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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Sheriff Joe: I'm pardoned now. Go me. District Judge: Yeah, about that   ( talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line
    More: Cool, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Joe Arpaio, Judge, President of the United States, Maricopa County, Arizona, Arpaio's attorneys, President Donald Trump  
•       •       •

11781 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Aug 2017 at 3:26 PM (45 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-08-30 02:45:42 PM  
I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.
 
2017-08-30 02:54:11 PM  
It's a dark day for our democracy when the president can't even pardon a racist over twitter at prime time during a devastating hurricane.
 
2017-08-30 02:55:37 PM  
I am shocked. Shocked! That the comments make cogent arguments.
 
2017-08-30 03:05:14 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.


Can the judge do that though?    I guess my question is, what is the "power" of the Presidential Pardon?   I thought it was more or less "overriding" everything else (for the particular charge or charges being pardoned), but, I could be wrong.
 
2017-08-30 03:09:53 PM  

dletter: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.

Can the judge do that though?    I guess my question is, what is the "power" of the Presidential Pardon?   I thought it was more or less "overriding" everything else (for the particular charge or charges being pardoned), but, I could be wrong.


Do we even know what the pardon says? The judge isn't going to cancel the sentencing hearing without a motion from Joe's counsel just because she saw Trump waive his tiny hand on TV and say "I pardon thee"
 
2017-08-30 03:10:56 PM  

dletter: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.

Can the judge do that though?    I guess my question is, what is the "power" of the Presidential Pardon?   I thought it was more or less "overriding" everything else (for the particular charge or charges being pardoned), but, I could be wrong.


I think you're right, and the judge is just demanding that proper procedures be followed.

/not a lawyer
 
2017-08-30 03:11:59 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.


I don't think he has a choice.  Like it or not, the president has unreviewable power to pardon someone.  The convinction *MUST* be thrown out, because the highest law of the land grants the power for the president to pardon people, and some district judge can't do a damned thing about it (nor can anyone else).

The way I read this, is the judge being either meticulously scrupulous about dotting the I's and crossing the T's from a legal standpoint, or is just being a dick about it (depending on your viewpoint), but there is zero way that they can uphold that conviction post-presidential pardon.

Just a refresher:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Article II
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


Now, I don't think Arpaio should have been pardoned, but he was, and I fear more the idea that we can just ignore the Constitution when it's inconvenient than I do some octogenarian asshole sheriff.
 
2017-08-30 03:20:02 PM  

dletter: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.

Can the judge do that though?    I guess my question is, what is the "power" of the Presidential Pardon?   I thought it was more or less "overriding" everything else (for the particular charge or charges being pardoned), but, I could be wrong.


No, the judge can't, and yes, the president has the power to pardon anyone for anything with the only exception being cases of impeachment.  And in fact, the president can pardon you *BEFORE* you're even charged with a crime (see Ford's pardon of Nixon).
 
2017-08-30 03:27:03 PM  
My guess is Trump just figured saying it was enough, and didn't file any legal paperwork.
 
2017-08-30 03:29:24 PM  

kevlar51: dletter: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.

Can the judge do that though?    I guess my question is, what is the "power" of the Presidential Pardon?   I thought it was more or less "overriding" everything else (for the particular charge or charges being pardoned), but, I could be wrong.

Do we even know what the pardon says? The judge isn't going to cancel the sentencing hearing without a motion from Joe's counsel just because she saw Trump waive his tiny hand on TV and say "I pardon thee"


This is the only text I could find:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/25/president-trum​p​-pardons-sheriff-joe-arpaio

President Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Today, President Donald J. Trump granted a Presidential pardon to Joe Arpaio, former Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona.  Arpaio's life and career, which began at the age of 18 when he enlisted in the military after the outbreak of the Korean War, exemplify selfless public service.  After serving in the Army, Arpaio became a police officer in Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas, NV and later served as a Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), formerly the Bureau of Narcotics.  After 25 years of admirable service, Arpaio went on to lead the DEA's branch in Arizona.
 
In 1992, the problems facing his community pulled Arpaio out of retirement to return to law enforcement.  He ran and won a campaign to become Sheriff of Maricopa County.  Throughout his time as Sheriff, Arpaio continued his life's work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration.  Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now eighty-five years old, and after more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon.


There isn't anything there that specifies what he is being pardoned *FOR*, so I'm assuming absent any other evidence that's it's a blanket pardon for any offenses that Arpaio may have committed up until the time the pardon was issued.
 
2017-08-30 03:29:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: My guess is Trump just figured saying it was enough, and didn't file any legal paperwork.


Well, the ratings during the announcement were HUGE.
 
2017-08-30 03:30:07 PM  
dittybopper:

Now, I don't think Arpaio should have been pardoned, but he was, and I fear more the idea that we can just ignore the Constitution when it's inconvenient than I do some octogenarian asshole sheriff.

Fark that.  Let's ignore it just this one time. I won't tell anybody.
 
2017-08-30 03:30:33 PM  

kevlar51: dletter: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.

Can the judge do that though?    I guess my question is, what is the "power" of the Presidential Pardon?   I thought it was more or less "overriding" everything else (for the particular charge or charges being pardoned), but, I could be wrong.

Do we even know what the pardon says? The judge isn't going to cancel the sentencing hearing without a motion from Joe's counsel just because she saw Trump waive his tiny hand on TV and say "I pardon thee"


I'm sure Trump's crack legal team has thoroughly vetted pardon procedures and laws to ensure that the pardon actually gets Arpaio off the hook for this.  They seem really on the ball.
 
2017-08-30 03:30:39 PM  

dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.

I don't think he has a choice.  Like it or not, the president has unreviewable power to pardon someone.  The convinction *MUST* be thrown out, because the highest law of the land grants the power for the president to pardon people, and some district judge can't do a damned thing about it (nor can anyone else).

The way I read this, is the judge being either meticulously scrupulous about dotting the I's and crossing the T's from a legal standpoint, or is just being a dick about it (depending on your viewpoint), but there is zero way that they can uphold that conviction post-presidential pardon.

Just a refresher:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Article II
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Now, I don't think Arpaio should have been pardoned, but he was, and I fear more the idea that we can just ignore the Constitution when it's inconvenient than I do some octogenarian asshole sheriff.


A pardon does not "throw out" the conviction. A pardon comes with an implicit admission of guilt.
 
2017-08-30 03:30:54 PM  
I also refuse to finish without oral.
 
2017-08-30 03:31:22 PM  
fark that piece of shiat.

/ Said piece of shiat can be either Sheriff Joe or Trump, take your pick.
// Actually, why not both?
/// fark both those pieces of shiat.
 
2017-08-30 03:31:40 PM  

Subtonic: dittybopper:

Now, I don't think Arpaio should have been pardoned, but he was, and I fear more the idea that we can just ignore the Constitution when it's inconvenient than I do some octogenarian asshole sheriff.

Fark that.  Let's ignore it just this one time. I won't tell anybody.


It's only OK to ignore the Constitution when it benefits Republicans.
 
2017-08-30 03:33:32 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: My guess is Trump just figured saying it was enough, and didn't file any legal paperwork.


I don't think there has to be any legal paperwork to be filed for a president to pardon someone.  All they really have to say is "I pardon So-and-so", and it's immediately effective.  It's up to the courts to implement it.
 
2017-08-30 03:36:04 PM  
At a minimum they need to document that Joe agrees that, by accepting the pardon, he fully admits his guilt.
 
2017-08-30 03:36:21 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

"Pardon me, do you have any gray felon?"
 
2017-08-30 03:37:19 PM  

the_innkeeper: A pardon does not "throw out" the conviction. A pardon comes with an implicit admission of guilt.


I was going to say... the article seems to imply that a pardon doesn't necessarily stop a court proceeding, only protects the convicted from any negative repercussions.

Thus it makes sense why sentencing has been cancelled but they're still finishing up the business of making sure that the record correctly shows that Arpaio behaved illegally.
 
2017-08-30 03:37:56 PM  

whatsupchuck: At a minimum they need to document that Joe agrees that, by accepting the pardon, he fully admits his guilt.


As if he would give a shiat about admitting guilt.
 
2017-08-30 03:38:12 PM  

the_innkeeper: dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.

I don't think he has a choice.  Like it or not, the president has unreviewable power to pardon someone.  The convinction *MUST* be thrown out, because the highest law of the land grants the power for the president to pardon people, and some district judge can't do a damned thing about it (nor can anyone else).

The way I read this, is the judge being either meticulously scrupulous about dotting the I's and crossing the T's from a legal standpoint, or is just being a dick about it (depending on your viewpoint), but there is zero way that they can uphold that conviction post-presidential pardon.

Just a refresher:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Article II
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Now, I don't think Arpaio should have been pardoned, but he was, and I fear more the idea that we can just ignore the Constitution when it's inconvenient than I do some octogenarian asshole sheriff.

A pardon does not "throw out" the conviction.


Yes, it quite literally does:

 http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1443    
pardon
1) v. to use the executive power of a Governor or President to forgive a person convicted of a crime, thus removing any remaining penalties or punishments and preventing any new prosecution of the person for the crime for which the pardon was given. A pardon strikes the conviction from the books as if it had never occurred, and the convicted person is treated as innocent.


A pardon comes with an implicit admission of guilt.


No, it does not.

People can be pardoned who were wrongly convicted, and you get all your rights restored after a pardon.

Seriously, why did you bother posting?  You either were ignorant of what a pardon actually does and couldn't be bothered to look it up, or you knew and posted wrong information anyway.
 
2017-08-30 03:38:14 PM  
just because a pardon is issued, it does NOT void the conviction. that requires expungement , which the Executive branch can NOT do.
Does a presidential pardon expunge or erase the conviction for which the pardon was granted?
No.  Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President.  Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record.  Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record.  However, a pardon will facilitate removal of legal disabilities imposed because of the conviction, and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from the conviction.  In addition, a pardon may be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment.  If you are seeking expungement of a federal offense, please contact the court of conviction.  If you are seeking expungement of a state conviction, which the Office of the Pardon Attorney also does not have authority to handle, states have different procedures for "expunging" a conviction or "clearing" the record of a criminal conviction.  To pursue relief of a state conviction, you should contact the Governor or state Attorney General in the state in which you were convicted for assistance.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions-concerning-​e​xecutive-clemency#18
 
2017-08-30 03:38:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: My guess is Trump just figured saying it was enough, and didn't file any legal paperwork.


media2.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2017-08-30 03:39:02 PM  

dittybopper: cameroncrazy1984: My guess is Trump just figured saying it was enough, and didn't file any legal paperwork.

I don't think there has to be any legal paperwork to be filed for a president to pardon someone.  All they really have to say is "I pardon So-and-so", and it's immediately effective.  It's up to the courts to implement it.


and

There isn't anything there that specifies what he is being pardoned *FOR*, so I'm assuming absent any other evidence that's it's a blanket pardon for any offenses that Arpaio may have committed up until the time the pardon was issued.

There's ALWAYS paperwork. If its not filed, it didn't happen. Further, the courts have to have paperwork to "implement" the pardon. They don't work off nothing. "I have no legal basis for approving this motion" is my favorite.
 
2017-08-30 03:40:41 PM  

whatsupchuck: At a minimum they need to document that Joe agrees that, by accepting the pardon, he fully admits his guilt.


He doesn't need to "accept" the pardon.  It was granted.  It's like he was never convicted.

I suspect you're confusing a commutation of sentence with a pardon.
 
2017-08-30 03:41:23 PM  

dletter: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.

Can the judge do that though?    I guess my question is, what is the "power" of the Presidential Pardon?   I thought it was more or less "overriding" everything else (for the particular charge or charges being pardoned), but, I could be wrong.


Nope, she can't.
Minor flower over reaching to try and jump on the attention train, thats it.
The attorney should tell her to fark off, then move to have her reviewed and terminated. Or fired would be fine too.
 
2017-08-30 03:41:37 PM  
Far more of a mental exercise than actually thinking this would/could happen, but if Arpaio tells the judge to go pound sand because he is pardoned could he be held in contempt for that?
 
2017-08-30 03:41:40 PM  

the_innkeeper: There's ALWAYS paperwork. If its not filed, it didn't happen.


It was published by the White House.  It therefore happened.  Now it's the court's responsibility to implement it.
 
2017-08-30 03:42:40 PM  

whatsupchuck: At a minimum they need to document that Joe agrees that, by accepting the pardon, he fully admits his guilt.


Is not the point of this technicality to keep the door open for civil suits?
 
2017-08-30 03:44:01 PM  

Stratohead: just because a pardon is issued, it does NOT void the conviction. that requires expungement , which the Executive branch can NOT do.
Does a presidential pardon expunge or erase the conviction for which the pardon was granted?
No.  Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President.  Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record.  Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record.  However, a pardon will facilitate removal of legal disabilities imposed because of the conviction, and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from the conviction.  In addition, a pardon may be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment.  If you are seeking expungement of a federal offense, please contact the court of conviction.  If you are seeking expungement of a state conviction, which the Office of the Pardon Attorney also does not have authority to handle, states have different procedures for "expunging" a conviction or "clearing" the record of a criminal conviction.  To pursue relief of a state conviction, you should contact the Governor or state Attorney General in the state in which you were convicted for assistance.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions-concerning-e​xecutive-clemency#18


Right. And since there is still the guilt, he can and will be spending the rest of his life in litigation hell for civil suits filed against him. Not as satisfying as seeing him in prison, but he still gets to suffer.
 
2017-08-30 03:44:28 PM  
Let him accept the pardon and with it the implication of guilt it carries.

Then let us wait for all the civil suit against him, where he can't hide behind being innocent.
 
2017-08-30 03:44:32 PM  

dittybopper: the_innkeeper: dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.

I don't think he has a choice.  Like it or not, the president has unreviewable power to pardon someone.  The convinction *MUST* be thrown out, because the highest law of the land grants the power for the president to pardon people, and some district judge can't do a damned thing about it (nor can anyone else).

The way I read this, is the judge being either meticulously scrupulous about dotting the I's and crossing the T's from a legal standpoint, or is just being a dick about it (depending on your viewpoint), but there is zero way that they can uphold that conviction post-presidential pardon.

Just a refresher:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Article II
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Now, I don't think Arpaio should have been pardoned, but he was, and I fear more the idea that we can just ignore the Constitution when it's inconvenient than I do some octogenarian asshole sheriff.

A pardon does not "throw out" the conviction.

Yes, it quite literally does:

 http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1443    
pardon
1) v. to use the executive power of a Governor or President to forgive a person convicted of a crime, thus removing any remaining penalties or punishments and preventing any new prosecution of the person for the crime for which the pardon was given. A pardon strikes the conviction from the books as if it had never occurred, and the convicted person is treated ...



"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. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

But, thanks for playing.
 
2017-08-30 03:44:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: My guess is Trump just figured saying it was enough, and didn't file any legal paperwork.


The judge is asking the Justice Department for paperwork, not the Executive branch.
 
2017-08-30 03:45:05 PM  

dittybopper: the_innkeeper: There's ALWAYS paperwork. If its not filed, it didn't happen.

It was published by the White House.  It therefore happened.  Now it's the court's responsibility to implement it.


Was it published? I saw the video but was there actually a document issued? Or did Trump just go ahead and say stuff.
 
2017-08-30 03:45:42 PM  

dittybopper: whatsupchuck: At a minimum they need to document that Joe agrees that, by accepting the pardon, he fully admits his guilt.

He doesn't need to "accept" the pardon.  It was granted.  It's like he was never convicted.

I suspect you're confusing a commutation of sentence with a pardon.


"To do this, the pardoned person must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject."

Dude, how many ways can you be wrong in every post in this thread?
 
2017-08-30 03:47:46 PM  

the_innkeeper: dittybopper: whatsupchuck: At a minimum they need to document that Joe agrees that, by accepting the pardon, he fully admits his guilt.

He doesn't need to "accept" the pardon.  It was granted.  It's like he was never convicted.

I suspect you're confusing a commutation of sentence with a pardon.

"To do this, the pardoned person must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject."

Dude, how many ways can you be wrong in every post in this thread?


As many ways as it takes!
 
2017-08-30 03:48:54 PM  
Well let's hope the civil suits leave him a broken empty shell and he dies broke, miserable, and alone.
 
2017-08-30 03:49:39 PM  

dittybopper: the_innkeeper: dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.

I don't think he has a choice.  Like it or not, the president has unreviewable power to pardon someone.  The convinction *MUST* be thrown out, because the highest law of the land grants the power for the president to pardon people, and some district judge can't do a damned thing about it (nor can anyone else).

The way I read this, is the judge being either meticulously scrupulous about dotting the I's and crossing the T's from a legal standpoint, or is just being a dick about it (depending on your viewpoint), but there is zero way that they can uphold that conviction post-presidential pardon.

Just a refresher:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Article II
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Now, I don't think Arpaio should have been pardoned, but he was, and I fear more the idea that we can just ignore the Constitution when it's inconvenient than I do some octogenarian asshole sheriff.

A pardon does not "throw out" the conviction.

Yes, it quite literally does:

 http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1443    
pardon
1) v. to use the executive power of a Governor or President to forgive a person convicted of a crime, thus removing any remaining penalties or punishments and preventing any new prosecution of the person for the crime for which the pardon was given. A pardon strikes the conviction from the books as if it had never occurred, and the convicted person is treated ...


Actually its not as clear cut as you make it sound.

There is a supreme court case that supports that a pardon carries the acceptance of a pardon carries the confession of guilt. (Burdick v. United States)

"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."
 
2017-08-30 03:49:55 PM  

dittybopper: whatsupchuck: At a minimum they need to document that Joe agrees that, by accepting the pardon, he fully admits his guilt.

He doesn't need to "accept" the pardon.  It was granted.  It's like he was never convicted.

I suspect you're confusing a commutation of sentence with a pardon.


See Burdick v. United States.
 
2017-08-30 03:49:56 PM  

dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.

I don't think he has a choice.  Like it or not, the president has unreviewable power to pardon someone.  The convinction *MUST* be thrown out, because the highest law of the land grants the power for the president to pardon people, and some district judge can't do a damned thing about it (nor can anyone else).

The way I read this, is the judge being either meticulously scrupulous about dotting the I's and crossing the T's from a legal standpoint, or is just being a dick about it (depending on your viewpoint), but there is zero way that they can uphold that conviction post-presidential pardon.

Just a refresher:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Article II
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Now, I don't think Arpaio should have been pardoned, but he was, and I fear more the idea that we can just ignore the Constitution when it's inconvenient than I do some octogenarian asshole sheriff.


Arapaio ignored the Constitution.  The judge is ignoring the power to pardon granted within the Constitution.

Why does this latest hearing matter?  Civil Liability--Accepting a pardon means that you admit culpability.  Joe's family is going to wish his Russian millions were better hidden.
 
2017-08-30 03:50:30 PM  
Joe's a private citizen and can no longer burden Maricopa County with his legal bills.

Even though Joe's likely to prevail, I'm perfectly fine with him being squeezed by legal fees at every turn. Actually, I'm kind of enjoying it.

It's the only form of "punishment" he's likely to see.
 
2017-08-30 03:50:40 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.


A pardon negates the conviction but it doesn't prevent the conviction - does it?  How do it work?
 
2017-08-30 03:50:57 PM  
Ha!  You got Burdicked in teh boobies!
 
2017-08-30 03:52:56 PM  

dittybopper: whatsupchuck: At a minimum they need to document that Joe agrees that, by accepting the pardon, he fully admits his guilt.

He doesn't need to "accept" the pardon.  It was granted.  It's like he was never convicted.

I suspect you're confusing a commutation of sentence with a pardon.


Actually again, how about you do a bit of research yourself since you have chided others for their unsupported positions. There isnt much case law on the topic, but yes it has been settled that the pardon has to be accepted and cant be forced on an individual (again Burdick v US).
 
2017-08-30 03:53:37 PM  

lindalouwho: The judge is asking the Justice Department for paperwork, not the Executive branch.


Ummm...  isn't the Justice Dept. part of the executive branch?
 
2017-08-30 03:53:38 PM  

ds615: dletter: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I really really hope that judge upholds the conviction.

Can the judge do that though?    I guess my question is, what is the "power" of the Presidential Pardon?   I thought it was more or less "overriding" everything else (for the particular charge or charges being pardoned), but, I could be wrong.

Nope, she can't.
Minor flower over reaching to try and jump on the attention train, thats it.
The attorney should tell her to fark off, then move to have her reviewed and terminated. Or fired would be fine too.


Actually YES she CAN.  a Pardon does not and can not void a conviction. only expungement can do that.
one of the many reasons why in practice Presidents who aren't complete asshats wait until AFTER sentencing prior to issuing a pardon...and why at the state level, most states prohibit Governors from issuing clemency/pardons unless reviewed by the correct bodies before hand. Arizona is one of those states btw.


I did some digging to see if a standing conviction for someone who is pardoned of a Federal Civil Rights felony...which is what this is, could still run for state level office in Arizona...and the answer is...yes...in this case Sherriff CrackerAss could still run for local and state level office in Arizona, as he only has the one conviction which the pardon counts as "time served".
as a side note...there is not Federal Law currently preventing a convicted felon from running for Federal Office (pardoned or otherwise)...only Congress can decide if that is a problem or not if they decide to bother.
 
2017-08-30 03:54:36 PM  
His name has dick in it.
 
2017-08-30 03:54:41 PM  

the_innkeeper: "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. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States


Loki009: Actually its not as clear cut as you make it sound.

There is a supreme court case that supports that a pardon carries the acceptance of a pardon carries the confession of guilt. (Burdick v. United States)

"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."


whatsupchuck: See Burdick v. United States.


Interesting.
 
Displayed 50 of 248 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and 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