FBI Raids Home of Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan

Incorrect. A pardon does require a conviction, however. And it will probably never get that far.

Incorrect. There is no requirement that even an indictment has occurred in the past.

"I hereby pardon you for murder. Nope, you didn't murder anyone, and you haven't been indited on murder charges!"

Technically sure, you're correct. The worst kind of correct.

How then did Ford pardon Nixon?

It can backfire though, you no longer have 5th amendment privileges because you can't say anything incriminating (you're pardon'd from the crime).

So you have the take the stand and testify.

Testify to what?

Hence how all the draft dodgers were pardoned after Vietnam.

Please don't post LLM output as comments here.

> A pardon does require a conviction, however

No.

"The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment" [1]. Everything after that is, at best, case law.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_pardons_in_the_United_...

Can't stand these sort of arrogantly wrong comments. If you're going to be snarky about it at least be right.

Pretty much whatever you got pardon'd for.

> [1] The pardon would have put Nixon in a difficult position on the witness stand since he would not have been able to assert any Fifth Amendment privilege when questioned about his actions as president.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon#Afterm...

> Incorrect. There is no requirement that even an indictment has occurred in the past.

This thread started with that statement, which is what I based my comments on.

To take the piss on it, only a fool would pardon someone for a crime of which they are not accused.

Are you implying that point?

Nixon is the typical example of somebody pardon'd without an indictment. Like it would be wise to imply it could happen because it has!

There are a other trivial examples. Confederate solders weren't indicted [1]. The Vietnam draft dodging pardons didn't even name people [2] [3].

Why they would do it? I mean to nullify the 5th amendment right. Maybe you want to prosecute a crime boss so you give somebody a pardon (or immunity) so they can't/don't plead the 5th and have to testify against them.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardons_for_ex-Confederates#An...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_evasion#Pardons

[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/22/archives/texts-of-documen...

Sorry, those are your examples? Besides the Nixon disaster (stop hiding behind that) and confederate soldiers, any other examples?

You're arguing, with no evidence, for a claim with counterfactual precedent. (And look up preemptive pardons. Not been done. But you're lacking imagination if you can't see the utility of a pardon absent indictment or even accusation.)

Even a single example of something happening is abundantly adequate to demonstrate that it is not impossible.

>"I hereby pardon you for murder. Nope, you didn't murder anyone, and you haven't been indited on murder charges!"

You have a reading challenge. GP said conviction required, which is not true. You can be pardoned for something you did but nobody knows you did it.