> in dictum from burdick v. united states, the supreme court stated that accepting a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it. however, since this wasnt technically part of the opinion, its not considered binding precedent. > while it is not disputed that hunter biden cannot be convicted of any federal crimes he may have committed between january 1, 2014 and december 2, 2024, conviction isnt the same as incrimination. biden may still retain the right prevent self-incrimination. the supreme court hasnt ruled on this specific question. however, in brown v. walker (1896), the supreme court upheld a statute that compelled persons to testify if they had been granted immunity. while not perfectly analogous, this may paint a picture of where the court might go with a case like this. > remember, the fifth amendment doesnt mention self-incrimination. it states, [no person] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. from a textual perspective, this seems fairly straightforward. due to bidens acceptance of the pardon, he cannot be convicted of a crime covered by it. therefore, there is no basis for biden to refuse to testify, whether it be in court at someone elses trial or before congress.
Pirate