Report: Trump Has Repeatedly Asked If He Can “Preemptively” Pardon Himself

[Stealers Wheel]

Ok. Here’s one. There are thousands of examples. You are just plain wrong. There’s no shame in admitting that you were wrong.

Nevada Pardons Wrongfully Convicted Man Featured in Our Story

The pardon clears Fred Steese’s name after state prosecutors had pushed him into an arcane plea deal even though a judge had declared he was innocent. “I’m not a felon anymore,” Steese said.

www.google.com

Here’s another.

California man who spent 39 years in prison gets $21 million for wrongful conviction

A California man who was wrongfully convicted for killing an ex-girlfriend and her son four decades ago has reached a $21 million settlement with the city of Simi Valley, officials said.

www.google.com

He had always maintained his innocence, and was pardoned in 2017 by California's then-governor, Jerry Brown, based on exculpatory DNA evidence found by investigators.

Did you read it? Were there any judges involved? What was their role? It is blatantly unconstitutional to keep a person incarcerated when they are found not guilty by a court. But no governor or president has the authority to find someone not guilty. They can only grant pardons or clemency lacking a court order. Courts made determinations of guilt or innocence. Executives do not.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Did you read it? Were there any judges involved? What was their role? It is blatantly unconstitutional to keep a person incarcerated when they are found not guilty by a court. But no governor or president has the authority to find someone not guilty. They can only grant pardons or clemency lacking a court order. Courts made determinations of guilt or innocence. Executives do not.

Look. One does not need to be guilty to receive a pardon. One can be innocent and wrongly convicted and receive a pardon. This is an effing fact. Just admit that you are wrong.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Then why the need to ponder about the legitimacy of a self-pardon?

He says these things to push the liberal’s buttons. You guys always fall for it.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Look. One does not need to be guilty to receive a pardon. One can be innocent and wrongly convicted and receive a pardon. This is an effing fact. Just admit that you are wrong.

No, it is not "an effing fact." People who are deemed innocent BY THE COURTS are not in need of pardons.

 

[CaughtInThe]

How come Donald Trump hasn't released his taxes yet?

How come he paid off a porn star?

How come he fires everyone that crosses him?



You know why he does stuff like that? Because he's been a crook and a con man his entire fricken life. You guys need to wake the **** up.

 

[Tahuyaman]

No, it is not "an effing fact." People who are deemed innocent BY THE COURTS are not in need of pardons.

Youre moving the goal post. There are innocent people in prison and a court refuses to retry them or overturn the conviction. The only other remedy for these people is a pardon. This has happened countless times over the years.

Your claim that only guilty people can receive a pardon is both wrong and idiotic at best.

 

[beefheart]

Report: Trump Has Repeatedly Asked If He Can “Preemptively” Pardon Himself

He’s also inquired about pardons for his family members.

www.vanityfair.com

But he didn't do anything!

What an asshole

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Youre moving the goal post. There are innocent people in prison and a court refuses to retry them or overturn the conviction. The only other remedy for these people is a pardon. This has happened countless times over the years.

Your claim that only guilty people can receive a pardon is both wrong and idiotic at best.

The status of the defendant, GUILTY, does not change with a pardon. The opinion of the executive regarding the guilt or innocence of the person is irrelevant. Unless the conviction is reversed by a court, the person remains guilty, even when they receive a pardon. A pardon does not change the last verdict.

 

[Tahuyaman]

The status of the defendant, GUILTY, does not change with a pardon. The opinion of the executive regarding the guilt or innocence of the person is irrelevant. Unless the conviction is reversed by a court, the person remains guilty, even when they receive a pardon. A pardon does not change the last verdict.

You just just don’t get. You are arguing against points I never raised.

It’s quite simple. You believe that an innocent person wrongly convicted is not eligible for a pardon. That belief is wrong.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

You just just don’t get. You are arguing against points I never raised.

It’s quite simple. You believe that an innocent person wrongly convicted is not eligible for a pardon. That belief is wrong.

The only way a person is wrongfully convicted is if a judge says so. The executive does not have a say.

 

[Tahuyaman]

The only way a person is wrongfully convicted is if a judge says so. The executive does not have a say.

You’re someone who can’t be taken seriously.

Anyone who truly believes only a guilty person can receive a pardon is someone who can’t be reasoned with.

Anyone who believes that no innocent people are convicted of a crime and sent to prison can not be reasoned with. Anyone who thinks that person can not be granted a pardon can’t be reasoned with.

 

[rhinefire]

Other than the fact that there are no federal crimes which would require a pardon.

Sorry but pending and new charges will arise when the fat orange slob is kicked out of Bidens's White House.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Sorry but pending and new charges will arise when the fat orange slob is kicked out of Bidens's White House.

Nope.

 

[skeptic llc]

Ok. Here’s one. There are thousands of examples. You are just plain wrong. There’s no shame in admitting that you were wrong.

Nevada Pardons Wrongfully Convicted Man Featured in Our Story

The pardon clears Fred Steese’s name after state prosecutors had pushed him into an arcane plea deal even though a judge had declared he was innocent. “I’m not a felon anymore,” Steese said.

www.google.com

Here’s another.

California man who spent 39 years in prison gets $21 million for wrongful conviction

A California man who was wrongfully convicted for killing an ex-girlfriend and her son four decades ago has reached a $21 million settlement with the city of Simi Valley, officials said.

www.google.com

He had always maintained his innocence, and was pardoned in 2017 by California's then-governor, Jerry Brown, based on exculpatory DNA evidence found by investigators.

Damn, thanks for linking, I read the Steese one and that is traumatizing.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

You’re someone who can’t be taken seriously.

Anyone who truly believes only a guilty person can receive a pardon is someone who can’t be reasoned with.

Anyone who believes that no innocent people are convicted of a crime and sent to prison can not be reasoned with. Anyone who thinks that person can not be granted a pardon can’t be reasoned with.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said innocent people were never convicted. What I wrote was the executive does not get to declare innocence for a convicted person. In the eyes of the law a convicted person remains guilty until a court says otherwise, pardon or not.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said innocent people were never convicted. What I wrote was the executive does not get to declare innocence for a convicted person. In the eyes of the law a convicted person remains guilty until a court says otherwise, pardon or not.

You’re all over the map on this. I know what you are trying to say but you are wrong.

Innocent people who were wrongly convicted and are in prison are eligible to be granted a pardon. This is a fact. End of conversation.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The status of the defendant, GUILTY, does not change with a pardon. The opinion of the executive regarding the guilt or innocence of the person is irrelevant. Unless the conviction is reversed by a court, the person remains guilty, even when they receive a pardon. A pardon does not change the last verdict.

Which is irrelevant hair splitting. It is not an admission of guilt to accept a pardon. A pardon is simply the removal of legal disabilities from a person imposed by courts. That’s it.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Which is irrelevant hair splitting. It is not an admission of guilt to accept a pardon. A pardon is simply the removal of legal disabilities from a person imposed by courts. That’s it.

SCOTUS disagrees.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

SCOTUS disagrees.

No they don’t. Cite the case

 

[Stealers Wheel]

You’re all over the map on this. I know what you are trying to say but you are wrong.

Innocent people who were wrongly convicted and are in prison are eligible to be granted a pardon. This is a fact. End of conversation.

If a court has declared someone "wrongly convicted" the court remedes the situation. No pardon needed. In fact, that is the way it happens. If the court is not compelled by the arguments or evidence of claims of innocence, the pardon remedy is still available, but that does not change the verdict.

As a an interesting side note, when a person accepts a pardon, they lose their protections under the fifth amendment regarding the crime for which they were convicted. In other words, if investigators are looking into activities related to that crime (perhaps to bring charges against others) the pardoned person cannot invoke their right against self incrimination, since the state is prohibited from prosecuting the person who was pardoned. Therefore, they can be compelled to testify truthfully or face contempt of court charges.

This is why president Trump commuted Roger Stone's sentence (convicted of 7 felonies and sentenced to 40 months in prison) rather than granting a pardon. A commutation preserves Stone's rights under the 5th amendment, whereas a pardon would have left Stone open to compelled testimony.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

No they don’t. Cite the case

I already did. See post #10. Read the tab labeled "case."
The court:

The [pardon] carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.

This quote can be found about 90% down the page.

 

[bearpoker]

Sounds like fake news. Either that or satire and some liberal idiots believe it.

Did you watch Trump at the Corona Virus briefings? The man is beyond satire.

 

[Tahuyaman]

If a court has declared someone "wrongly convicted" the court remedes the situation. No pardon needed. In fact, that is the way it happens. If the court is not compelled by the arguments or evidence of claims of innocence, the pardon remedy is still available, but that does not change the verdict.

As a an interesting side note, when a person accepts a pardon, they lose their protections under the fifth amendment regarding the crime for which they were convicted. In other words, if investigators are looking into activities related to that crime (perhaps to bring charges against others) the pardoned person cannot invoke their right against self incrimination, since the state is prohibited from prosecuting the person who was pardoned. Therefore, they can be compelled to testify truthfully or face contempt of court charges.

This is why president Trump commuted Roger Stone's sentence (convicted of 7 felonies and sentenced to 40 months in prison) rather than granting a pardon. A commutation preserves Stone's rights under the 5th amendment, whereas a pardon would have left Stone open to compelled testimony.

Yes a court can reverse a decision when an innocent person is convicted. . They don’t always do that. In that case a pardon is appropriate.

Is pride holding you back from admitting this?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Yes a court can reverse a decision when an innocent person is convicted. . They don’t always do that. In that case a pardon is appropriate.

And you keep claiming that if an executive grants a pardon on the basis they "believe" the person to be innocent, that makes it so. I assure, it does not. The USSC says it does not.

Further, you cannot point to a single case wherein a judge said "I believe the evidence shows the individual was wrongfully convicted and thereby innocent and I will not change either the verdict or the sentence or order a new trial."

 

[Tahuyaman]

And you keep claiming that if an executive grants a pardon on the basis they "believe" the person to be innocent, that makes it so. I assure, it does not. The USSC says it does not.

Further, you cannot point to a single case wherein a judge said "I believe the evidence shows the individual was wrongfully convicted and thereby innocent and I will not change either the verdict or the sentence or order a new trial."

I have no idea where you are coming from. Are you still denying that an innocent person wrongly convicted can receive a pardon?