←back to thread

FBI Raids Home of Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan

(www.axios.com)
249 points jaboutboul | 1 comments | 13 Nov 24 21:29 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kwisatzh ◴[13 Nov 24 21:53 UTC] No.42130465[source]▶
He’ll get pardoned. It’s a Thiel company.
replies(3): >>42130930 #>>42131411 #>>42133590 #
galleywest200 ◴[13 Nov 24 23:33 UTC] No.42131411[source]▶
Accepting a presidential pardon requires an admission of guilt. Would being a confirmed criminal aide them in business in any way?
replies(4): >>42131432 #>>42132127 #>>42132284 #>>42137069 #
stickfigure ◴[13 Nov 24 23:36 UTC] No.42131432[source]▶
Incorrect. A pardon does require a conviction, however. And it will probably never get that far.
replies(5): >>42131507 #>>42131577 #>>42131604 #>>42132048 #>>42132051 #
CodeWriter23 ◴[13 Nov 24 23:47 UTC] No.42131507[source]▶
Incorrect. There is no requirement that even an indictment has occurred in the past.
replies(2): >>42131558 #>>42131951 #
dgfitz ◴[13 Nov 24 23:52 UTC] No.42131558[source]▶
"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.

replies(2): >>42131660 #>>42141366 #
lesuorac ◴[14 Nov 24 00:06 UTC] No.42131660[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>42131705 #
dgfitz ◴[14 Nov 24 00:12 UTC] No.42131705[source]▶
Testify to what?
replies(1): >>42132115 #
lesuorac ◴[14 Nov 24 01:13 UTC] No.42132115[source]▶
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...

replies(1): >>42132130 #
dgfitz ◴[14 Nov 24 01:16 UTC] No.42132130[source]▶
> 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?

replies(1): >>42132299 #
lesuorac ◴[14 Nov 24 01:44 UTC] No.42132299[source]▶
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...

replies(1): >>42132317 #
dgfitz ◴[14 Nov 24 01:48 UTC] No.42132317[source]▶
Sorry, those are your examples? Besides the Nixon disaster (stop hiding behind that) and confederate soldiers, any other examples?
replies(3): >>42132635 #>>42133000 #>>42135231 #
1. JumpCrisscross ◴[14 Nov 24 03:50 UTC] No.42133000{3}[source]▶
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.)
replies(1): >>42142510 #