General Flynn completely exonerated

#1,104
#1,104
volfanhill said:
Then you are not understanding what Burdick case was saying.
Click to expand...

No you’re apparently you are not understanding the significance of the final Decision of SCOTUS. Flynn has been pardoned. Fair enough. He is free. A pardon is not an exoneration of guilt. Flynn acknowledged his guilt. I’m done on this one
 
#1,105
#1,105
#1,106
#1,106
PointGuard said:
No you’re apparently you are not understanding the significance of the final Decision of SCOTUS. Flynn has been pardoned. Fair enough. He is free. A pardon is not an exoneration of guilt. Flynn acknowledged his guilt. I’m done on this one
Click to expand...
I never claimed it was an exoneration of guilt. You claimed to receive one means you recognize your guilt. This is not true of a POTUS case. And in the SCOTUS case you cited the justices were discussing accepting one has the impression of admission. Not that it means you are accepting guilt. Any other arguments you want make up for me?
 
#1,107
#1,107
@PointGuard @volfanhill

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-presidential-pardons/2018/06/06/18447f84-69ba-11e8-bf8c-f9ed2e672adf_story.html?outputType=amp

Myth No. 4

Pardons are only for guilty people; accepting one is an admission of guilt.
In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” Over the years, many have come to see a necessary relationship between a pardon and guilt. Ford carriedthe Burdick quote in his wallet, defending the Nixon pardon by noting that it established Nixon’s guilt. More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump’s pardon. But Burdick was about a different issue: the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just an aside — what lawyers call dicta. The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one. But pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt.

Indeed, in rare cases pardons are used to exonerate people. This was Trump’s rationale for posthumously pardoning boxer Jack Johnson, the victim of a racially based railroading in 1913. Ford pardoned Iva Toguri d’Aquino (World War II’s “Tokyo Rose”) after “60 Minutes” revealed that she was an innocent victim of prosecutors who suborned perjured testimony in her treason case. President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger because he thought the former defense secretary, indicted in the Iran-contra affair, was a victim of “the criminalization of policy differences.” If the president pardons you because he thinks you are innocent, what guilt could accepting that pardon possibly admit?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NEO
#1,108
#1,108
volfanhill said:
I never claimed it was an exoneration of guilt. You claimed to receive one means you recognize your guilt. This is not true of a POTUS case. And in the SCOTUS case you cited the justices were discussing accepting one has the impression of admission. Not that it means you are accepting guilt. Any other arguments you want make up for me?
Click to expand...

Apparently, you stopped reading. Continue on past their statement “impression of admission”. Be patient you’ll make it kicking and screaming all the way but you’ll make it. Will you admit it? Remains to be seen
 
#1,109
#1,109
PointGuard said:
AppRentky you stopped reading. Continue on past their statement “impression of admission”. Be patient you’ll make it kicking and screaming all the way but you’ll make it. Will you admit it. Remains to be seen
Click to expand...
Read the post right before yours. You’re incorrect on what you inferred from Burdick and accepting a pardon is not an admission of guilt
 
#1,112
#1,112
NorthDallas40 said:
I did. You’re wrong. Accepting a pardon is not an admission of guilt and no truthful legal scholar will say otherwise. End of story.
Click to expand...

The decision of 1915 stands. An interpretation by any reader is just that. An interpretation. Flynn has acknowledged his guilt 3 times. Flynn is not exonerated
 
#1,113
#1,113
PointGuard said:
The decision of 1915 stands. An interpretation by any reader is just that. An interpretation. Flynn has acknowledged his guilt 3 times. Flynn is not exonerated
Click to expand...
No. You’re wrong. As was stated above the phrase you are hung up on is merely legalese dicta and no part of the legal finding. It’s nothing more than judicial musings and not a part of the verdict.

Dictum

Dictum
Primary tabs
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
A remark, statement, or observation of a judge that is not a necessary part of the legal reasoning needed to reach the decision in a case. Although dictum may be cited in a legal argument, it is not binding as legal precedent, meaning that other courts are not required to accept it. Dictum is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase "obiter dictum," which means a remark by the way, or an aside.
 
#1,115
#1,115
NorthDallas40 said:
No. You’re wrong. As was stated above the phrase you are hung up on is merely legalese dicta and no part of the legal finding. It’s nothing more than judicial musings and not a part of the verdict.

Dictum

Dictum
Primary tabs
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
A remark, statement, or observation of a judge that is not a necessary part of the legal reasoning needed to reach the decision in a case. Although dictum may be cited in a legal argument, it is not binding as legal precedent, meaning that other courts are not required to accept it. Dictum is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase "obiter dictum," which means a remark by the way, or an aside.
Click to expand...


The reason Burdick v United States decision was that Burdick did not have to accept the pardon as because implicit in it’s acceptance was the admission of guilt of the crime for which the pardon was issued
 
#1,117
#1,117
PointGuard said:
The reason Burdick v United States decision was that Burdick did not have to accept the pardon as because implicit in it’s acceptance was the admission of guilt of the crime for which the pardon was issued
Click to expand...
Nope. Both hill and I have explained this to you and it’s spelled out above. Your assertion of what the Burdick verdict implies is not supported in legal doctrine.

You’re basically trying to say that because somebody might think Burdick was guilty that makes him guilty. That was the statement you’re latched into. It isn’t true.
 
#1,120
#1,120
NorthDallas40 said:
Irrelevant. He withdrew his plea but the redass judge wouldn’t let him and he was pardoned. He’s an innocent man and a pardon is not an admission of guilt as clearly shown above. Womp womp
Click to expand...
lol....not only is Flynn admittedly guilty, he is also insane.
But who cares, Trump is history and Flynn will be remembered as nothing more than one of the many comically pathetic bit players with whom Trump surrounded himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PointGuard and DJimgo
#1,121
#1,121
luthervol said:
lol....not only is Flynn admittedly guilty, he is also insane.
But who cares, Trump is history and Flynn will be remembered as nothing more than one of the many comically pathetic bit players with whom Trump surrounded himself.
Click to expand...
Apparently you care. Flynn says he’s innocent. Trump’s pardon makes red assed Sullivan’s opinion moot. Flynn is a free man and admits no guilt. And accepting Trump’s pardon is not an admission of guilt regardless of how much you screech that it does. Womp womp. 😂
 
#1,122
#1,122
NorthDallas40 said:
Apparently you care. Flynn says he’s innocent. Trump’s pardon makes red assed Sullivan’s opinion moot. Flynn is a free man and admits no guilt. And accepting Trump’s pardon is not an admission of guilt regardless of how much you screech that it does. Womp womp. 😂
Click to expand...


No one cares how Flynn characterizes it or how much Trump tries to confuse the issues to take the spotlight off of Russian help to win in 2016, then turning around and doing them some favors, and then Flynn lying about it.

The facts speak for themselves. Your mischaracterizations, whataboutisms, and deflections carried out with all the deftness of a five year old claiming he ate his vegetables, will not change the facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#1,123
#1,123
lawgator1 said:
No one cares how Flynn characterizes it or how much Trump tries to confuse the issues to take the spotlight off of Russian help to win in 2016, then turning around and doing them some favors, and then Flynn lying about it.

The facts speak for themselves. Your mischaracterizations, whataboutisms, and deflections carried out with all the deftness of a five year old claiming he ate his vegetables, will not change the facts.
Click to expand...
Correct they do. And hill, aj, and I have presented them. All you’ve come back with is crying because Flynn was correctly freed.

Flynn says he’s innocent

Trump pardoned him

A pardon is not an admission of guilt.

Flynn is a free man

Run along “counselor”

And on RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA just try to hold your further tears for about 40 more days 😂

E16C118E-E7D0-41D1-AF3F-DD53064D047D.jpeg
 
#1,124
#1,124
Damn it’s amazing on the belated cry fest from you idiots he was pardoned almost a week ago. Just got under your skin by correctly mocking your golden boy swallows-well huh? 😂
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top