Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Washington Post has a pretty controversial article about Jimmy Carter up. [View all]WhiskeyGrinder
(27,337 posts)20. According to the article, part of the reason Carter approved it was because he was the one who
had to, if anyone was going to:
Though the pardon power is one of the broadest handed to the president in the Constitution, it applies only to federal crimes, or offences against the United States, as Article II puts it. A president cannot pardon someone running a red light in Illinois or getting into a fistfight in Arizona because those are state crimes.
But since D.C. is not a state, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia prosecutes crimes in the city, opening convictions up to the presidents pardon power.
Or as Yarrow told the Baltimore Jewish Times in 2006: In Washington, it was considered a felony. In New York, it would have been a class B misdemeanor. But if he had molested Winter anywhere else but Washington, he would not have been eligible for a pardon.
Carter, a born-again Christian and longtime Sunday school teacher, pardoned Yarrow on Jan. 19, 1981. A spokeswoman for the former president, now 96, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
But since D.C. is not a state, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia prosecutes crimes in the city, opening convictions up to the presidents pardon power.
Or as Yarrow told the Baltimore Jewish Times in 2006: In Washington, it was considered a felony. In New York, it would have been a class B misdemeanor. But if he had molested Winter anywhere else but Washington, he would not have been eligible for a pardon.
Carter, a born-again Christian and longtime Sunday school teacher, pardoned Yarrow on Jan. 19, 1981. A spokeswoman for the former president, now 96, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
41 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The Washington Post has a pretty controversial article about Jimmy Carter up. [View all]
BlueStater
May 2021
OP
Uhh, good journalism would be to find that out ahead of time before publishing such a piece.
W_HAMILTON
May 2021
#6
An official response to the article (e.g., from the Carters themselves or their spokesperson)
W_HAMILTON
May 2021
#16
The author requested a comment and didn't get one; that's not necessarily a reason to hold a story.
WhiskeyGrinder
May 2021
#17
I should think it would be obvious, especially to any DUer who has witnessed 40 years of
hlthe2b
May 2021
#10
I do not argue against questioning--just one-side accusations with no due diligence to find out WHY!
hlthe2b
May 2021
#12
But the reporter did try to find out why. She talked to a bunch of people involved.
WhiskeyGrinder
May 2021
#13
Look, I get it. It's no fun to find out that people you like did hurtful things.
WhiskeyGrinder
May 2021
#24
YOU may conclude that. I take this as implied wrong-doing with no opportunity to explain
hlthe2b
May 2021
#25
According to the article, part of the reason Carter approved it was because he was the one who
WhiskeyGrinder
May 2021
#20
I think Jimmy Carter's motives are clean. There's quite a few odd bits in that story, ...
marble falls
May 2021
#30
If you are paying 17 USD per month for basic NYT access, you are so overpaying
Celerity
May 2021
#37
Welcome to DU, but no, the WaPo and the NYT will continue to be (rightfully so) posted here, as they
Celerity
May 2021
#35
Dammit, I'm not going to be able to listen to Peter, Paul and Mary anymore.
Crunchy Frog
May 2021
#26
The thing to remember is that Yarrow and Nugent are independently creepy. Yarrow'd be creepy ...
marble falls
May 2021
#29
Here's an article on the Yarrow charges that does not have a paywall to deal with...
bullwinkle428
May 2021
#34