I’d offer that it’s possible that a person’s nature may not change, not if that person is stunted mentally and emotionally.
People can and do change, and evolve… but it’s a laborious process that takes time and energy, and therein lies the rub; complacency too often gets mistaken for ‘inability.’
Though I do have to add that in 45’s case, it’s both; he’s overly complacent with himself and he’s completely incapable…
A couple of weeks ago, he agreed that anti-vilification laws might not be a bad idea.
I suspect the conviction was also strongly indicative of guilt.
Can you appeal a conviction after you’ve been pardoned for the crime of which you’ve been convicted?
Doubtful. If you’re that determined to have your conviction stricken you can decline your pardon, though. You’re not required to accept it.
It’s worth noting that once you’re pardoned if you’re required to testify about your crimes (say an accomplice is on trial), you can no longer plead the fifth.
No, it’s a civil rights issue. You don’t get a cookie for being a broken clock.
Correct. By accepting the pardon one gives up the right to appeal. There’s little agreement on whether this constitutes an admission of guilt. But the way the law is structured, it’s a moot point.
Civil liability is unaffected by pardons. Arpaio is still liable for his private wrongs. If a judge determines that those stem from the same conduct for which he has already been convicted, the case will be to determine damages only.
Just another WTF in a long line of WTFs.
Trump defends Arpaio pardon, assumed ‘ratings would be far higher’ by announcing during hurricane.
FFS. Because goodness knows this is news of critical importance while a fucking hurricane of epic proportions is about to make landfall.
There’s so many layers of WTF that I can’t even understand what he’s saying.
Is he saying he expected the media would blow the pardon out of proportion because he announced it during a deadly hurricane, or is he saying he purposely exploited a deadly hurricane to draw more attention to a controversial pardon?
And then to handwave it all away because his predecessors had controversial pardons is just classic.
You’re trying to find logic in a brain that’s demonstrated repeatedly it’s not wired for it.
The fucker just got away with everything and he’s still not happy.
Maybe he thinks that’ll stop lawsuits? (I can’t be bothered to find out if the article discusses that possibility.)
Bingo! His conviction leaves him open to tons of open and shut civil suits, and he knows it.
I’ve hit the point where I’m discounting everything that comes from Louise Mensch. See the following: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/28/trump-tweets-hoax-louise-mensch-claude-taylor
“hit the point” probably should have been well before the 2016 election…
If I understand the law correctly a plaintiff could still win a civil suit without a criminal conviction. O.J. won his criminal trial but was financially ruined by the outcome of his civil trial. Heck, one of the main reasons the voters got sick of the guy was because he was costing them so much in civil lawsuits before he was even charged with any crime.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
