Arpaio didn't know that accepting a presidential pardon also legally counts as a guilty-plea.

[DetlefK]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/15/1732998/-Convicted-criminal-Joe-Arpaio-found-out-on-live-TV-that-he-admitted-guilt-by-taking-Trump-s-pardon

"Let me ask you another important question because you brought up this unusual, but lawful, pardon that you received from the president," Melber responded. "As you know, when you take a pardon you're admitting guilt. Why did you take that pardon and admit guilt?"

From there, it seemed pretty clear Arpaio did not know everything that accompanied his pardon. "I didn't admit guilt. I said I was not guilty and I say it today," Arpaio responded, causing Melber to raise his eyebrows in response.

"But you accepted the pardon, and you know under the law that is an admission of guilt," Melber said.

"No, I don't know about that," Arpaio said. "I'd have to talk to the legal scholars."

Melber then walked the sheriff through the Supreme Court case, Burdick v. United States, that made clear a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it."

"Do you understand that's the legal implication of what you did by accepting that pardon?" Melber asked. Arpaio didn't really answer the question.

[badhair77]

1. This made my morning.

What a group of ignoramuses. I love it when Ari shows them up.

[Rhiannon12866]

2. I'm sure Trump had no clue, either

And this is the guy who asked if he could pardon himself.

[Hortensis]

3. This is far more satisfying than the reality that,

for all his depraved crimes against humanity and violations both federal and Arizona law, Arpaio was pardoned of a MISDEMEANOR, criminal contempt of court.

Btw, although convicted felons can't vote in many states, sometimes barred for life, they can serve in congress.

[underpants]

4. He was a law enforcement office for how long?

"I'm not a lawyer, thank God" was part of the interview I saw. All those years and he never learned about pardons ?

[Mariana]

12. He never learned to consult an attorney about legal matters, either.

What a dumbass.

[tavernier]

5. Sure he did

But denial works for republicans. Laws don’t apply to them because they can always justify their actions with bullshit, and as long as their party is in the majority, no one will oppose them.

Let a Democrat use that same argument with a dem pres, and he will be the first one shouting about illegality.

[Sampan]

6. Arpaio knows.

He’s just being disingenuous. His campaign saying will be “the president can do whatever he wants. I’m not guilty and I stand by that”. Win/win. Joe fixed the problem. Easy as pie.

[George II]

7. Sure he didn't answer, he's still trying to figure out what "imputation" means.

[Orrex]

8. When is that evil fucker going to die?

[OnlinePoker]

10. Probably not until after he loses the presidency in 2020.

Oh, you were talking about Arpaio. My mistake.

[Orrex]

16. Maybe they'll all be in a bus accident together.

[klook]

9. "How can we get this thing changed?

Who's this Burdick asshole? Get him on the phone and let me put the fear of God into him!"

[onlyadream]

11. Ignorance is bliss... for me that is, lol!!! Nt

[unblock]

13. this is pretty silly, actually.

in arpaio's case, he's guilty as hell and the pardon was morally corrupt.

that said, pardons can be and have been given out to people who did were completely innocent. accepting it as a practical matter means freedom instead of continued imprisonment. it's silly to insist that accepting the pardon constitutes an admission of guilt, at least in cases where it's being granted for reasons that the president (or governor) granting the pardon determined the person being pardoned to be actually innocent.

yes, the decision in burdick v. united states did say that accepting and presenting a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt, but that decision didn't in fact rest on that particular notion. that case involved the united states trying to force a pardon on burdick in order to remove his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. burdick refused the pardon. the supreme court decided that he could indeed refuse the pardon and maintain his rights.

but this wasn't because of any admission of guilt implied by accepting the pardon. instead, it was based on the idea that a pardon is something granted privately to an individual and the court can't act on it unless and until the person pardoned presents it in court.


from a techincaly, legal perspective, arpaio is on firm ground maintaining his innocence. he'd be lying out of his ass, but that's legally protected, too....

[Jim Lane]

17. Thanks! I thought the "imputation" argument sounded fishy.

I was going to go look up Burdick but you saved me the effort.

I agree with you that Arpaio is free to maintain his innocence. I'd add, however, that the finding of his guilt remains. From what you say of Burdick , the person pardoned in that case had not been found guilty, as Arpaio has.

[tanyev]

14. Whoopsie-daisy!

[Gothmog]

15. Sheriff Joe is senile and is lying