• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

News Friday night news - Barr Announces US. Attorney For SDNY to step down.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
fskimospy said:
It’s weird that you keep saying this considering the investigation proved all of us correct, haha. Trump’s campaign was colluding with the Russians and we have it in writing by his own son!

It’s just incredible how delusional some people are where massively reported obvious facts just don’t exist to them.
Click to expand...
I think he knows it exists, he just doesn't care. His team won.
 
But Ford’s blanket pardon of Nixon, it was never tested in court. If Trumpity Dumpity were to issue pardons for Barr, Pompeo and other cabinet members without any official charges against them, I’d assume the matter will be tied up in courts for years.
 
TheVrolok said:
I think he knows it exists, he just doesn't care. His team won.
Click to expand...

Not yet by a longshot. Remember this doesn't end with Barr nor Trump. There's a marked difference between one battle and a war. In the end justice will outlast Trump and his ilk when Trump's exemption from the rule of law ends at noon 1/20. The legal siege against Trump will make the Sichuan Massacre look like a Bar Mitzva.
 
eelw said:
But Ford’s blanket pardon of Nixon, it was never tested in court. If Trumpity Dumpity were to issue pardons for Barr, Pompeo and other cabinet members without any official charges against them, I’d assume the matter will be tied up in courts for years.
Click to expand...
If pardons are challenged in court do defendants stay in jail or remain free until ruling. After all, accepting a pardon is a defacto admission of guilt.
 
fskimospy said:
It’s weird that you keep saying this considering the investigation proved all of us correct, haha. Trump’s campaign was colluding with the Russians and we have it in writing by his own son!

It’s just incredible how delusional some people are where massively reported obvious facts just don’t exist to them.
Click to expand...
He's not delusional; he's a traitor. Party before country, always.
 
HomerJS said:
If pardons are challenged in court do defendants stay in jail or remain free until ruling. After all, accepting a pardon is a defacto admission of guilt.
Click to expand...
This is not correct. A pardon requires nothing on the part of the pardonee (in law, anyway). A jailed pardonee would get tossed out of jail; it's not the pardonee's choice.
 
IronWing said:
This is not correct. A pardon requires nothing on the part of the pardonee (in law, anyway). A jailed pardonee would get tossed out of jail; it's not the pardonee's choice.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS says otherwise per wikiepdia - acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt

The Supreme Court stated in Burdick v. United States that acceptance of a pardon carries an "imputation of guilt" and is a confession to such guilt. [3]
Click to expand...
 
Fenixgoon said:
SCOTUS says otherwise per wikiepdia - acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt
Click to expand...

It's more complicated than that.



Some people have asked: Does accepting a presidential or gubernatorial pardon imply an admission of guilt? The answer turns out to be complicated.
1. In 1915, the Supreme Court indeed said, of pardons, that “acceptance” carries “a confession of” guilt. Burdick v. United States (1915). Other courts have echoed that since.

2. On the other hand, a pardon has historically been seen as serving several different functions, one of which is protecting people who were convicted even though they were legally innocent. In the words of Justice Joseph Story, the most respected early commentator on the Constitution (writing in 1833),
There are not only various gradations of guilt in the commission of the same crime, which are not susceptible of any previous enumeration and definition; but the proofs must, in many cases, be imperfect in their own nature, not only as to the actual commission of the offence, but also, as to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. In many cases, convictions must be founded upon presumpions and probabilities.
Would it not be at once unjust and unreasonable to exclude all means of mitigating punishment, when subsequent inquiries should demonstrate, that the accusation was wholly unfounded, or the crime greatly diminished in point of atrocity and aggravation, from what the evidence at the trial seemed to establish? A power to pardon seems, indeed, indispensable under the most correct administration of the law by human tribunals; since, otherwise, men would sometimes fall a prey to the vindictiveness of accusers, the inaccuracy of testimony, and the fallibility of jurors and courts.
Click to expand...
Indeed, some pardons expressly state that they are based on the pardoner’s decision that the defendant was actually innocent; and some legal rules expressly contemplate that — consider, for instance, the federal statute that provides for compensation of the unjustly convicted, which allows a plaintiff to prevail by showing (among other things) “that he has been pardoned upon the stated ground of innocence and unjust conviction.” UPDATE: The Justice Department Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitioners also expressly contemplate the possibility of “pardon on grounds of innocence or miscarriage of justice,” though they unsurprisingly note that such applicants “bear a formidable burden of persuasion” (since the Justice Department’s strong presumption is that people convicted in federal court were indeed justly convicted).


3. Another function of a pardon has historically been protecting people who were seen as legally guilty but morally innocent. Returning to Story,
Besides; the law may be broken, and yet the offender be placed in such circumstances, that he will stand, in a great measure, and perhaps wholly, excused in moral and general justice, though not in the strictness of the law. What then is to be done? Is he to be acquitted against the law; or convicted, and to suffer punishment infinitely beyond his deserts?
Click to expand...
Conviction followed by a pardon, Story argues, is a means of making sure the law is followed, but that “moral and general justice” is nonetheless served.
4. Of course, pardons have also been seen as having various other functions as well, such as decreasing the punishment of someone who is legally and morally guilty, for instance when “the situation and circumstances of the offender, though they alter not the essence of the offence, ought to make [a] distinction in the punishment” (Story’s words again). Sometimes the pardoning statement explains the pardoner’s reasons for the pardon; sometimes it doesn’t. And the beneficiaries of the pardon may of course disagree with the reasons given, even if they agree that a pardon is proper.


Legal authorities, then, are split on the subject of how the law should understand pardons; but because some pardons are understood as being based on the pardoned person’s factual innocence, I doubt that any judge today would genuinely view acceptance of pardon as always being an admission of guilt. And my sense (though I realize that it might be mistaken) is that most people’s moral judgment today would be that, even if a pardon is offered just as a gesture of mercy and not as exoneration, the recipient may honorably accept it even if they continue to deny their factual guilt or their moral guilt.
 
Per MSNBC, Barr released a statement that he recommended to Trump that he fire Berman and Trump has officially fired him. Don't have link to actual statement. Another attorney has been appointed to the position until confirmation of a permanent appointment. Marching on to the destruction of our democracy.
 
Trump personally just fired Berman. The Friday night massacre has been completed.

Trump also appointed an acting USA. Let's see if they say all cases will move forward. Maybe more details of these cases will leak.
 
It's not clear Trump has the authority to fire him until a replacement is confirmed, since he was appointed by a federal judge.
 
senseamp said:
It's not clear Trump has the authority to fire him until a replacement is confirmed, since he was appointed by a federal judge.
Click to expand...

He can fire, but the confusion is really whether he can then name an acting USA for SDNY over a court-appointed USA. I’m not sure the firing is effective immediately or whether Mitch and the Coverup Crew in the Senate need to rush through a confirmation on Monday.
 
Confused ain't the word. Some sort of WH statement, Trump says it's up to Barr to fire him. Right hand not knowing what left hand is doing? Or just shameless obfuscation?
 
Trump just claimed he had NOTHING to do with Berman so Berman should stay put if Trump is the only person who can fire him.
 
This is truly odd. Fox just covered this in some detail and quotes Trump as saying he hasn't fired him, it's up to Barr.
 
Trump wants Berman fired but doesn't want his hands on it because of the Trump inner circle prosecutions. However it seems Barr does not have the authority to fire Berman on his own.

Watch this space. I hope Berman stays put.
 
HomerJS said:
Trump wants Berman fired but doesn't want his hands on it because of the Trump inner circle prosecutions. However it seems Barr does not have the power to fire Berman on his own.

Watch this space. I hope Berman stays put.
Click to expand...
Yep. Lightbulb finally came on, and Trump realized his fingerprints might be all over it.

Edit: Maybe Mitch sent Trump a note. No do overs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top