The federal judge explicitly did not vacate the conviction.
ETA:I believe it was a misdemeanor though, not a felony.
So without a conviction, someone is not a felon.
Clothy is going to be pissed.
He was convicted of a misdemeanor. Accepting a pardon is legally an admission of guilt.
Therefore;
Joe Arpaio is a criminal who has legally admitted his guilt.
He can’t sue anyone over jack shit about that. He is officially and legally a self-admitted criminal. Every TV station could put “confessed criminal” under his name and he couldn’t do a damned thing about it.
Not really. A pardon eliminates the sentence, not the conviction. Accepting a pardon means confessing guilt.
I hate Joe Arpaio as much as the next man, but… is this really true?
Suppose that tomorrow I am falsely convicted of some crime. It’s 100% untrue, I’m 100% innocent, but due to a freakishly unfortunate set of circumstances, a jury convicts me. I’m still waiting for a lucky stroke where some new evidence will come to light, to prove my innocence, maybe there’s a computer very very slowly working on decrypting an encoded flash drive or something. And then the president pardons me. If I say “great, thanks, I would like to be a free man and not in jail”, does that mean I am somehow giving up any moral or ethical claim to say that I’m factually innocent, going forward? I mean, I can see an argument that now that I’m pardoned, I can no longer appeal my conviction should new evidence arise… so now I’ll no longer ever have a chance to prove that I’m innocent in a court of law. But that doesn’t seem the same as admitting guilt, just acknowledging that I was in fact convicted.
Yes, in the same way that if you were accused of a crime, brought down to the police department, and made to sit in an interrogation cell while people came in from time to time to yell at your.
If at some point, the DA comes in, and says, “we can make all of this end right here, just sign this confession”, and you will be free to go, it’s just a misdemeanor, so no jail time, then you cannot later say that you just signed the confession in order to leave.
Same thing, in order to accept a pardon, you have to admit guilt.
Don’t want to admit guilt, refuse the pardon and keep fighting the conviction.
Very true. The mainstream media never mentions the fact that Pence was wildly unpopular in his own state, or at least they haven’t mentioned it much if at all since Trump elevated him. (Ahem.)
What you really want, in that case, is an exoneration, not a pardon. Because exoneration effectively reverses the conviction. But a pardon does not. Accepting a pardon does, effectively, equate to an admission of guilt.
No one’s mentioned “New California” yet?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/ff5841c3-8f25-3fc9-80b0-860359664fd6/new-california-declares.html
I’m not convinced that accepting a pardon is, or should be construed as, a confession of guilt.
Gerald Ford gave Nixon a blanket pardon of all crimes that he did or may have committed, without even specifying what the alleged crimes were. What did Nixon confess to in accepting that? Do pardonees even have the option to accept or not accept the pardon?
Someone has declared independence for my county and speaks for ME, and I do not even know who the fuck he is.
I guess they held their meetings in secret, away from the prying eyes of our Tyrannical Government.
Case history
A grand jury was investigating whether any Treasury Department employee was leaking information to the press. George Burdick, city editor of the New York Tribune, took the fifth and refused to reveal the source of his information. He was handed a pardon by President Woodrow Wilson but he refused to accept it or testify. He was fined $500 and jailed until he complied. The Supreme Court ruled that Burdick did not have to testify because he had the right to reject the pardon. Thus, the government did not have the ability to cause him to lose his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination through the maneuver of granting him a pardon. The Court declined to answer the question of whether the pardoning power may be exercised before conviction.
Later use
After Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, intimates said that the former **President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision that suggested that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt. Legal scholars have questioned whether that portion of Burdick is meaningful or merely dicta. **President Ford made reference to the Burdick decision in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 17, 1974. However, said reference related only to the portion of Burdick that supported the proposition that the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders.
It is my experience of life that any man who prides himself on being stern and strict is unfit to have power over others. They make bad fathers and worse policemen.
I want you to go to your room and THINK about what you did.
Second best, here.
I wonder if the people behind New California are the same people who were behind Calexit, which, it turns out, were Russian.
Придите в Калифорнию: великое место работать и играть!
Ah, the good old days when journalists were expected to have integrity, instead of being mouthpieces for corporations, political parties, and the military-industrial complex.
Nowadays any journalist with integrity who is still willing to tell the full truth gets fired and maligned as a propagandist, traitor, or smear merchant. Hell, they paid $1 million to buy out Jesse Ventura’s contract when they learned he was against the Iraq War, just to keep him off the air. From the “liberal” MSNBC.
THIS is why we need little up votes.
BUT leave the door open !