Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   You have to acknowledge you are guilty of a crime in order to accept a pardon, so if Trump wants to pardon himself and his children, they have to admit they committed a crime. If a prosecutor were ballsy enough, Joe's refusal to admit guilt is problematic for him   ( rawstory.com) divider line
    More: Awkward, presidential pardon power, President of the United States, new york state, Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court, Pardon, Arpaio pardon, President Trump  
•       •       •

3493 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Sep 2017 at 1:50 PM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-14 11:23:09 AM  
Not guilty. Not guilty. You're guilty.
 
2017-09-14 11:27:23 AM  
The real crime here is that headline.
 
2017-09-14 11:35:08 AM  
Mark Rich didn't admit guilt did he ?
 
2017-09-14 11:35:31 AM  
Burdick held a person could turn down a pardon.  That was the precedent in the case.

The court accepted that a reason someone might do so was because of the imputation of guilt and apparent acceptance of it with a pardon.

But there has never bern a requirement that the pardoned person sihn off on acceptance of vuilt - unless a president specifically demanded it - so unless Arpaio refuses the pardon, there is nothing you're going to accomplish by saying he "accepts" his guilt too.

His free speech rights have not been removed and he is free to say what he likes.

We are free to hold him in well deserved contempt of course. Trump can't pardon that.
 
2017-09-14 11:39:11 AM  
Barron -- "But, dad, why should I accept a pardon?  I haven't done anything wrong."

Trump -- "Just shut up and accept it.  Don't you know that the fake news media, Crooked Hillary, Criminal Comey are going to come after you?"
 
2017-09-14 11:39:55 AM  

wejash: But there has never bern a requirement ...


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-14 11:44:24 AM  

wejash: But there has never bern a requirement that the pardoned person sihn off on acceptance of vuilt


Can you smell toast?

:p
 
2017-09-14 12:10:00 PM  

One Bad Apple: Mark Rich didn't admit guilt did he ?


Neither did Nixon as I recall.
 
2017-09-14 12:33:45 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: One Bad Apple: Mark Rich didn't admit guilt did he ?

Neither did Nixon as I recall.


Formally, no, but the Supreme Court stated at least once that acceptance of a pardon is tied to a guilty plea; it was stated in passing, so whether it is legally binding as precedent or not is debatable.  But, generally speaking, the courts in the US have found that 1) a pardon has no legal use without being accepted and 2) in order to be formally accepted, the pardon must be plead before a court (where it can be challenged, etc.).
 
2017-09-14 12:48:16 PM  

One Bad Apple: Mark Rich didn't admit guilt did he ?


The article indicates that accepting a pardon implies guilt.  Araipo is seeking to have his guilty verdict stricken entirely which explicitly suggests he's not accepting guilt.
 
2017-09-14 12:51:56 PM  

obenchainr: DjangoStonereaver: One Bad Apple: Mark Rich didn't admit guilt did he ?

Neither did Nixon as I recall.

Formally, no, but the Supreme Court stated at least once that acceptance of a pardon is tied to a guilty plea; it was stated in passing, so whether it is legally binding as precedent or not is debatable.  But, generally speaking, the courts in the US have found that 1) a pardon has no legal use without being accepted and 2) in order to be formally accepted, the pardon must be plead before a court (where it can be challenged, etc.).


But there is nothing that requires that a person plead guilty to some crime in order to accept a pardon, they are merely giving formal notice to a court that they are accepting the pardon.

And of course if they haven't been charged yet, they don't even have to do that.

This idea that you have to acknowledge that you are guilty of a crime in order to accept a pardon is false, it's a misinterpretation of dicta (as you point out).
 
2017-09-14 12:56:08 PM  

Ambivalence: One Bad Apple: Mark Rich didn't admit guilt did he ?

The article indicates that accepting a pardon implies guilt.  Araipo is seeking to have his guilty verdict stricken entirely which explicitly suggests he's not accepting guilt.


That's what a pardon does:  It removes the effect of the guilty verdict.  It doesn't remove the fact of having done something, though.  So for example, if you murder someone, but are later pardoned, they have to let you out of prison and your guilty verdict is stricken and has no legal effect, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you are 100% cleared of the crime.  You're still a murderer, just a pardoned one.  The fact that you murdered someone can be taken into account if you apply for a government job, etc., even though your conviction has been nullified by the pardon.
 
2017-09-14 01:44:27 PM  

Ambivalence: Araipo is seeking to have his guilty verdict stricken entirely which explicitly suggests he's not accepting guilt.


From what I've read, a pardon does NOT expunge the record of trial/conviction, so if he's moving to have that done, he'll have a huge hill to climb for that one if he's basing it off the pardon.
 
2017-09-14 01:49:56 PM  

dittybopper: obenchainr: DjangoStonereaver: One Bad Apple: Mark Rich didn't admit guilt did he ?

Neither did Nixon as I recall.

Formally, no, but the Supreme Court stated at least once that acceptance of a pardon is tied to a guilty plea; it was stated in passing, so whether it is legally binding as precedent or not is debatable.  But, generally speaking, the courts in the US have found that 1) a pardon has no legal use without being accepted and 2) in order to be formally accepted, the pardon must be plead before a court (where it can be challenged, etc.).

But there is nothing that requires that a person plead guilty to some crime in order to accept a pardon, they are merely giving formal notice to a court that they are accepting the pardon.

And of course if they haven't been charged yet, they don't even have to do that.

This idea that you have to acknowledge that you are guilty of a crime in order to accept a pardon is false, it's a misinterpretation of dicta (as you point out).


Actually, "merely giving formal notice to a court" is explicitly part of a plea, meaning that the defendant has to enter a plea of some kind.  The argument in Burwick does not state that a defendant *must* plead guilty to accept a pardon, but it does state the following (in arguing the difference between amnesty and pardons):

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it. [Emphasis mine]

The only internally-consistent interpretation of this is that a pardon requires someone to confess their guilt order to avoid conviction (amnesty carries no admission at all).  No, it's not a specific finding of law on its own, but it is a central part of the court's argument: the justification that the pardoned may refuse to testify on self-incrimination grounds; amnesty would deny such a refusal, but the mere existence of an unaccepted pardon does not confer the same immunity and thus does not lead to forced testimony.  Whether an *accepted* pardon would do so is I think still undecided; in general, it is an academic question, since all but the rarest pardons are granted after conviction (and, at the presidential level, generally after time served) and, thus, self-incrimination is moot.
 
2017-09-14 01:52:27 PM  
Nixon you dolt.
 
2017-09-14 01:53:12 PM  
Subby, you're thinking of C, when we haven't even established B.

We are going through A, once A is established, think of B and work in B. Then can you think of C.
 
2017-09-14 01:53:45 PM  

cranked: The real crime here is that headline.


There are known knowns and known unknowns.  And what known knowns we know is that subby broke my brain with his unknown knowns that are his ability to grammar.
 
2017-09-14 01:55:37 PM  

MinatoArisato013: cranked: The real crime here is that headline.

There are known knowns and known unknowns.  And what known knowns we know is that subby broke my brain with his unknown knowns that are his ability to grammar.


Mods to the rescue, now it's 37% less painful.
 
2017-09-14 01:55:47 PM  
Better off praying.

/atheist
 
2017-09-14 02:02:55 PM  

SpaceyCat: Ambivalence: Araipo is seeking to have his guilty verdict stricken entirely which explicitly suggests he's not accepting guilt.

From what I've read, a pardon does NOT expunge the record of trial/conviction, so if he's moving to have that done, he'll have a huge hill to climb for that one if he's basing it off the pardon.


The worry is that accepting a pardon would open Araipo to civil suits.  It'll be interesting to see if a court allows those parties that Araipo's office arrested in violation of a court order have standing to sue Araipo.
 
2017-09-14 02:04:07 PM  
FTFAThe Department of Justice keeps a running tally of presidential pardons going back to 1900.

So for the first 124 years of American history, we don't don't who was pardoned or why? There aren't records?
 
2017-09-14 02:05:55 PM  

Dinjiin: The worry is that accepting a pardon would open Araipo to civil suits.


My response would be "too bad".  If you want the pardon, you have to admit that you're guilty (assuming that's actually upheld in court and not just judge comments).  You don't want to admit you're guilty, no pardon.

Dinjiin: It'll be interesting to see if a court allows those parties that Araipo's office arrested in violation of a court order have standing to sue Araipo.


That would be good.
 
2017-09-14 02:06:16 PM  

Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: The Department of Justice keeps a running tally of presidential pardons going back to 1900.

So for the first 124 years of American history, we don't don't who was pardoned or why? There aren't records?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clem​e​ncy_by_the_President_of_the_United_States

There are.  I just don't know, off the top of my head, why Justice wouldn't keep the records of those prior to 1900.
 
2017-09-14 02:07:15 PM  
Caspar Weinberger knows, ol' Poppy Bush gave it to him so he could avoid the Iran-Contra trial he was headed to. A sure way to cover up treason and violations of the Constitution.

Yeah, all these republiderp Presidential scandals sure out weight  the two the Democrats had, one got a blowjob and lied about it, the other as an American that is black. Fark you republiderps get your heads out of each others asses and learn to be American of today's society.
 
2017-09-14 02:09:19 PM  
Forget the Pardons, what does it take to get loan forgiveness from Russian oligarchs. As if Mueller was their biggest concern.
 
2017-09-14 02:16:08 PM  

One Bad Apple: Mark Rich didn't admit guilt did he ?


Neither did Nixon, you dolt.
 
2017-09-14 02:21:50 PM  
The fact that Arpaio's conviction might be overturned because Trump's pardon precludes him from appealing his conviction just proves how Trump's pardon was premature.  Very bad precedent by our President.
 
2017-09-14 02:24:24 PM  

SpaceyCat: Ambivalence: Araipo is seeking to have his guilty verdict stricken entirely which explicitly suggests he's not accepting guilt.

From what I've read, a pardon does NOT expunge the record of trial/conviction, so if he's moving to have that done, he'll have a huge hill to climb for that one if he's basing it off the pardon.


Well obviously.  A pardon does not mean that the government will burn all its records or keep the public from using them as they would any other government documents of their type.

It does say that you are forever immune to any federal legal consequences.  You can't be jailed, fined, have it used against you in a court of law, be charged, be convicted, etc. for anything which the pardon covers.  Legally, you are now completely clean for anything which the pardon covered.  But everyone is free to think that you are a piece of shiat and treat you accordingly.  They can go over government records and write books, make documentaries, movies, etc on what you did.  Historians might for thousand of years use you an example of a horrible person.

Of course even legally it is important to remember that it does not cover future crimes.  It does not cover anyone not explicitly pardoned so your partners in crime might be screwed. It does not apply to the state and local governments so if you violated their laws, you are out of luck as the pardon only applies to the federal government.  And if the pardon does not cover any crimes or misdeeds not spelled out in the pardon.
 
2017-09-14 02:26:00 PM  

One Bad Apple: Mark Rich didn't admit guilt did he ?


According to this courts interpretation, you don't have to admit to guilt. Acceptance of a pardon implies it.
 
2017-09-14 02:26:08 PM  
Heh, so you can get a Federal pardon, but that means you are admitting guilt to a Federal crime, which makes it difficult to say you are innocent of the State equivalent of the same offense in a State court.
 
2017-09-14 02:29:43 PM  
Admit guilt in court documents. receive pardon.  Two minutes later, lie about it and whine constantly about the media.
 
2017-09-14 02:33:09 PM  

dittybopper: Ambivalence: One Bad Apple: Mark Rich didn't admit guilt did he ?

The article indicates that accepting a pardon implies guilt.  Araipo is seeking to have his guilty verdict stricken entirely which explicitly suggests he's not accepting guilt.

That's what a pardon does:  It removes the effect of the guilty verdict.  It doesn't remove the fact of having done something, though.  So for example, if you murder someone, but are later pardoned, they have to let you out of prison and your guilty verdict is stricken and has no legal effect, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you are 100% cleared of the crime.  You're still a murderer, just a pardoned one.  The fact that you murdered someone can be taken into account if you apply for a government job, etc., even though your conviction has been nullified by the pardon.


No, the verdict is NOT stricken.

Which is why Arpaio has to go through the vacate proceedings to begin with.

C'mon, man. do some farking research before you start talking out ya' butt.
 
2017-09-14 02:33:19 PM  

D135: Admit guilt in court documents. receive pardon.  Two minutes later, lie about it and whine constantly about the media.


And people act like its Trump that's playing 4D chess

pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2017-09-14 02:34:54 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: SpaceyCat: Ambivalence: Araipo is seeking to have his guilty verdict stricken entirely which explicitly suggests he's not accepting guilt.

From what I've read, a pardon does NOT expunge the record of trial/conviction, so if he's moving to have that done, he'll have a huge hill to climb for that one if he's basing it off the pardon.

Well obviously.  A pardon does not mean that the government will burn all its records or keep the public from using them as they would any other government documents of their type.

It does say that you are forever immune to any federal legal consequences.  You can't be jailed, fined, have it used against you in a court of law, be charged, be convicted, etc. for anything which the pardon covers.  Legally, you are now completely clean for anything which the pardon covered.  But everyone is free to think that you are a piece of shiat and treat you accordingly.  They can go over government records and write books, make documentaries, movies, etc on what you did.  Historians might for thousand of years use you an example of a horrible person.

Of course even legally it is important to remember that it does not cover future crimes.  It does not cover anyone not explicitly pardoned so your partners in crime might be screwed. It does not apply to the state and local governments so if you violated their laws, you are out of luck as the pardon only applies to the federal government.  And if the pardon does not cover any crimes or misdeeds not spelled out in the pardon.



With the implied guilt, the pardon can be used against you in the jurisdictions that the pardon does not cover. A federal pardon can be used against you for a state charge.
 
2017-09-14 02:38:22 PM  

One Bad Apple: Mark Rich didn't admit guilt did he ?


They don't have to admit anything. But everyone else can, legally, assume they were guilty.

For example if Eric Trump is accused of being bribed by a foreign official in New York, Trump could pardon him for Federal crimes, but accepting that pardon allows for an assumption of guilt which would make it a lot easier to prosecute him for related state crimes.
 
2017-09-14 02:39:04 PM  

mithras_angel: Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_cleme​ncy_by_the_President_of_the_United_States



A great way to kill 10 minutes. I was impressed by George Wilson who turned down a pardon for mail theft, and thus was hung.
 
2017-09-14 02:39:58 PM  

mithras_angel: Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: The Department of Justice keeps a running tally of presidential pardons going back to 1900.

So for the first 124 years of American history, we don't don't who was pardoned or why? There aren't records?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_cleme​ncy_by_the_President_of_the_United_States

There are.  I just don't know, off the top of my head, why Justice wouldn't keep the records of those prior to 1900.


Keeping records doesn't necessarily mean keeping a tally of the total. (The official records aren't held by DoJ in any case -- that's the job of the National Archives.)
 
2017-09-14 02:40:51 PM  

Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: The Department of Justice keeps a running tally of presidential pardons going back to 1900.

So for the first 124 years of American history, we don't don't who was pardoned or why? There aren't records?


There are likely records (although some may have been lost or destroyed over time) but they aren't stored in that data set.
 
2017-09-14 02:44:24 PM  

mithras_angel: Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: The Department of Justice keeps a running tally of presidential pardons going back to 1900.

So for the first 124 years of American history, we don't don't who was pardoned or why? There aren't records?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_cleme​ncy_by_the_President_of_the_United_States

There are.  I just don't know, off the top of my head, why Justice wouldn't keep the records of those prior to 1900.


pardons would be mentioned in congressional records, maybe? and presidents' records are kept by Natl. Archives (I think).
 
2017-09-14 02:46:56 PM  

dywed88: One Bad Apple: Mark Rich didn't admit guilt did he ?

They don't have to admit anything. But everyone else can, legally, assume they were guilty.

For example if Eric Trump is accused of being bribed by a foreign official in New York, Trump could pardon him for Federal crimes, but accepting that pardon allows for an assumption of guilt which would make it a lot easier to prosecute him for related state crimes.


Here's a heartwarming thought:  Trump pardons his kids for taking bribes from Russia.  Then the New York State attorney general prosecutes him for tax evasion due to not listing that bribe as income.
 
2017-09-14 02:47:17 PM  

obenchainr: Formally, no, but the Supreme Court stated at least once that acceptance of a pardon is tied to a guilty plea; it was stated in passing, so whether it is legally binding as precedent or not is debatable.


Garland and Burdict are at odds with each other. This is useful commentary, even though it's old.
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9065&con​t​ext=penn_law_review

Note -- pardons for reason of innocence exist. If you can be pardoned because you are innocent, then an acceptance of guilt cannot be a universal standard. We've pardoned people after death. At least one was a mental incompetent who would have been incapable of entering into an agreement even when alive. Clearly, acceptance of guilt is not a compelling requirement.
 
2017-09-14 02:47:50 PM  
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

"Listen, with fire and with fury, I'm the greatest person in the world when it comes to keeping corrupt sheriffs out of jail. This might turn out to be a not good thing, we'll see, believe me, such as the world has never seen, on all sides, all sides. Covfeve? Covfeve."
 
2017-09-14 02:48:58 PM  

Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: The Department of Justice keeps a running tally of presidential pardons going back to 1900.

So for the first 124 years of American history, we don't don't who was pardoned or why? There aren't records?


DOJ wasn't formed until 1870.
 
2017-09-14 02:55:06 PM  

This text is now purple: obenchainr: Formally, no, but the Supreme Court stated at least once that acceptance of a pardon is tied to a guilty plea; it was stated in passing, so whether it is legally binding as precedent or not is debatable.

Garland and Burdict are at odds with each other. This is useful commentary, even though it's old.
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9065&cont​ext=penn_law_review

Note -- pardons for reason of innocence exist. If you can be pardoned because you are innocent, then an acceptance of guilt cannot be a universal standard. We've pardoned people after death. At least one was a mental incompetent who would have been incapable of entering into an agreement even when alive. Clearly, acceptance of guilt is not a compelling requirement.


There is no precedent for a federal pardon to be used for actual innocence. Innocence pardons are all state-level. 

Granted, I would LOVE for an expanded pardon power that covers innocence in all 50 states, as our justice system really has no way to overcome a wrongful conviction, but currently, the feds don't have one at all.
 
2017-09-14 02:56:48 PM  

Karac: dywed88: One Bad Apple: Mark Rich didn't admit guilt did he ?

They don't have to admit anything. But everyone else can, legally, assume they were guilty.

For example if Eric Trump is accused of being bribed by a foreign official in New York, Trump could pardon him for Federal crimes, but accepting that pardon allows for an assumption of guilt which would make it a lot easier to prosecute him for related state crimes.

Here's a heartwarming thought:  Trump pardons his kids for taking bribes from Russia.  Then the New York State attorney general prosecutes him for tax evasion due to not listing that bribe as income.


Going after the kids (Flynn, Manafort, Trump) is what's going to break this open. My suspicion is that Flynn didn't get his pardon because Congress didn't trust him to pull an Ollie North, so they (or Mueller) focused on state-level unpardonable offenses on Mike Jr.
 
2017-09-14 03:10:50 PM  
Declare Drumpf insane then let him pardon every loonie, belch & fart in the nut-house.
img.fark.netView Full Size

'...and a bigly pardon you, lamp!'
 
2017-09-14 03:10:55 PM  
Who cares about pardons

I want Trump to start issuing letters of marque
 
2017-09-14 03:14:31 PM  

mithras_angel: Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: The Department of Justice keeps a running tally of presidential pardons going back to 1900.

So for the first 124 years of American history, we don't don't who was pardoned or why? There aren't records?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_cleme​ncy_by_the_President_of_the_United_States

There are.  I just don't know, off the top of my head, why Justice wouldn't keep the records of those prior to 1900.


I guess they figure they'll just go to Wikipedia like everyone else.
 
2017-09-14 03:15:05 PM  

Dinjiin: SpaceyCat: Ambivalence: Araipo is seeking to have his guilty verdict stricken entirely which explicitly suggests he's not accepting guilt.

From what I've read, a pardon does NOT expunge the record of trial/conviction, so if he's moving to have that done, he'll have a huge hill to climb for that one if he's basing it off the pardon.

The worry is that accepting a pardon would open Araipo to civil suits.  It'll be interesting to see if a court allows those parties that Araipo's office arrested in violation of a court order have standing to sue Araipo.


I'm not worried about it so much as gleefully anticipating it.  Watching Joe get bankrupted because of a pardon he begged for will be some wonderful schadenfreude.
 
2017-09-14 03:15:47 PM  

Dinjiin: SpaceyCat: Ambivalence: Araipo is seeking to have his guilty verdict stricken entirely which explicitly suggests he's not accepting guilt.

From what I've read, a pardon does NOT expunge the record of trial/conviction, so if he's moving to have that done, he'll have a huge hill to climb for that one if he's basing it off the pardon.

The worry is that accepting a pardon would open Araipo to civil suits.  It'll be interesting to see if a court allows those parties that Araipo's office arrested in violation of a court order have standing to sue Araipo.


"Only the white ones." -- Grand Wizard Jeff Sessions.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report