[dgfitz]

> 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?

[lesuorac]

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...

[dgfitz]

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

[JumpCrisscross]

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.)

[kragen]

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