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.