O really? I didn’t know that. O bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
5 Likes
Well, this moron is a guest on Ari Me;ber’s show tonight. I can’t wait to see Ari’s facial expressions as Papie lies his ass off.
4 Likes
Trump doesn’t need no anyone to give him any ideas about this kind of stuff… it comes naturally for him.
2 Likes
A pardon is all he wants? How about a diploma as a Doctor of Thinkology while he’s at it? Thing with this boy is, you could give him ten pardons, and he’d still be the same damn twit he always was and always will be. If a Trump person isn’t a thoroughgoing crook, he or she is sure to be a hapless amoral yutz who has no idea when to shut up and go away.
10 Likes
He was sure prepped for that appearance.
This asshole is an embarrassment to all Greeks: past, present and future.
2 Likes
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.”
Other courts have echoed this. Papa would waive his Fifth Amendment rights, I believe, and could be grilled by prosecutors
3 Likes
Maybe he’s angling for an ambassadorship to Greece.
2 Likes
Alternate Headline:
GOP Non-Entity Vainly Pursues Extending 15 Minutes of Fame
4 Likes
“If I were convicted of a crime, and then new evidence were to exonerate me, then my accepting a pardon would obviously not mean I was pleading guilty”
That would be having your conviction overturned by a court on appeal, not being pardoned by an executive. In that case the record is indeed wiped clean; your conviction is completely erased.
A pardon must be accepted by the recipient and they must admit their guilt. https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions
3 Likes
If by “would be” you meant to say “could be,” then I agree.
Meanwhile, the example I gave, as worded, still invites refutation.
You do have to say ten Hail Melanias.
1 Like
Not true, as I explained earlier.
Here to back me up is Randall Eliason:
You frequently hear that if someone accepts a pardon, it means they admit they are guilty. This stems from language in a 1915 Supreme Court case, Burdick v. United States, where the Court said that accepting a pardon involves a “confession of guilt.” Recently on MSNBC, Ari Melber thought he had a “gotcha” moment with Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio when he told Arpaio that accepting president Trump’s pardon for contempt of court meant he was admitting he was guilty.
But the reality is more complicated. The language in Burdick was dicta – not necessary to the holding – and is too sweeping. Pardons are granted for different reasons. For example, suppose DNA testing concludes a defendant was wrongly convicted and the president pardons him. Clearly by accepting that pardon the exonerated defendant is not admitting that he was in fact guilty. Writing last year in the Washington Post, Eugene Volokh reviewed Burdick and other old Supreme Court authorities and concluded: “I doubt that any judge today would genuinely view acceptance of pardons as always being an admission of guilt.”
I’ve written all the above previously at TPM, but I figure hearing from someone else might help you. Does it?
3 Likes
Burdick hasn’t been overturned and SCOTUS dicta vs. Volokh writing in the Washington Post; Burdick still wins.
Corporations as people was dicta too. It still took the force of law.
3 Likes
Yes, that’s your opinion. Eliason and Volokh have theirs, and I have mine. You are free to explain how the example I gave earlier is mistaken or irrelevant – although, of course, you would never stoop to explaining.
This could also apply to a certain (I assume Democratic) non-entity named Avenatti who flew too close to the sun and is now under indictment for trying to take down Nike. It’s amazing what a little too much time on cable makes a guy think he’s capable of doing.
1 Like
If the ambassador’s office is in Athens, ugh. But on any of the islands, wide sea, sun, beach, ouzo at sundown and morphing into Zorba, fabuloso.
1 Like
Dear @littlegirlblue, the story you’re talking about, which is also about fathers and sons, or parents and children, is very, very close to my heart. Perhaps someday we will talk about it over a loaf of bread and a jug of wine. Until then, you speak for me – except when you don’t!
1 Like
Give me a hint as to when it is I do and when it is I don’t. Until then, well, who knows what I’m likely to say.
1 Like