Trump just asked his audience:

[SummerSnow]

" Do the people in this room actually like Sheriff Joe?"

There were a cheering and thundering applause

" Was Sheriff Joe convicted for doing his job?"

The audience says yes!!

*And he just made a public promise to pardon Sheriff Joe, he said he won't do it today but he will do it. Disgusting.

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. Grrrrr.....

I am not watching him, he will ruin my dinner.
and my night.

[Angry Dragon]

2. according to Burdick v US 1915

for a pardon to take effect you have to admit and sign that you are guilty

[former9thward]

5. Not true.

Vietnam War draft evaders who fled to Canada or elsewhere were pardoned in mass and no one signed anything. Nixon was pardoned and never signed anything.

[Angry Dragon]

6. President Ford said he did .......... he carried it around with him

[former9thward]

14. Ford allegedly carried around the Burdick decision.

I don't believe for a second that he actually did. Who is going to carry around a SC decision with him every place? Nevertheless Nixon did not sign or admit anything. Ford asked him to do that and Nixon refused.

Ford, however, insisted on a statement of contrition; Nixon felt he had not committed any crimes and should not have to issue such a document. Ford eventually agreed, and on September 8, 1974, he granted Nixon a "full, free, and absolute pardon", which ended any possibility of an indictment. Nixon then released a statement:

I was wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly in dealing with Watergate, particularly when it reached the stage of judicial proceedings and grew from a political scandal into a national tragedy. No words can describe the depth of my regret and pain at the anguish my mistakes over Watergate have caused the nation and the presidency, a nation I so deeply love, and an institution I so greatly respect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon

[Angry Dragon]

15. okay

[Angry Dragon]

7. here is more

Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)

Posted on | November 1, 2009 | 2 Comments

A federal grand jury was investigating whether a Treasury employee was leaking government secrets. George Burdick was an editor at the New York Tribune. The Grand Jury wanted to know who leaked the secrets. Burdick assert the 5th and told the grand jury that he wouldn’t speak to them.

Wilson gave him a full pardon so as to give Burdick a free pass at ever being prosecuted for anything he said to grand jury. Burdick refused to accept it. He was jailed and fined.

The noteworthiness of this excerpt is that the case established the idea that one must accept the pardon, and the acceptance is an acknowledgment of the underlying crime. If the acceptance never occurs, the pardon never occurs, thereby voiding the pardon.

[Ms. Toad]

8. Not exactly.

At issue was the narrow question of whether the court could - essentially - force the pardon on Burdick by forcing him to provide incriminating testimony after the president had pardoned him (prior to a conviction).

What the court determined was that Burdick had a choice - he could not be compelled to testify against his own interests merely because he had been pardoned unless he chose to accept the pardon. He could claim the 5th (without accepting the pardon) and refuse to provide incriminating testimony OR he could accept the pardon (entering it into the court's record and implicitly acknowledging guilt) and be forced to testify.

In this case, Arpaio has already been found in contempt, and the case you cited only stands for the proposition that he can plead the 5th, rather than accept the pardon and testifying without personal risk. Yes - if he accepts a pardon it implies guilt, but here there is no particular reason for him to do so (since there isn't - as far as I know - a case out there in which his testimony is needed). He can just leave the pardon hanging out there.

[Angry Dragon]

9. Question: If he does not accept the pardon and admits guilt doesn't he then go to prison??

[FormerOstrich]

10. He hasn't been sentenced yet.

Most think he won't be sentenced to any incarceration.

[Ms. Toad]

11. I'm not sure there has to be acceptance after a conviction.

because once there is a conviction, the individual is already legally guilty.

The Burdick case was pre-conviction, and the court was trying to force him to testify against his will, in a manner that would have incriminated himself but for the pre-conviction pardon. He wanted to plead the 5th, remain silent, and retain the possibility of maintaining legal innocence. The court said - pre-conviction - that he was not obligated to accept the pardon (and the implication of guilt that goes with it). That horse is out of the barn for Arpaio. He's already legally guilty.

The application for a pardon doesn't require admission of guilt, although taking responsibility for the offense is strongly encouraged:

In addition, you should bear in mind that a presidential pardon is ordinarily a sign of forgiveness and is granted in recognition of the applicant's acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or release from confinement. A pardon is not a sign of vindication and does not connote or establish innocence. For that reason, when considering the merits of a pardon petition, pardon officials take into account the petitioner's acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement for the offense.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/file/960581/download

I can't imagine a spontaneous pardon requring a stronger admission of guilt than the petitioned for pardon.

[Angry Dragon]

13. Thank you

[eleny]

3. It was inevitable that he'd shove it up our noses publicly like this

[Doreen]

4. When, is not giving people water for days, a job?

[Hieronymus]

12. Apparently he called for Kelly ..

who didn't show. Kelly's mortified.