The Justice Department is signaling to Jan. 6 defendants that accepting a pardon from Donald Trump will not eliminate guilt, Politico reported Wednesday.
“[A] pardon at some unspecified date in the future ... would not unring the bell of conviction,” federal prosecutors said during proceedings before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols. “In fact, quite the opposite. The defendant would first have to accept the pardon, which necessitates a confession of guilt.”
The issue came up during Donald Trump's first term after he pardoned Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who sued, saying that his pardon should erase his criminal conviction. He argued that accepting the pardon was not an admission of guilt, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Furthermore, criminal convictions can still result in punishment outside of courts like ethics boards. It only eliminates criminal consequences.
ALSO READ: Ecstatic J6 offenders look forward to pardons from 'Daddy Trump' — and retribution
"The pronouncement is the latest attempt by the Justice Department to salvage the legacy of its Jan. 6 investigation, which leaders say is the most sweeping criminal probe in American history. Trump has pledged to unravel that probe with the stroke of his pen by granting clemency to many of the nearly 1,600 people who have been charged for their roles in the attack on the Capitol four years ago," the report said.
The comments from the DOJ came in a filing for Dova Winegeart's case, who is trying to delay her jail sentence because she assumes that Trump will pardon her.
She was previously convicted of damaging government property and was acquitted of several misdemeanors. The judge sentenced her to four months in prison. Still, the judge agreed to hear her arguments for a delay.
Prosecutors said that operating like that sets a precedent that doesn't make sense under the law.
“The criminal justice system cannot operate on such uncertainty. Indeed, it is neither the court’s role or function to speculate about any president’s pardon decisions, nor is it appropriate for the Court to halt the normal functioning of criminal procedure based solely on that speculation,” the prosecutors wrote.
