Accepting a presidential pardon requires an admission of guilt. Would being a confirmed criminal aide them in business in any way?

Public perception of what it means to be convicted has shifted with this election. Thiel of all people wouldn’t care if he is doing business with someone who is convicted, as long as they continue to make him money and push whatever agenda Thiel has.

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

> 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_...

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.

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?

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.

Hence how all the draft dodgers were pardoned after Vietnam.

How then did Ford pardon Nixon?

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

Me: In the united states, do you have to be convicted of a crime to be able to receive a presidential pardon?

ChatGPT: No, in the United States, you do not have to be convicted of a crime to receive a presidential pardon. The Constitution grants the president broad pardon power, which includes the ability to issue "preemptive" pardons. A preemptive pardon is issued before any charges or convictions, essentially excusing a person from potential criminal liability.

For example, President Gerald Ford pardoned former President Richard Nixon for any crimes he "may have committed" related to the Watergate scandal, even though Nixon had not been formally charged. This type of pardon can cover actions that might lead to criminal charges, thus preventing any future prosecution.

Please don't post LLM output as comments here.

If the alternative is prison, yes.

For a crypto based business for something that crypto enthusiasts wouldn't consider a crime, probably would help.

Maybe he shouldn’t have been arrested in the first place?

> he shouldn’t have been arrested in the first place?

Was he arrested? The article only mentions a search.

Have you considered that the police or prosecutors in this case may be incorrect or corrupt?

Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our civilization. We should not shame anyone who has been searched or arrested by the police.

I’m willing to let the government make their case, but let’s not pretend that a 6am raid from the feds is better than getting arrested.

A 6am raid from the feds is better than getting arrested. It is.

I’ll add to the other comment: bursting in and searching your house will tramautize your whole family.

Compare that to an arrest warrant where you willfully turn yourself in.

Actually, it's not. As someone who has been both raided by the feds and been arrested. Being raided is way more traumatic and gave me PTSD. Being arrested is easy as fuck. Being raided involves fully armed people busting into your home and tearing it apart and seizing all of your electronics.

Makes sense.

Would you be willing to share more about any of those situations?

Counter point, Mark Cuban is an investor.