Jump to content

The James Caan Appreciation Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mr. Hoopah!

    9988

  • AF89

    7000

  • WhenFalconsWin

    4543

  • Jdrizzle

    4106

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Seems like rescuing dogs during lockdown is a thing around here. It happened to us this past week. This guy wandered up dirty and skinny, playing with my daughter in the front yard. After a few days o

Posted Images

25 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

An interesting legal question...

Isn't accepting a pardon considered an admission of guilt?  

If true, then if (when) Trump pardons himself he would be admitting that he is guilty of a crime.  

If it's unconstitutional for the president to pardon himself and the pardon gets nullified, could the fact that he tried be viewed as an admission of guilt in a court of law?

Not in any real sense.  The Supreme Court had a case back in the early 20th century that said it acceptance of a pardon is an "admission of guilt," but that was not central to the holding and even if it was, what does that even mean?

Short version, in that case (Burdick v. U.S.), the petitioner did not want to testify before a grand jury, claiming the right against self-incrimination.  The president, Woodrow Wilson, pardoned him and he refused to accept the pardon.  So the issue as I understand it was whether his refusal to accept the pardon rendered the pardon meaningless.  The Court held it did.

The language used by the Court to draw a distinction between a pardon and legislative immunity, not to declare a pardon as an "admission of guilt."  

"This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it."

So what all of this really means is this -- there is no legal or practical import of the statement that the acceptance of a pardon is a confession of guilt.  If it is, so what?  And if it is not, so what?  There is no legal import to attach to the acceptance of the pardon.  The reality is most people think acceptance of a pardon is an indication a crime was committed, and yet I think most people are smart enough also to know that someone who accepts a pardon might do so even though he believes himself not to be guilty of a crime, to avoid defending the crime, to avoid punishment, etc.  

I think the bigger issue is what does it say when a president pardons himself, and can that even be done?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Hoopah! said:

@Corn Pop found where I want to go when I die

 

I had a friend in Mississippi who ate freaking raccoons. Dude had a pot on when I visited once and he was Soooooooo happy he had some racoon stew. Dude ate possum, squirrel, nutria. Anything that could be caught\trapped down there! **** was gross!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. Hoopah! said:

So this lawsuit in Arizona is over the "sharpiegate" allegations, which have become a new Qanon thing, so yeah, I'm shocked Lin isn't involved either.  But I guess he and the other civil lawyers representing Kyle Rittenhouse are too busy bungling that case for this.

I thought the sharpie thing was nevada? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Not in any real sense.  The Supreme Court had a case back in the early 20th century that said it acceptance of a pardon is an "admission of guilt," but that was not central to the holding and even if it was, what does that even mean?

Short version, in that case (Burdick v. U.S.), the petitioner did not want to testify before a grand jury, claiming the right against self-incrimination.  The president, Woodrow Wilson, pardoned him and he refused to accept the pardon.  So the issue as I understand it was whether his refusal to accept the pardon rendered the pardon meaningless.  The Court held it did.

The language used by the Court to draw a distinction between a pardon and legislative immunity, not to declare a pardon as an "admission of guilt."  

"This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it."

So what all of this really means is this -- there is no legal or practical import of the statement that the acceptance of a pardon is a confession of guilt.  If it is, so what?  And if it is not, so what?  There is no legal import to attach to the acceptance of the pardon.  The reality is most people think acceptance of a pardon is an indication a crime was committed, and yet I think most people are smart enough also to know that someone who accepts a pardon might do so even though he believes himself not to be guilty of a crime, to avoid defending the crime, to avoid punishment, etc.  

I think the bigger issue is what does it say when a president pardons himself, and can that even be done?

I assume most of you know this, but the reason that case is famous is President Ford supposedly carried a copy of the quote from it in his wallet after he pardoned Nixon, to give him comfort in what he had done.

Otherwise, I doubt anyone would ever suggest acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt, because even in the Ford-Nixon case, who cares?  People knew he was guilty anyway, and the point of the pardon was to relieve him (and the country) of its consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't emptied my spam email folder in a couple of weeks, and it had gotten to a point where it was time to do so. So, I clicked it, and perused the titles of the emails, just in case one got filtered that shouldn't have. I bring this up solely for your entertainment purposes, but last tuesday, I got one titled, and there HAS to be some significance, to getting it that day....

"You can poop daily but still be constipated"

 

I'm just leaving that right there for your thoughts, comments, or to ignore, whatever you so choose

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, papachaz said:

I haven't emptied my spam email folder in a couple of weeks, and it had gotten to a point where it was time to do so. So, I clicked it, and perused the titles of the emails, just in case one got filtered that shouldn't have. I bring this up solely for your entertainment purposes, but last tuesday, I got one titled, and there HAS to be some significance, to getting it that day....

"You can poop daily but still be constipated"

 

I'm just leaving that right there for your thoughts, comments, or to ignore, whatever you so choose

:lol:

If 2020 has taught me anything it's that there is an endless supply of ****. So it makes sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Andrews_31 said:

You know I'm holding back on teasing you over your landslide prediction until after the race is officially called (we already know Trump's fat asss lost), but can I give you a little advice?

We are all passionate about certain things, and from past interactions, you know I am passionate about things that affect my community.  With that being said, the way you write shows a real lack of humility.  Example, this response.  It would have been fine otherwise, but there are some things you sprinkled within that screams "new money" or "I'm not used to having ****!"  As Trump's wife, Melanie (I did that on purpose) said, "Be Best!"

 

Tease my *** and you have and I can take it. But dude brought up Sanibel Island and I gave my little anecdote. Talking about a deli one could try if they go.

You missed the boat on this one 31, and I've always got your back, but you're wrong on this one. Talking about a $6 shrimp salad wrap has nothing to with new or old money.

Don't let the Lemmings get to you brother.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NightPain said:

Whoa. Internet must be back up down by the lake. 

Besides power washing, a flooding problem from two days of heavy rain at the lake, I've given ABF a little space to enjoy their Biden victory. A classy thing for WFW to do, Cruncho.

Sounds like ABF has WFW/Trump envy when we aren't around as often.:slick:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...