Dummy Joe Arpaio accepts Orange Man's pardon, doesn't realize that makes him a convicted felon

[Starman]

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...rosecutor_to_oppose_arpaio_dissenter_fears_at

A federal appeals court has appointed a special prosecutor to argue that former Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s conviction for criminal contempt should stand, despite his pardon by President Donald Trump.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order on Tuesday in a 2-1 decision. The court said it was appointing the special prosecutor to defend the conviction because the government plans to side with Arpaio, who argues the conviction should have been vacated. BuzzFeed News covered the order.

Arpaio was the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, for 24 years before losing a re-election bid in 2016. He is now running for the U.S. Senate.

Arpaio is appealing an October decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in which she ruled the pardon spared Arpaio from punishment, but it doesn’t justify vacating the conviction.

So let's see .. this dummy accepted a pardon, but doesn't realize that doing so makes him a convicted felon and therefore affects his ability to vote and legally own a gun. It's not substantially different from accepting a plea deal, but then subsequently appealing your conviction.

No wonder you Trumpers love this dummy so much -- his intelligence is on your level.

 

[awpitt]

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...rosecutor_to_oppose_arpaio_dissenter_fears_at



So let's see .. this dummy accepted a pardon, but doesn't realize that doing so makes him a convicted felon and therefore affects his ability to vote and legally own a gun. It's not substantially different from accepting a plea deal, but then subsequently appealing your conviction.

No wonder you Trumpers love this dummy so much -- his intelligence is on your level.

Actually, while accepting a pardon is tantamount to an admission of guilt (Burdick v. United States), it does not make him a convicted felon.

 

[Starman]

Actually, while accepting a pardon is tantamount to an admission of guilt (Burdick v. United States), it does not make him a convicted felon.

Fair point on the conviction part, as that implies a jury trial. But it's not "tantamount" to guilt. It is admitting/accepting guilt in return for the pardon. He is a felon, with all the rights and appurtenances associated therewith.

 

[awpitt]

Fair point on the conviction part, as that implies a jury trial. But it's not "tantamount" to guilt. It is admitting/accepting guilt in return for the pardon. He is a felon, with all the rights and appurtenances associated therewith.

Incorrect. A pardon allows a person to be free and absolved of any conviction or possible conviction, as if nothing ever happened. He is no longer a felon.

 

[Starman]

Incorrect. A pardon allows a person to be free and absolved of any conviction or possible conviction, as if nothing ever happened. He is no longer a felon.

Absolutely false. This story is about trying to lift his conviction. If the pardon makes it as if "nothing ever happened", why is Arpaio trying to shake it loose?

 

[awpitt]

Absolutely false. This story is about trying to lift his conviction. If the pardon makes it as if "nothing ever happened", why is Arpaio trying to shake it loose?

The conviction was nullified once the pardon was issued. I can't believe the court is wasting any time on this. It'll move up the ranks and eventually get tossed by the Supreme Court. The only possible limitation is that presidential pardons do not apply to state or local laws.

 

[This_person]

Who is Orange Man?

This is Orange Man!

Movie Version


Cartoon Version
​

 

[officeguy]

The conviction was nullified once the pardon was issued. I can't believe the court is wasting any time on this. It'll move up the ranks and eventually get tossed by the Supreme Court. The only possible limitation is that presidential pardons do not apply to state or local laws.

This is the partisan 9th circus trying to piss on Trumps leg, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Lurk]

It's amazing I tell ya. Within one day of someone posting a DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT treatment, an alumnus of the forums posts a chillingly stupid example. A jailhouse lawyer misinterprets then mislabels an article on the law and doubles down TWICE when his error is pointed out. It's truly amazing how stupidly those guys present themselves.

So let's see .. this dummy accepted a pardon, but doesn't realize that doing so makes him a convicted felon and therefore affects his ability to vote and legally own a gun. It's not substantially different from accepting a plea deal, but then subsequently appealing your conviction.

Actually, while accepting a pardon is tantamount to an admission of guilt (Burdick v. United States), it does not make him a convicted felon.

FIRST DOUBLEDOWN

Fair point on the conviction part, as that implies a jury trial. But it's not "tantamount" to guilt. It is admitting/accepting guilt in return for the pardon. He is a felon, with all the rights and appurtenances associated therewith.

Incorrect. A pardon allows a person to be free and absolved of any conviction or possible conviction, as if nothing ever happened. He is no longer a felon.

SECOND DOUBLEDOWN

Absolutely false. This story is about trying to lift his conviction. If the pardon makes it as if "nothing ever happened", why is Arpaio trying to shake it loose?

 

[GURPS]

It's amazing I tell ya. Within one day of someone posting a DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT treatment, an alumnus of the forums posts a chillingly stupid example. A jailhouse lawyer misinterprets then mislabels an article on the law and doubles down TWICE when his error is pointed out. It's truly amazing how stupidly those guys present themselves.