their actions. Guess hope isn't completely lost, just mostly.
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2025
170 points (98.3% liked)
politics
23816 readers
2560 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
She's REFUSING it because she's ANTIFA BLM FBI even though ONLY Trump Supporters were Arrested that Day while being NON VIOLENT TOURISTS and ONLY ANTIFA BLM FBI were being Violent but ALSO we SHOULD Forget that Day even HAPPENED for some Reason!
I disagree with the other guy; I understand your art.
Almost fell for this until I saw it’s you.
She got 60 days in prison and a year and a half probation.
I thought presidential pardons were absolute with no oversight. How can a congressman help block a pardon?
Also, can you refuse a pardon? I was also under the impression that the president signs a pardon and that’s the end of it.
I guess tomorrow will be looking for refused pardons
It's my understanding that you don't have to accept a pardon, and that accepting one is a tacit admission of guilt, which probably opens up some interesting legal arguments once Trump is out of office.
It's not actually an admission of guilt, that was just the defense used for someone who previously rejected a pardon that they were worried it would be viewed as such
Oh yeah, which I'll just bet they pursue at the same breakneck pace that ensured the chief traitor got the only punishment befitting insurrection... The... presidency?
Burdick v. US.
A reporter was ordered to divulge a source. Reporter refused, on 5th amendment grounds.
Reporter was given a blanket pardon. Government argued that because the reporter could not be convicted regardless of what they said, the reporter was compelled to testify and name the source.
SCOTUS said that accepting a pardon was tantamount to an admission of guilt. The reporter could refuse the pardon, maintain their claim of innocence, and continue to exercise their 5th amendment right against self incrimination.
Yes, you can refuse a pardon.
Definitely not final and can be refused. The typical refusal would come from someone who maintains their innocence and plans on fighting further, either through appeal or expungement.
I think I remember reading of one or more others that also denied pardons early on. The general vibe was that these people realize they fucked up and are taking the punishment they got. Perhaps there were others that are still fighting with no legs, but this is one of the few I think have come to grips with reality.
Fuckin' cool of her