Archy1221 Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 18 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Accepting the pardon from Trump is considered to be an admission of guilt as noted by Judge Sullivan and SCOTUS precedence of Burdick v US. Eugene Volokh—Washington Post. a pardon has historically been seen as serving several different functions, one of which is protecting people who were convicted even though they were legally innocent. Indeed, some pardons expressly state that they are based on the pardoner’s decision that the defendant was actually innocent; and some legal rules expressly contemplate that — consider, for instance, the federal statute that provides for compensation of the unjustly convicted, which allows a plaintiff to prevail by showing (among other things) “that he has been pardoned upon the stated ground of innocence and unjust conviction.” UPDATE: The Justice Department Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitioners also expressly contemplate the possibility of “pardon on grounds of innocence or miscarriage of justice,” Legal authorities, then, are split on the subject of how the law should understand pardons; but because some pardons are understood as being based on the pardoned person’s factual innocence, I doubt that any judge today would genuinely view acceptance of pardon as always being an admission of guilt. 2 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 21 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: Eugene Volokh—Washington Post. a pardon has historically been seen as serving several different functions, one of which is protecting people who were convicted even though they were legally innocent. Indeed, some pardons expressly state that they are based on the pardoner’s decision that the defendant was actually innocent; and some legal rules expressly contemplate that — consider, for instance, the federal statute that provides for compensation of the unjustly convicted, which allows a plaintiff to prevail by showing (among other things) “that he has been pardoned upon the stated ground of innocence and unjust conviction.” UPDATE: The Justice Department Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitioners also expressly contemplate the possibility of “pardon on grounds of innocence or miscarriage of justice,” Legal authorities, then, are split on the subject of how the law should understand pardons; but because some pardons are understood as being based on the pardoned person’s factual innocence, I doubt that any judge today would genuinely view acceptance of pardon as always being an admission of guilt. You're welcome to listen to this guy's opinion and disagree with the Burdick v US decision, but the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter when it comes to accepting pardons. Unless SCOTUS overturns that decision, accepting a pardon is "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it". 2 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 12 minutes ago, RedDenver said: You're welcome to listen to this guy's opinion and disagree with the Burdick v US decision, but the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter when it comes to accepting pardons. Unless SCOTUS overturns that decision, accepting a pardon is "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it". https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-pardons-presidential-trump-nixon-ford-kardashian-0608-story.html MYTH NO. 4 Pardons are only for guilty people; accepting one is an admission of guilt. In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." Over the years, many have come to see a necessary relationship between a pardon and guilt. Ford carried the Burdick quote in his wallet, defending the Nixon pardon by noting that it established Nixon's guilt. More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump's pardon. But Burdick was about a different issue: the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just an aside — what lawyers call dicta. The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one. But pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt. Indeed, in rare cases pardons are used to exonerate people. This was Trump's rationale for posthumously pardoning boxer Jack Johnson, the victim of a racially based railroading in 1913. Ford pardoned Iva Toguri d'Aquino (World War II's "Tokyo Rose") after "60 Minutes" revealed that she was an innocent victim of prosecutors who suborned perjured testimony in her treason case. President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger because he thought the former defense secretary, indicted in the Iran-contra affair, was a victim of "the criminalization of policy differences." If the president pardons you because he thinks you are innocent, what guilt could accepting that pardon possibly admit? 2 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 30 minutes ago, RedDenver said: You're welcome to listen to this guy's opinion and disagree with the Burdick v US decision, but the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter when it comes to accepting pardons. Unless SCOTUS overturns that decision, accepting a pardon is "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it". Hope that answered your statement 1 Link to comment
Enhance Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 2 hours ago, Archy1221 said: You are talking in circles yet it seems you don’t realize it. Says the person who cited a source that debunked their own post. I guess For the rest of jury trials we will just assume everyone found not guilty probably did the crime since they were only declared not guilty and were not declared innocent You're making an asinine strawman argument here. The only thing "not guilty" means is that, by a court of law, the evidence was not strong enough to return a guilty verdict. You extrapolating that to mean anything else is a you problem. let me ask you...how does one plead to charges initially in court? What are the options? Can I plead innocent? If I didn’t do done thing, do I go to court to be found innocent or not guilty by the jury? Do I go on with the rest of my life with a stain of “well he was only found not guilty so he isn’t really innocent” I mean, have you ever heard of O.J. Simpson? How about I just throw you a bone and I will say “presumed innocent” every time for now on. Seems that should make all parties involved satisfied. How about we just use words correctly and call it square? Nevermind the fact that you linked a source that told you this and are choosing to ignore it. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 Just for clarification. The charges were dropped by the same DOJ that was ran by Barr, correct? Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 11 minutes ago, Enhance said: Quote How about we just use words correctly and call it square? Nevermind the fact that you linked a source that told you this and are choosing to ignore it. From a legal sense one is innocent until proven guilty. Not too hard to understand. It is what the source I linked to agrees with. 12 minutes ago, Enhance said: mean, have you ever heard of O.J. Simpson? I assume you are talking of the former football player. Criminal court of law found him not guilty. Civil court found him guilty. 14 minutes ago, Enhance said: Says the person who cited a source that debunked their own post. Even though it didn’t. In a court of law one is innocent until proven guilty. Again, kinda the backbone of our system. Can I plead innocent when I didn’t commit a crime I am accused of or do I have to plead not guilty? 1 Link to comment
Born N Bled Red Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 2 hours ago, Archy1221 said: From a legal sense one is innocent until proven guilty. Not too hard to understand. It is what the source I linked to agrees with. I assume you are talking of the former football player. Criminal court of law found him not guilty. Civil court found him guilty. Even though it didn’t. In a court of law one is innocent until proven guilty. Again, kinda the backbone of our system. Can I plead innocent when I didn’t commit a crime I am accused of or do I have to plead not guilty? Are you so daft as to believe that no one that has ever been found not guilty of a crime, in reality actually committed the exact time they were accused of but managed to get away with it through some technicality or lack of evidence? Of course not. You are just not conversing in good faith... yet again!!! If you do believe that, please go back and research your posting history for all the times you said the Clinton's were innocent and all the congressional hearings were a waste of time and resources. You won't, because you can't. You're just trolling and everyone knows it. Hope you got a rise out of getting to respond to your nonsense, bad faith arguements and whatnot once again. 1 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 13 hours ago, Archy1221 said: https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-pardons-presidential-trump-nixon-ford-kardashian-0608-story.html MYTH NO. 4 Pardons are only for guilty people; accepting one is an admission of guilt. In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." Over the years, many have come to see a necessary relationship between a pardon and guilt. Ford carried the Burdick quote in his wallet, defending the Nixon pardon by noting that it established Nixon's guilt. More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump's pardon. But Burdick was about a different issue: the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just an aside — what lawyers call dicta. The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one. But pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt. Indeed, in rare cases pardons are used to exonerate people. This was Trump's rationale for posthumously pardoning boxer Jack Johnson, the victim of a racially based railroading in 1913. Ford pardoned Iva Toguri d'Aquino (World War II's "Tokyo Rose") after "60 Minutes" revealed that she was an innocent victim of prosecutors who suborned perjured testimony in her treason case. President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger because he thought the former defense secretary, indicted in the Iran-contra affair, was a victim of "the criminalization of policy differences." If the president pardons you because he thinks you are innocent, what guilt could accepting that pardon possibly admit? 13 hours ago, Archy1221 said: Hope that answered your statement It's just another opinion. As I said, you are welcome to believe whatever you want, but the SCOTUS has already ruled about accepting pardons. Other opinions don't trump that. A couple of sources: https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1202796636296/Accepting-a-Pardon-Means-Admission-of-Guilt/?slreturn=20210110083549 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-1/the-legal-nature-of-a-pardon 1 Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 12 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: So.... A hoax, and pre arranged, but not Trump's people? So who, Hawley et al? Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 1 minute ago, DevoHusker said: So.... A hoax, and pre arranged, but not Trump's people? So who, Hawley et al? I'm guessing the talking points will be antifa and the deep state. 2 Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, RedDenver said: I'm guessing the talking points will be antifa and the deep state. Do you think there is any validity, or just more deflection? Not in.your example, but overall. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 6 minutes ago, DevoHusker said: Do you think there is any validity, or just more deflection? Not in.your example, but overall. Any validity that the Capitol attack was done by anyone other than Trumpers? No. 2 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 While there are always registration changes after every election, the exodus from the Republican Party is well above normal. Many thousands are leaving - related to Trump's false election claims, Jan 6 riots and the GOP's refusal to deal honestly with any of it. Most clear thinking Americans know that not only were the riots an assault on our democracy, they also know who motivated it. The silence by the GOP in some quarters and the outright support by others only ties the party as a whole to the event - as it should be. I for one will be changing my registration to Independent. I can't register as a Dem due to the direction that party has gone - I just hope a more moderate party can be created out this present day chaos. https://dnyuz.com/2021/02/10/theres-nothing-left-why-thousands-of-republicans-are-leaving-the-party/ 1 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts