The headline makes it sound like that's a decision that was made specifically for this pardon. It is not. Presidential pardons have only ever applied to Federal charges, never to State charges.
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2025
482 points (97.6% liked)
News
33127 readers
2645 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Is this the same Rudy Giuliani that tried to have sex with a girl that he was told was under 18 in that Borat movie?
I thought it was the Rudy Giuliani who still pretends to have any credibility after hosting a press conference between a crematorium and a sex shop after a mix up over a hotel booking.
Sycophants, yes. Pawns, yes. Friends???
off topic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks
Giuliani let the Ground Zero rescuers work without respirators.
He hasn't attended any of the funerals for those who died because of the poisoned air.
Rudy Giuliani – downplayed the health risks of the area and rushed to reopen the area around Ground Zero, although this posed a grave and immediate health risk first responders
Is the quote from the article but the sourcing is poor.
Basically regardless of what Giuliani did first responders would have been working without respirators. There were simply not enough for everyone and not enough time to get more. It was an emergency after all.
It's not like he was preventing rescuers from using what equipment was available.
What he did do though was force the area to reopen well before the air was safe. This required first responders to continue working after the initial emergency. Meaning people were exposed due to lack of equipment unnecessarily.
Also by forcing the area around Ground Zero to reopen so early he endangered basically every person that entered the area. For absolutely no good reason.
Additionally there is evidence he was not insuring that first responders in the city were provided adequate equipment before 9/11.
So I'm trying to be specific about what he did that was so terrible. Rescuers were going to respond and there would never have been enough PPE.
But Giuliani rushed the re-opening, causing harm to cleanup crews, first responders, and the public. He also did not provide emergency services with requested equipment before the attack. If he had listened there still wouldn't have been enough PPE, but a lot less people would have been exposed.
The Ground Zero operations went on for months after the original attack.
They couldn't get respirators the first few days, but they could have had them in the first month.
Correct, but your original comment said "rescuers" those are the people working immediately following the emergency.
After the first few days they should have suspended operations to obtain proper PPE. That is Giuliani's failing.
But rescuers were going to be exposed, although there was equipment requested before the attack that would have provided more help.
Maybe it's pedantic, but I want to be specific about how Giuliani failed.
It was considered a 'rescue effort' for the first few months.
Even though it was obvious that they were only going to find more corpses, they were still called 'rescuers.'
Also, the new building was delayed until 2007 because that's how long it took to straighten out the insurance claims. Of course, President Bush couldn't step in and tell the billionaires to speed it up.
Ah well that's definently not what a "rescuer" is, but not your fault the media 24 years ago used poor word choice.
Also I wasn't talking about the immediate grounds. The surrounding area was blocked off as well. Giuliani re-opened those blocks even though there was still significant contamination in the air
"Rescue effort" was the official designation.
iirc it became "recovery" sometime around Christmas.
Sure it has a impact. If he accepts the pardon, he is admitting guilt. Non-guilty people have no need of a pardon. So take the pardon Guili, it will make the state charges that much more easy to prove guilt.
What is giving you the idea that a pardon automatically admits guilt? I've seen this so many times and it makes absolutely no sense. There's one court case from the 20's in which the court suggested that accepting a pardon "may imply guilt." And there's like 528 court cases saying the opposite. There's also nothing in the verbage of a pardon that states that. It simply removes any legal consequences from relevant acts. I'm not sure why so many people insist that if you accept any type of pardon for any reason, you are confessing to have perpetuated whatever you are accused of. It makes absolutely no sense. You could be guilty as hell. Or you could have been on the other side of the planet and accused of something random. I'm either case, all a pardon does is just get you out of trouble.
This isn't to say that I think Giuliani is innocent or anything. He's a complete and utter dirt bag. But of all things, him merely accepting a pardon is not the smoking gun a lot of people seem to think it is.
in which the court suggested that accepting a pardon “may imply guilt.”
That's what's called obiter dicta: a side comment with no direct bearing on the case at hand and with no potential to set precedent. And you're right, Garland (the name of the case) keeps getting cited by people as though it is precedent.
There is no part of the pardon process where admission of guilt is required, not even a checkbox on a form. You either accept a pardon or you don't. That's it.
Anyway, the existence (upheld by courts many times) of blanket pardons renders the admission of guilt argument absurd. If you accept a pardon for (for example) any crimes you might potentially be charged with between January and February of 2025, what are you pleading guilty to? Every one of those possible crimes? Really? And yeah, it's possible to pardon someone for something they haven't even been charged with yet. The only thing that has to be in the past is the time period the pardon covers.
Further evidence that the Garland dicta is bullshit is that, since the US was founded, pardons have, on occasion, been used to correct miscarriages of justice. In that case, even the person issuing the pardon is of the view that the pardonee is not guilty. So "we're pardoning you because we think you're not guilty, and to accept the pardon, you have to admit guilt"? Again, that makes no sense.
When I see this now all I can think of is Frank's Imports and Exports.
If only he'd had enough Chinese motor oil.....
Jean… Baptiste… Emanuel… Zorg.
That's exactly what I think every time I see this picture
I've always focused on the oil leak, but what's the deal with his right eye? On the right corner. Is it a sideways lizard eyelid? Is he wearing pure white sclera contacts over yellow eyeballs?
The yellow is the jaundice from cirrhosis of the liver seeping through.
He's lawyer and would fully understand that a federal pardon wouldn't help him in state court. Not sure how he got "smacked down" here. I guess the headline "nothing changes for Rudy Giuliani" wasn't inflammatory enough.
Well…he was a lawyer. They don’t let him do that anymore.
Giuliani's brain-rot is almost as severe as Trump's, so I'd avoid speculating on what, if anything, he understands.
The lawyer who represents himself has a Rudy Giuliani for a client
- Abraham Lincoln
Oh no, this smackdown may drive him to drink.
(Although to be honest, he will be drinking regardless....)
That man is ninety percent scotch.
So ... if he takes the federal pardon, and is forced to testify federally (I know, I know, just go with me a moment), can he still plead the fifth in federal court?
He thinks "pleading the fifth" means taking the whole bottle of Vodka
No, you cannot plead the fifth if you take a pardon as you are no longer able to incriminate yourself.
So it's perjury then
Perjury, treason, sedition ... all just silly words to MAGA.
Add in statutory rape and he'd make a great R president!
My understanding is no, but also since taking the pardon is admitting the guilt, wouldn't he also be not allowed to to plead the fifth in the state case?
Accepting a pardon does not require an admission of guilt.
Admitting the guilt to the federal crime, not the state one. They're distinct, even if we're talking about the same act.
I suppose at that point, the state prosecutor would just introduce the documentation of the federal case outcome.
A pardon by this particular president isn't something to brag about.
I’m not living in the US and have never seen this guy before. I’ve seen his photos a lot lately. I want to know what medical device he is wearing on his chest? Looks like some kind of CPAP or oxygen mask?
It's an old photo from his 9/11 appearance. He had been in a car accident and broke a bunch of bones, so what you're seeing is a chest brace.
Thanks a lot. Is he generally well respected? S’pose depends on who I ask.
He was at one point, lol.
He was mayor of NYC during the 9/11 attacks, and at the time was heralded as America's Mayor. Giuliani was later Trump's personal lawyer, and because of that, fell out of favor with the public.
He had been in a bad car accident recently, that probably explains the brace.
He was the NYC Mayor in the late 90's, and when the Sep 11 attacks happened. Later, he ran for President, and talked so much about the attacks that people started referring to him as "Gi911ani".
Of course, even back then, he was extremely good friends with Donald Trump....
he truly was the hero of 9-11, because no one else was mayor that day
This is a bizarre video, especially given Trump’s and most republican’s views on things like CD and drag.
It's OK if you're a Republican ...
This website has one of the most malicious pseudo cookie banners I have seen so far. I wonder why they are doing this at all, because it's illegal where sich an Option is required and useless in all other places
Slam!