>

While I agree Trump prompted many to learn things about our government, the issues surrounding preemptive and blanket pardons go back to Ford's pardon of Nixon, if not even further.

how do we know what they are being pardoned for if they don't admit to what they did?

Usually, if done appropriately, the pardons are recorded and often made public.  Even if it's a "secret" pardon, it will become public once it's filed in court.  It has no overt meaning until after conviction, but it presumably could be submitted in the relevant trial which could influence prosecutors to drop the case.  In either case, it's likely up to the judge involved to ascertain the applicability.

if we find out they committed bank fraud a few years ago or murdered someone, would that be covered by a blanket pardon?

This depends.  But the safest answer to give you is "yes".  It boils down to what is specified in the pardon.  Keep in mind, any pardon can only pertain to the domain of the related government.  A blanket pardon from the governor of Arkansas means diddly squat to a crime committed in Florida.  Similarly, any federal pardon can never apply to any state crime, and vice versa.  But within the appropriate domain, if the pardon simply states "any crime" within a specified time period (as was the case for Ford's pardon of Nixon), then it well and truly does mean any crime.
Conversely, Carter's pardon of draft dodgers was more restricted in one sense while much more open in another.  The crime was more tightly defined while the audience was practically anyone.
It can be strongly argued that both of these examples of blanket pardons were meant to kill any forthcoming prosecution than to reverse any punishment upon conviction.
Keep in mind, that even if a particular example of this ruffles your feathers greatly, if you can pull back and generalize, it could be considered a useful tool of the executive to implement a broad change in policy.  As such, it could even be viewed as a balance of power issue - a check of the executive against the legislature.
Furthermore, as goofy as it sounds, to curtail the power of the pardon we need these egregious uses to be fought and brought to the Supreme Court.  Things might be very different today had people fought against Ford's pardon.  I, for one, really wanted Trump to issue a self-pardon.  There's nothing that clearly calls that out as illegal or unconstitutional.  To me, this is a problem - a loophole that must be closed.
Trump has done exactly nothing that an innocent person would. It's not the erratic behavior or the worry, but how he's made so many moves and plans to cover up schemes. It's not like he has some cutesy embarrassing secret. This is the highest office in our country. He's implicated himself via sheer arrogance. >


Trump has done exactly nothing that an innocent person would.

It's also serving as a refuge in audacity though. Kind of like "Everyone knows I'm innocent, so I can do whatever it takes to shake off the meanies bullying me." More like everyone knows he's one of the dumbest humans alive propped up by narcissism, generational wealth, and white grievance. >

I'm less inclined to include white grievance in the list because that particular nonsensical worldview requires some semblance of thought (and flawed of course). Trumps actions and blatherings seem more akin to a Pavlovian response tied to a one dimensional short list of ideas that nearly overwhelm the two working brain cells that comprise his bandwidth. >

I guess I should have been more clear. I agree it's not his own white grievance (he cares for one person only and that's himself) but rather he is supported in part because of others' racism. Conservatives in the US felt absolutely slapped in the face when Obama got up there, and then with Trump saying things that might have been political suicide for others, they saw a savior in him. >


but rather he is supported in part because of others' racism.

He's just as racist as his supporters. He got busted once for discriminating against non-white applicants to his rental properties, even when their financial status was just fine. >

A Constitution that would allow a President to pardon co-conspirators and co-felons is a complete failure when it comes to protecting democracy. >

In 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, George Mason objected to the ability of the President to pardon saying, “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”. >

The founding fathers were like "don't let religious people run things, don't form political parties, don't have a standing military and pardons are probably a bad idea" yet here we are today. 
Makes you wonder why conservatives worship the founding fathers so much. Maybe they're arguing in bad faith or something. >

A cherry picked list of values. There are plenty of beliefs held by the FF and Conservatives like the value of a racial hierarchy, that women should be second class citizens, and that negotiations with groups that are "others" can be done in bad faith. >

Lincoln would not recognize what the GOP has become. Not a founding father of course, but in the top 2 for greatest president of our nation >

Who would be the other one? >

I think it’s generally undisputed that General Washington takes number one. Beat the british, voluntarily gave up power after 8 years. Hard to top >

Uhh my guy FDR is the greatest president we ever had. >

Wrong Roosevelt. >

Nah, Teddy was alright. >

“Two of those [charges] do require that sort of cognizance,” she added. “Conspiracy to defraud the United States requires knowledge of fraud. Obstruction of an official proceeding requires a corrupt intent. To demonstrate those intents, one of the things prosecutors can use in evidence is consciousness of guilt as evidenced by this [Trump’s] desire to have blanket pardons.” >

Yes. He knows what he did was wrong. But he is selfish and doesn’t care that it’s wrong. Everyone else is actually wrong for not letting him do what he wants. How dare anyone get in his way of what he wants??!!! >

I look forward to the day when America can finally shake off its shackles and stop playing peekaboo with fascist/authoritarianism. >

The reason why that game of peakaboo works is because of lack of object permanency in large swathes of its population.
Hey look, the previous President stored highly sensitive classified national security secrets that he’s not supposed to have in a pool shed…
Nevermind, here’s a car chase…
Next up, Hunter Bidens laptop. A bad thing to happen to America or the worst, we’ll let you decide just how horrendous it is just after these messages.
BUY CATHETERS AND PILLOWS
Another car chase, the helicopter shot shows this guy is clearly black…
Hunter Biden. American scumbag. Now time for the weather.
It’s fucking cold today, therefore Global Warming doesn’t exist. Climate change isn’t real! >

I'm not American but I'm really hoping the Catheters comment is related to John Oliver's Catheter Cowboy ads >

Well they're both joking that a whole lot of ads on right-wing media are for old people stuff. Catheters, incontinence supplies, diabetic shoes, snake oil cures, fall prevention, colostomy bags, retirement funds, medicare insurance. That kind of thing. >

Yep. He said he's clairvoyant recently.
So the plan is "I pardoned myself for things I saw myself doing in the future." 
Oh I dunno personmanwomancameratv. >

we learned quite a few things about our government rules and customs while under trump.  many have no real teeth to force the executive branch to follow them.  impeachment?  that's a joke.   as for the pardon, it's a joke that anyone can blanket pardon or pardon someone not convicted.  I think at the very least, someone who hasn't been found guilty yet should have to admit their guilt before a pardon is officially accepted.  how do we know what they are being pardoned for if they don't admit to what they did?  if we find out they committed bank fraud a few years ago or murdered someone, would that be covered by a blanket pardon?  it's dumb