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
That’s the fun part.
1 Like
Let’s agree on the Greek islands for the time being.
Or Cyprus. There are beaches and a certain bank…
1 Like
He’d cause an international incident after he forgot which side of the line the bank is on.
1 Like
Why, in the existence of exonerating evidence, would someone accept a pardon (which leaves in place the various disabilities associated with a criminal record) rather than having their conviction overturned on appeal?
Why would someone argue that a conservative hack writing in the Post is an authoritative source on a highly political issue?
Why would someone flip rapidly from “you are wrong and I am right” to “Oh well you have your opinion and I have mine” when presented with actual evidence and links?
Mysteries for the ages.
That appears to be your rendition. Here’s what I actually wrote:
No, accepting a pardon does not necessarily entail pleading guilty. It can even mean the opposite.
Which is somewhat different from your rendition.
As for the rest of your “mysteries for the ages,” well, I hope they provide you with much enjoyment.
A judge would have to approve his request to withdraw his guilty please - I don’t think that’s very likely.
If it were to happen, then it would be as if he were at the start of the case - charges pending against him again and a potential trial if gov’t and Papa don’t reach an agreement.
So Papa’s dream sequence would be: withdraw the plea then get a pardon. It would require an admission of guilt, but he wouldn’t have a criminal conviction.
If he got a pardon as case presently stands, he would be in former Sheriff Arpaio’s situation, where Arpaio is litigating whether his criminal conviction survives the pardon.
He got 2 weeks based on the deal he cut. He renegs on that deal, they charge the full slate of offenses. The stakes go up. In addition, he can’t take 5 any more. He can be compelled to testify.
1 Like
If Papadopoulos withdraws his guilty plea, then retry him and give him years in jail not days.