abraham bolden pardoned

Biden has pardoned Bolden, on the following grounds:

Abraham Bolden is an 86-year-old former U.S. Secret Service agent and was the first African American to serve on a presidential detail.  In 1964, Mr. Bolden was charged with offenses related to attempting to sell a copy of a Secret Service file.  His first trial resulted in a hung jury, and following his conviction at a second trial, even though key witnesses against him admitted to lying at the prosecutor’s request, Mr. Bolden was denied a new trial and ultimately served several years in federal custody.  He has steadfastly maintained his innocence, arguing that he was targeted for prosecution in retaliation for exposing unprofessional and racist behavior within the U.S. Secret Service.  Mr. Bolden has received numerous honors and awards for his ongoing work to speak out against the racism he faced in the Secret Service in the 1960s, and his courage in challenging injustice.  Mr. Bolden has also been recognized for his many contributions to his community following his release from prison.

I suspect that many are rejoicing this on the grounds that it means Bolden is now officially innocent of the charges.

But that is not the case.

In fact, presidential pardons usually only apply to those who accept responsibility for the crime AND have established a long period of good conduct once released.

Whatever else you read into it, this pardon is not an admission he was framed or falsely charged.  According to the Supreme Court, a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,"

So, after years of denying guilt, this is tantamount to tacitly accepting it.

I can't speak for anyone else, but if I was innocent, I would never agree to a pardon under those conditions.

Even if he truly was innocent, any continued claims along those lines are now pretty hollow.

But naturally, the Thirteen Inch Head forum is in raptures. The Saints are smiling, the angels are all aflap and dove shit is raining down everywhere.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2022/04/26/joe-biden-pardons-clemency/1901650969366/?fbclid=IwAR2W8Yzm0sznvfaVQ8JQKvXmcTUYYZbdrvHVEsVzzRsCFd6oFW1-CNPLZDw

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/26/clemency-recipient-list/

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/4/26/23042554/abraham-bolden-pardoned-first-black-secret-service-agent-white-house-detail?fbclid=IwAR2FexpwE7A5D7HWiCbFl8VJ8ljNVgzbabFzvmF75468qPJPNCNT_a_16r4

Good points, Greg. That is why we should be fighting for Oswald's exoneration rather than a pardon for him.

Pardons Aren’t Only for the Guilty.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pardons-arent-only-for-the-guilty-1501022687

In the ensuing discussion, a widespread misunderstanding kept cropping up—one that is understandable but important to correct. A pardon, the misunderstanding goes, entails a declaration of some underlying guilt, so that if the president pardoned his aides, he would be acknowledging that they had done something wrong.


This isn’t true. While the overwhelming majority of pardons are issued as forgiveness for guilty people, the authority to pardon also includes the power to exonerate the innocent. A president could issue a pardon while saying: This investigation has run amok. The charges are bogus; my people are innocent. I have the power to stop this, and I’m going to use that power.


A common source for the notion that a pardon requires underlying guilt is an out-of-context quotation from the Supreme Court’s 1915 decision in Burdick v. United States. The justices held that George Burdick, a newspaper editor, could reject a presidential pardon whose purpose was to strip him of the right against self-incrimination and compel him to reveal sources. The court’s comment that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it” was a general empirical observation, made in the service of a peripheral part of the argument—what lawyers call “dicta.” It was not a finding of law that pardons are only for the guilty.

This year, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb kept a campaign promise to pardon Keith Cooper, who had been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for 10 years. The premise of the pardon was that Cooper was innocent.

greg_parker wrote:Biden has pardoned Bolden, on the following grounds:

Abraham Bolden is an 86-year-old former U.S. Secret Service agent and was the first African American to serve on a presidential detail.  In 1964, Mr. Bolden was charged with offenses related to attempting to sell a copy of a Secret Service file.  His first trial resulted in a hung jury, and following his conviction at a second trial, even though key witnesses against him admitted to lying at the prosecutor’s request, Mr. Bolden was denied a new trial and ultimately served several years in federal custody.  He has steadfastly maintained his innocence, arguing that he was targeted for prosecution in retaliation for exposing unprofessional and racist behavior within the U.S. Secret Service.  Mr. Bolden has received numerous honors and awards for his ongoing work to speak out against the racism he faced in the Secret Service in the 1960s, and his courage in challenging injustice.  Mr. Bolden has also been recognized for his many contributions to his community following his release from prison.

I suspect that many are rejoicing this on the grounds that it means Bolden is now officially innocent of the charges.

But that is not the case.

In fact, presidential pardons usually only apply to those who accept responsibility for the crime AND have established a long period of good conduct once released.

Whatever else you read into it, this pardon is not an admission he was framed or falsely charged.  According to the Supreme Court, a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,"

So, after years of denying guilt, this is tantamount to tacitly accepting it.

I can't speak for anyone else, but if I was innocent, I would never agree to a pardon under those conditions.

Even if he truly was innocent, any continued claims along those lines are now pretty hollow.

But naturally, the Thirteen Inch Head forum is in raptures. The Saints are smiling, the angels are all aflap and dove shit is raining down everywhere.

Yeah, funny that. How is a pardon helpful if you're a truly innocent man? It's all bullshit. As you say Greg, a person who is actually innocent never would agree to the terms and conditions which apply to this nonsense. It's all just theater.

Vinny wrote:Pardons Aren’t Only for the Guilty.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pardons-arent-only-for-the-guilty-1501022687

In the ensuing discussion, a widespread misunderstanding kept cropping up—one that is understandable but important to correct. A pardon, the misunderstanding goes, entails a declaration of some underlying guilt, so that if the president pardoned his aides, he would be acknowledging that they had done something wrong.


This isn’t true. While the overwhelming majority of pardons are issued as forgiveness for guilty people, the authority to pardon also includes the power to exonerate the innocent. A president could issue a pardon while saying: This investigation has run amok. The charges are bogus; my people are innocent. I have the power to stop this, and I’m going to use that power.


A common source for the notion that a pardon requires underlying guilt is an out-of-context quotation from the Supreme Court’s 1915 decision in Burdick v. United States. The justices held that George Burdick, a newspaper editor, could reject a presidential pardon whose purpose was to strip him of the right against self-incrimination and compel him to reveal sources. The court’s comment that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it” was a general empirical observation, made in the service of a peripheral part of the argument—what lawyers call “dicta.” It was not a finding of law that pardons are only for the guilty.

This year, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb kept a campaign promise to pardon Keith Cooper, who had been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for 10 years. The premise of the pardon was that Cooper was innocent.

Vinny, yeah, I have come across a similar claim in another newspaper, but it is not correct either as a general rule, or specifically in this case.

Here is what a lawyer says on the subject:

In 1915, the United States Supreme Court stated in the case of US v. Burdick that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt, and acceptance of the pardon carries a confession. It would not be accurate therefore to describe a pardon as a complete exoneration or a proclamation of innocence. A pardon is simply the act of the United States president setting aside the punishment for a federal crime. Its authority is found in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.
https://www.dailybreeze.com/2020/12/15/just-what-does-a-presidential-pardon-mean-ask-the-lawyer/

That decision by the Supreme Court has not been changed by the Supreme Court and cannot be changed by the President or by Congress.

Here is the Dept of Justice definition of a pardon

A pardon is an expression of the President’s forgiveness and ordinarily 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 completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence. It does, however, remove civil disabilities – e.g., restrictions on the right to vote, hold state or local office, or sit on a jury – imposed because of the conviction for which pardon is sought, and should lessen the stigma arising from the conviction. It may also be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment. Under some – but not all – circumstances, a pardon will eliminate the legal basis for removal or deportation from the United States. Pursuant to the Rules Governing Petitions for Executive Clemency, which are available on this website, a person is not eligible to apply for a presidential pardon until a minimum of five years has elapsed since his release from any form of confinement imposed upon him as part of a sentence for his most recent criminal conviction, whether or not that is the conviction for which he is seeking the pardon.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=A%20pardon%20is%20an%20expression,It%20does%20not%20signify%20innocence.



Also note Biden's announcement 

"Today, I am pardoning three people who have demonstrated their commitment to rehabilitation and are striving every day to give back and contribute to their communities," Biden said in a statement. "I am also commuting the sentences of 75 people who are serving long sentences for non-violent drug offenses, many of whom have been serving on home confinement during the COVID-pandemic -- and many of whom would have received a lower sentence if they were charged with the same offense today, thanks to the bipartisan First Step Act."



Any talk of Bolden's rehabilitation and continued good behavior rules out any notion he is now being deemed innocent. Innocent people do not need rehabilitation, nor have to show "good behavior". In fact nowhere does Biden declare that Bolden was innocent - he merely states that Bolden has always maintained his innocence. But really, having accepted the pardon, he should cease any claim he was framed - even if he was. He has now sold his soul for the sake of getting back voting rights.

Thanks Greg. That makes sense. I guess Bolden cannot claim to be innocent any longer. Even if he really was.

Vinny wrote:Thanks Greg. That makes sense. I guess Bolden cannot claim to be innocent any longer. Even if he really was.

They are still in rapture over at the Thirteen Inch Head forum. FFS.

Here is a little anecdode for you. Says nothing about his guilt or innocence, but does say something about the man.

A facebook friend of mine contacted him last year and asked if he could send Bolden a copy of his book to sign and he would send Bolden the money for return post to England.

Bolden's response? He would only do it if he was  not only given the money for return postage, but also paid for giving his signature.

My facebook friend did not bother replying. 

I mean, it is possible he was in need of money for the lawyers working on this (assuming they were not working pro bono - which they may have been).  But he could have explained that. As it is, he just sounded greedy and lacking any thought for someone who was actually paying him a huge compliment.  

And if he was paying for the lawyers, it is even harder to understand. It is not like he was still in jail and got released through the pardon. All he got out of it was Biden's forgiveness and the return of his votiing rights. 

Okay - and a bunch of people who now falsely believe he is officially innocent.

That was quite pathetic, Greg. Glad your friend did not send him any money.

Judyth as usual is trying to ride on Bolden's coattails.

https://abc7chicago.com/archive/9315215/