In Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
-
The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.
-
A pardon reaches the punishment prescribed for an offence and the guilt of the offender. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. It gives him a new credit and capacity. There is only this limitation to its operation: it does not restore offices forfeited, or property of interests vested in others in consequence of the conviction and judgment.
This is still established law today. So you're, like, super wrong.
You pardon people for crimes they have committed, whether there's been a conviction or not, whether there's been an indictment or not, whether they've been charged or not. The individual can choose to accept the pardon or not. Accepting it is seen as an admission of guilt.
A notable example would be Jimmy Carter preemptively pardoning the 500,000 Vietnam draft offenders (causing many of them who had fled abroad to return home).
More on-the-nose, perhaps, would be Ford's pardoning of Nixon. His very broad preemptive pardon literally reads "a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes that he might have committed against the United States as president."
Not sure which one you're looking at but this one has 11.4 million views and this one has 1.7 million views, there are multiple others.