JM2K6 wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:05 pm
fishfoodie wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 9:30 pmAccepting a Presidential Pardon is also a de facto Guilty Plea
No it isn't.
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?
Okay. Yes. It is more complicated that just saying that a pardon is an explicit admission of guilt; but.
lets consider the possibilities !
1. In 1915, the Supreme Court indeed said, of pardons, that “acceptance” carries “a confession of” guilt. Burdick v. United States (1915). Other courts have echoed that since.
2. On the other hand, 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.
3. Another function of a pardon has historically been protecting people who were seen as legally guilty but morally innocent.
4. Of course, pardons have also been seen as having various other functions as well, such as decreasing the punishment of someone who is legally and morally guilty, for instance when “the situation and circumstances of the offender, though they alter not the essence of the offence, ought to make [a] distinction in the punishment” (Story’s words again). Sometimes the pardoning statement explains the pardoner’s reasons for the pardon; sometimes it doesn’t. And the beneficiaries of the pardon may of course disagree with the reasons given, even if they agree that a pardon is proper
Do you notice anything about situations 2-4 ?
They're all for people who have been tried; & found guilty; but are deemed worthy of a pardon; because there is a flaw in their being found guilty; or the pardon is just a naked political act.
The bottom line is if a pardon is given after a trial & a verdict; it can be interpreted as a correction of some correction of a fault in the system. But if a pardon is given before there is even a indictment; it can only be a admission of guilt; or a political favor.
819 is an unused number in American Literature, so could be used for all the 'creative' bullshit conspiracy theories and lies he creates/supports. 290 is for cults. 132 is no longer used but was for mental derrangements. Bring it back and stuff it all there? But apparently conspiracy theories have their own home at 001.98
