The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Judge Robert Pratt (S.D.IA) : "It's not surprising that a criminal like Trump pardons other criminals"
"But apparently to get a pardon, one has to be either a Republican, a convicted child murderer or a turkey."
Last week, President Trump issued a batch of pardons, which I flagged here. Two of the pardons concerned Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign:
John Tate and Jesse Benton — President Trump granted John Tate and Jesse Benton full pardons. This action is supported by Senator Rand Paul and Lee Goodman, former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. Both Mr. Tate and Mr. Benton were convicted based on indirect campaign payments to a state Senator. According to Mr. Goodman, the reporting law violated was unclear and not well established at the time. Each individual received 6 months home confinement and 2 years' probation.
Trump did not pardon Kent Sorenson, who was also implicated in those offenses. In 2015, Sorenson plead guilty to concealing payments from the Paul campaign, and obstructive justice. Two years later, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pratt sentenced Sorenson to two years in prison.
Apparently, the Associated Press called Pratt about the pardons of Tate and Benton--even though he did not preside over those cases. The only link was Sorenson. The AP was really, really digging, hoping some judge, any judge, would say something about Trump. Regrettably, Judge Pratt opened up.
A federal judge in Iowa who has warned against political corruption is ridiculing President Trump's pardons, including those issued to convicted Republican campaign operatives and former members of Congress.
"It's not surprising that a criminal like Trump pardons other criminals," senior U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt of the Southern District of Iowa told The Associated Press a brief phone interview Monday. In a bit of humor, he said: "But apparently to get a pardon, one has to be either a Republican, a convicted child murderer or a turkey."
These comments are utterly inappropriate. He called the President a "criminal." I understand that blue checkmarks see no problem with liberally libeling Trump as a criminal, even though there has been no final conviction, let alone any criminal charges. But a federal judge must know better. The presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of our judicial system. If this was an attempt at humor, Judge Pratt failed, miserably. And really, his comment makes no sense. The only people who receive pardons are criminals. Of course the President pardons criminals. The fact that every President has pardoned a criminal does not make the President a criminal. (Update: The pardoned Blackwater contractors were in fact convicted of murdering children). There are also many people who were incarcerated for drug offenses who are almost certainly not Republicans. Judge Pratt should be embarrassed.
Pratt also made a gratuitous comment about the Emoluments Clauses--an issue that is currently pending before the Supreme Court:
He noted that the framers of the U.S. constitution sought to stop U.S. officials from "enriching themselves" while in office by banning gifts and payments from foreign powers. Ongoing lawsuits have accused Trump of illegally profiting off the presidency through his luxury Washington hotel. A White House spokesman declined comment on Pratt's remarks.
What is wrong with federal judges? Trump derangement syndrome has permeated Article III. Judge Pratt should follow the lead of Judge Adelman, and apologize before he is sanctioned.
I suppose the one plus side of this incident is that only one judge--so far--was willing to talk to the press. I hope there are not more. Judges should never, ever, talk to reporters.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's good to see JB is back in form!
The most important thing to look at, when it comes to Trump's pardons ... is the people who make fun of those pardons.
Are Blackman's posts supposed to be limited to "the most important thing to look at?"
The judge was out of line. It's not our worst problem, by far, but he needs to apologize. Federal judges enjoy enourmous power and are granted enormous deference, even by their fellow judges. They should not squander their credibility by making dumb comments like this one.
Anyone who uses the term “blue check mark” as some sort of smart ass reference, as Blackman does here, is not to be taken seriously.
I agree that the judge’s comment is inappropriate and not very judicial but true.
One must assume therefore that Blackman approves of all of the pardons, which speaks pretty poorly of his judgment.
Especially since it's not even right! The check marks are white, not blue!
Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the bedrock of our legal system.
I refer you to “red flag “laws.
Where secret accusations, that you are not allowed to respond to, result in your home being invaded and your property confiscated.
And then weeks or months later you get a hearing where you have to prove the negative that you are NOT dangerous.
"The only people who receive pardons are criminals."
The president can preemptively pardon someone even before they are charged with a crime, let alone convicted (as Ford did for Nixon)
But yeah, that's pretty uncommon and basically means the DoJ probably had a slam dunk case against the person lol
Yes, but if they accept the pardon they're still admitting they committed a crime. (Which is one of the reasons why you can also decline a pardon, AFAIK.)
Um, nope.
That's not quite right. What the Supreme Court said is that accepting a pardon might be viewed as an admission of guilt, which was a reason why people should have the right to refuse it. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79, 90-91 (1914). (This decision came from the days before the federal witness immunity statute, when the government would preemptively pardon witness to obtain potentially incriminating testimony from them.)
Of course, you can draw whatever inference you want from the acceptance of the pardon. But unless the president tried to condition it as such, it's not an admission of guilt in any kind of formal sense. (If it were, where would that leave people expressly pardoned on the basis of actual innocence?)
"If it were, where would that leave people expressly pardoned on the basis of actual innocence?"
Has there ever been such a pardon? At the state level, nearly every state refuses pardon's requested on the basis of claims of innocence.
Using "nearly" seems to answer your own question.
Yes, of course there have been. Indeed, that seems to be the justification that President Trump is offering for some of the very pardons we're discussing.
Whom has Trump pardoned who is actualy innocent?
I said that Trump is suggesting that some pardoners (the Blackwater
contractors, for instance) are innocent. I didn't say that he's correct about it.
Okay, I read it miscorrectly. Sorry.
In Illinois, Governor Thompson appointed a commission to study the death penalty which included reviews of the cases of all Illinois death row inmate. Some were deemed actually innocent and the Governor pardoned those.
You know sometimes pardons are given to people who were never guilty and were shown to be innocent.
My many-greats grandmother in Salem was convicted of witchcraft, and hanged. Was she guilty? Who's to say. But some 300 years later the governor of Massachusetts pardoned her.
If you’re referring to Rebecca Nourse, we’re related.
Roughly 15 generations later, that could be upwards of 10 million people.
My x-great grandfather, Charlemagne says hi.
Hi, cousin Rat.
Alas, Mrs Nourse is only my first cousin 11 times removed's wife's mother thru my paternal line.
Yes, but if they accept the pardon they’re still admitting they committed a crime.
The pride you take in your ignorance is admirable...in a way.
Noscitur managed to make the same point, but be much more informative and constructive about it.
This is actually a point that needs to be mocked somewhat, though. It's one of those things like "we're a Republic not a Democracy" that people say who think they know what they are talking about but are utterly clueless.
It's not what Burdick says. It would be terrible law if it were the law (because it would force obviously innocent people to admit guilt to get their sentences vacated). And it's inconsistent with other SCOTUS cases like Herrera v. Collins which say that pardons are in fact a crucial protection for innocent people, a failsafe or backstop to the justice system.
What happens is this is a form of legal wishful thinking. People HATE when folks they think deserve punishment get pardoned. It really traumatizes people. So it's almost like a way of spiting the pardon recipient- "see, you accepted the pardon, you are admitting guilt!". Of course, it's also extremely hypocritical- if these same folks were innocent, wrongfully convicted, and could get a pardon, they would take it and would not be admitting guilt.
So yes, because the people who put forth this talking point are smug, ignorant jerks, they deserve some level of mockery.
"It would be terrible law if it were the law..."
Burdick suggests that acceptance of a pardon carries a confession of guilt. Such a thing couldn't be the law without getting into Parliament declaring the world flat territory.
Noscitur managed to make the same point, but be much more informative and constructive about it.
While your comment was a complete waste of electrons. Noscitur did not make the same point I did...at all.
The holding of Burdick is widely over-interpreted. What specific crime(s) did Nixon “admit” by accepting a pardon? Involvement in Watergate? And was he admitt8ng involvement before or after the fact? And what specific and relevant facts under FRE 401 et seq did he admit to?
Or did he also admit to shooting JFK from the grassy knoll? Handwaving generalizations about “admissions of guilt” almost always fail to drill down to any sort of legal underpinnings. A stench of guilt? “Where there’s smoke there’s fire”? Sure. John Q Public was probably more inclined to think Nixon was somehow dirty after he accepted the pardon from Ford. But that whiff of malfeasance is all you get. Not a legally-actionable admission.
Unless you can figure out some principle to distinguish “Accepts pardon after DNA evidence conclusively shows innocence” from “Nixon Took a pardon, so he must have shot JFK.”
What cognitive evaluation is there of senior status judges?
He's 73 years old -- maybe sharp as a tack -- and maybe not.
This is a real problem. I have been before federal judges who were once great but simply lost it because of age. There is no cognitive evaluation that I know of. It is a worthy topic of discussion.
There is no cognitive evaluation that I know of.
Really? What about testing for dementia, or Alzheimer's, for starters.
Totally agree = It is a worthy topic of discussion.
Bill Clinton appointee.
Lets ask him his opinion of the Marc Rich pardon.
Or FALN and Weathermen terrorists.
Or 2 Dem congressman on his last day including one who had been convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault of a child and solicitation of child pornography.
Or Clinton's own brother.
Or Susan MacDougall.
Better than most of the recent ones.
Anyone parroting anti-Trump rhetoric gets a "pass" and is never going to be held accountable.
The media chalks this up to "responding to a national emergency against fascism" or other similar fantasies to justify their completely unethical and immoral behavior. And it does not take much to get that sentiment repeated in the echo chamber of the fake news media. They whole heartedly believe it hook line and sinker.
Of course, any reasonable and sane person knows the actual victim of this is going to be The Republic. We now have an precedent of using unhinged, crazy, illegal tactics to "get" a President who is just not liked. If people think that future use of similar tactics is going to be confined to just this particular circumstances (a Trump Presidency) they are sadly mistaken.
The one example offered in this post is of a judge who apologized for his comments following a disciplinary complaint.
Yeah I call that a "pass" if all you have to do is apologize when called on a bad act. i.e. no real ramifications.
Right. After all, look at what happened when a US president - leader of the law enforcement branch of the entire country- called for his political enemies to be “locked up.” Remember how severe the consequences were fir him? Remember the outrage expressed by you and Prof Blackman?
Yeah, me neither.
To be sure, I agree that judge should never call anyone a criminal in a press interview. But anyone who gets morally outraged about one mid-level judge after ignoring a president who made even worse statements is a huge hypocrite.
Right. After all, look at what happened when a US president – leader of the law enforcement branch of the entire country- called for his political enemies to be “locked up.
Nice slight of hand (lie) there. That wasn't US President Trump who called for Hillary to be locked up. It was Candidate Trump. Now, if we want to talk about elected politicians going after political opponents, the Democrats have a large number who have repeatedly called for Trump to be locked up for baseless accusations.
The Hill, October 16, 2020: "President Trump on Friday voiced approval for supporters who shouted "lock her up" about 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The president delivered remarks intended to focus on protecting seniors during an event in Florida, but it quickly devolved into a political rally. Trump at one point meandered into attacking his 2016 rival, who is a recurring figure in his speeches even four years later. The mention of Clinton's name prompted calls of "lock her up" from the crowd. 'Yeah. I agree with you. I used to just be quiet on that. I agree with you 100 percent,' Trump said, endorsing calls to jail his political opponent.'"
Also back in Jan.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/01/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-justice-department/index.html
So no, not a lie. Truth. But feel free to invent another excuse. My link goes to CNN, so you can always claim “fake news” right?
How should people expressing “anti-Trump” sentiments be held accountable? What are you, some sort of Stalinist? Do you work for the Hill?
'The media chalks this up to “responding to a national emergency against fascism”'
Citation needed. Imagination is not a valid source.
Yes because only conservatives have to footnote their comments. Others are just to be believed.
Or you can just pound it into google if you want an answer....
I did, and your quote was the only result, you dumb fuck.
Leftist cretin thinks the so-called "anti-fascists" aren't actually fascists.
Registered independent my whole life, with views on both sides of the political spectrum, and I hate all political parties and partisan dipshits such as yourself.
Kindly fuck off.
I agree that this remark is highly inappropriate (as well as somewhat illogical), and I was also somewhat surprised about some of the comments Judge Pratt has made on the Sorenson case in the past. On the other hand, I think Prof. Blackman is a bit off in this paragraph:
If you're going to insist that "criminal" means a person who has been convicted of a crime rather than simply someone who's committed a crime, then that last sentence is just false: people can certainly be pardoned before they're convicted of anything. Indeed, there's nothing to stop a pardon for a person that the president believes to be factually innocent to preemptively prevent their wrongful prosecution in the future. (Of course, the president can also pardon a person who is actually innocent but has been wrongfully convicted. I think it would be a bit strange to refer to such a person as a criminal.)
The real problem, it seems to me, is that the comments reflect a degree of partisan rancor that is inconsistent with the appearance of neutrality that we expect from the judiciary, not that there's something inherently improper about calling someone who has committed a crime but not yet been convicted a criminal.
Likewise, I'm not sure I see the issue with commenting on a legal issue pending in another case, though of course the remarks might require Judge Pratt's recusal in a future case, in the unlikely event that they should arise in the Southern District of Iowa.
I agree that Judge Pratt should not have made the remarks he did. It is better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. At most, he should have said that the record in the case speaks for itself.
Which it does, by the way. I tend to think that the pardon power (especially at the state level) is underused, but this looks like nothing more than excusing political corruption as a favor to Rand Paul.
The reasoning on the campaign finance pardons seems straightforward.
The law was unclear. In fact, this was an issue in Tom Delay's case for years, as there was no question about the facts of the case, just a complex question about what the law actually meant. The sheer convoluted nonsense surrounding campaign finance law means that its ludicrously easy to stray into unclear territory or even cross the line with normal situations that a reasonable person wouldn't think are illegal.
If you note, the one case where the law was significantly more clear, there was no pardon.
As of 2011, it was unclear that you were supposed to tell the truth in your campaign financial disclosures instead of lying?
I am surprised to learn that.
"The *only* people who receive pardons are criminals."
That would be a hard teaching if true. It would mean that unjustly-convicted people couldn't get pardons because you have to be guilty (or admit guilt) to get pardoned.
Would the law be so unreasonable as to say, "gosh, I wish you could get a pardon - if only you were guilty!"
At least in Oregon, innocent people can get pardoned if wrongfully convicted:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/gov-brown-pardons-convicted-man-with-help-of-oregon-innocence-project/ar-BB18bODO
"Would the law be so unreasonable as to say, “gosh, I wish you could get a pardon – if only you were guilty!”"
Yes. there are several states that explicitly condition pardons on acceptance of guilt and remorse.
And even in states where such explicit limits do not exist, those sorts of pardon's are exceedingly rare.
The remark to which I was replying said:
“The *only* people who receive pardons are criminals.”
I gave two examples where a pardon was granted on grounds of innocence, one by a state governor and one by Calvin Coolidge as U. S. President.
My burden wasn't high, since I had only to find a counterexample or two in order to rebut the categorical statement I quoted.
Do those states use the “accept guilt and show remorse” as a statutory barrier to a pardon, or is it only a standard requirement in the normal path through the pardon process? The DOJ has pardon standards that conflict with Predisent Trump’s use of the pardon power; it’s clear that those standards exist but are not binding on the president’s pardon power,
Can you provide an example of a state where the governor is legislatively and/or constitutionally precluded from using the pardon power on someone who has been shown to be actually innocent, for example by conclusive DNA evidence that someone else was the rapist/murderer?
The good news is, I believe, that the "only guilty people can get pardoned" meme will probably not outlast Trump. If Biden should happen to pardon an innocent person (and I'm not saying he will or won't), then once again we'll be reminded of the long and noble history of using pardons to vindicate the innocent.
Excerpt of an article from the NYT from 1982 about Congressional aide Howard Shuman:
"[Shuman's] most notable victory was in the case of a Marine sergeant, Carl Buck, who was wrongly convicted of the theft of chevrons, the insignia worn on the sleeve of a uniform to indicate rank, which were in short supply during the Korean war. Mr. Buck wrote his Senator, who assigned Mr. Shuman to the case.
"Mr. Shuman persisted for nine years, finally demonstrating that the case was one of mistaken identify; President Johnson gave Mr. Buck a full pardon."
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/05/us/senators-aide-looks-back-27-years.html
So we have a precedent from Calvin Coolidge and a precedent from LBJ - that's bipartisanship!
Look, you can even buy a vintage photo! Only $17.90 for a piece of history!
"President Lyndon B. Johnson and Sgt. Carl Buck: Sgt. Carl Buck, of the American Marines, calling on President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House to thank him for signing a pardon which cleared him of theft charges. For 13 years Sgt. Buck has pleaded his innocence."
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Lyndon-B-Johnson-Vintage-photograph-1314131-/353302207108
Defending Donald Trump against his critics on the grounds that *they* lack decorum.
It's almost like this sort of focus is not in good faith!
I'm all for criticizing Prof. Blackman, but where do you see him defending Trump?
It's almost like Trump's conceded boorishness is an excuse for others.
Let's try that at a murder trial. "Yes, I killed the guy. But I am no Charles Manson, so let me off." Think that would work?
You want decorum? Then practice and advocate decorum. Fail to practice decorum? Blithely excuse your team's lack of decorum? Then no one will listen to you when you pretend to care about decorum.
Judges have a special obligation to appear impartial — of that's the end of the civilized justice system. This judge now has about the same credibility as judges working for the CCP in China.
You think liberalism is actually evil, and so are most liberals.
I don't see why you're worried about decorum.
Did I say I was worried about decorum?
Liberals are welcome to stop doing evil any time. Orange Man Bad expires as an excuse in mere weeks. But I’m sure someone somewhere will say some words that can be used to justify intentionally hurting people.
So you were just blowing smoke above, as is evident to anyone who knows your deal.
Not sure what your point is. SteveArlo above implied judges making deranged partisan rants is cool because Orange Man lacks decorum -- as if the entire partisan left hasn't been setting their hair on fire and howling at the moon since 2016.
"Decorum" is just another fake virtue for leftists to pretend to care about for the sole purpose of attacking others.
Here's an example of President Calvin Coolidge granting a pardon on the grounds of innocence:
"President Coolidge proved sympathetic to his cause and, on August 7, 1924, granted him a full and unconditional pardon on the ground that he was “innocent of the ...offenses of which he was convicted.”"
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetailpre1989.aspx?caseid=125
"He called the President a "criminal." I understand that blue checkmarks see no problem with liberally libeling Trump as a criminal, even though there has been no final conviction, let alone any criminal charges. But a federal judge must know better."
I've always thought a criminal is someone who has committed a crime, not necessarily someone who has been convicted or indicted. Were that not the case, Trumpist references to "criminals crossing the border" and the like would be pretty nonsensical, no? Then again, I don't teach at the prestigious Southeast Houston Law Factory, so who knows.
Josh, you have a blue checkmark.
The checkmarks are in fact white.
And Josh is much more white than he is blue, that’s for sure.
The problem is the same one that led to Congress fruitlessly "investigating" for years, and finally impeaching, Trump for "Russian collusion." If there were any charges against him that could have stuck, he would have been convicted.
The problem, of course, is the major media, who have been gaslighting the public since 2008. (I no longer call them "mainstream" media because there is no longer a mainstream. They have ceased to do journalism, and forfeited the public's trust.)
Other VC writers' unkind opinions of Trump's allegations of voter fraud appear to come from the same source. As does the fact that no official agency is now pursuing the Biden family bribery scandal, which will leave Biden as president while in Chinese pay if he manages to get inaugurated. Allowing this treason to pay would be a disaster. But the media have deemed it a non-story, so I guess the VC has, too.
Oops, I hit send too soon.
The real irony in this post is the reference to the founders' desire to prevent corruption by officials, especially the president. Harry Truman gave us a pretty much foolproof test for corruption: "How can a member of Congress become a millionaire while in office, if he is honest? It cannot be done." Look at the net worth of Trump and his major opponents during their political careers. Trump has lost half a billion. Pelosi, Schumer, and Schiff have gained tens or hundreds of millions. Q.E.D.
Bla bla bla. Thank you for the re assertions of the isu litany of multiply disproven Trumper themes.
You're not very smart, are you? Trump was not impeached for Russian collusion. (Or even "Russian collusion.")
While two children were killed in the firefight, only one of the contractors was charged with murder, and the identified victim in that count was an adult. So unless I'm missing something, I think your initial claim was actually technically correct, in that none of them were actually convicted of murdering children. But I do think that's an awfully fine nit to pick, and the retraction is well-taken (though I find it a bit odd you didn't spend 30 seconds on google before mashing the post button).
> "(though I find it a bit odd you didn’t spend 30 seconds on google before mashing the post button)."
...are you though?
Blackman's meltdown is the only good thing that happened today. Did the mean old judge make you sad Josh? Poor baby. Maybe if you blog about it more he'll apologize to you personally for making you realize that most intelligent people hate trump and want him in prison.
Blackman will get worse between today and January 20.
I am content.
Unfortunately I don’t think it gets better after January 20th either.
January 6 is going to be a bad day for you.
Let me know when trump pardons any convicted terrorists
thanks
He pardoned some Blackwater war criminals/terrorists a few days ago.
you're welcome
"He pardoned some Blackwater war criminals/terrorists a few days ago."
Are you certain they are war criminals?
Yes, and your broken link was not convincing.
Yes. And child killers as well. Next question?
Apologies for the bad link.
This should work.
Perhaps there is more to the story than you know.
Or perhaps you're posting assumptions and theories from someone who was not involved at all.
Here's what a member of the FBI Event Response Team who actually investigated the crime had to say:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/24/opinions/blackwater-defendants-pardon-trump-opinion-oconnor/index.html
You people are idiots.
From the David French article:
"And why did he shoot? Because the Kia “punched forward” toward the convoy despite repeated warnings to stop. Moreover, the vehicle matched the description of a suspected car bomb. It was not a car bomb, but the first shots weren’t an act of premeditated murder but instead a tragic but common mistake in the Iraq conflict — the product of insurgent tactics and the terrible confusion of war."
It’s a compelling case, but it has problems — serious problems. Let’s begin with the first and most obvious. No one denies that the first shots were fired at a white Kia sedan, but the circumstances of that shooting matter greatly. According to the defense, Slatten did not fire at the Kia in cold blood. Instead, a different defendant, Paul Slough, repeatedly confessed to shooting the Kia from his turret. Iraqi witnesses corroborated his account.
And why did he shoot? Because the Kia “punched forward” toward the convoy despite repeated warnings to stop. Moreover, the vehicle matched the description of a suspected car bomb. It was not a car bomb, but the first shots weren’t an act of premeditated murder but instead a tragic but common mistake in the Iraq conflict — the product of insurgent tactics and the terrible confusion of war."
...
"Moreover, the first American to arrive at the scene, Captain Peter Decareau, not only reported that Iraqis corroborated the team’s account of the Kia driving toward the convoy, he also took pictures of bullet casings located by an area where the team reported taking fire. This evidence was withheld from the defense until the 2014 trial, an error the prosecution blamed on 'a series of innocent oversights.'"
Oh, And the FBI didn't arrive until weeks later. Nor does your FBI agent say anything about Al-Queda's use of car bombs, nor the intel the guys had received about one.
I could go on, but to the religious such as yourself, clearly facts don't matter.
Asshole.
You are a fucking liar like all the rest, and an idiot for choosing to believe someone who has no connection to the case or investigation other than "I deployed to Iraq a few months afterwards, and took a look at the case I was hearing about around the water cooler and here's what I think."
1) They requested permission to leave the compound and were told NO. They went anyway. Failure to obey that order set in motion the entire event chain.
2) "A sniper on the Raven 23 team placed his rifle out a porthole of the Bearcat armored vehicle and fired at the driver of the white KIA. The man was struck and killed by the bullet. The car began to roll forward slowly, bumping into a red vehicle. The two Iraqi traffic officers physically tried to stop the movement of the car.
The defendants said they feared the white KIA was a car bomb as it moved ahead. The car rolled forward after the sniper, a security guard, shot the driver and his foot came off the brake. This is why the sniper was charged with, and convicted of, first-degree murder."
Notice the words "car bomb" in there? Liar.
3) They claimed to have taken fire, yet none of the vehicles had evidence of that.
"What happened next gave me more than pause. The four armored vehicles involved in the Nisour Square shooting were silver in color when they were observed on tape leaving the US Green zone against orders. The vehicles in front of us at the "Man Camp" were now desert sand color. The reported impact points -- we were told they the impacts were from bullet rounds -- on the side of the vehicle were no long there."
You know what evidence of damage they did find to the Bearcat? M203 fragments.
But hey, water-cooler guy says otherwise, and we all know how much more reliable partisan idiots are than the people who actually investigated the incident.
Seeing libs do not seem to mind murdering innocent babies, why would they care in the least about child murder?
It's almost as though your core assumption is something liberals do not share.
You talked to RAK about how much hate he was carrying. I've got bad news for you on that front, Jimmy.
"Seeing libs do not seem to mind murdering innocent babies,..."
Sarcastro 's response - "It’s almost as though your core assumption is something liberals do not share."
the right to murder innocent babies happens to be a litmus test for progressives, they just call it pro - choice
Bullshit, Joe. Not many want to charge women who get abortion with murder (remember when Trump blundered into saying that and then had to walk it back?), and similarly with miscarriages as manslaughter.
No one thinks fetuses are exactly babies upon conception. Doesn't mean being pro-life isn't a consistent point of view, just means you're into some false rhetoric that mostly makes you angry at the other side.
That is some good gaslighting....
No one, except the entire Catholic Church and most non-liberal Protestants. *rolls eyes*
Do you ever get tired of being completely full of shit?
Nominated by clinton
"The only people who receive pardons are criminals."
"... see no problem with liberally libeling Trump as a criminal, even though there has been no final conviction, let alone any criminal charges."
I would point out that the vast majority of the Vietnam-era "draft dodgers" who were pardoned by Carter were not criminally charged, let alone convicted.
So either the statement that one must be charged and convicted to be a criminal is incorrect, or the statement that the only people who are ever pardoned are criminals is incorrect.
What *was* the status of the draft dodgers before the pardon?
One of them was Arkansas AG. Most were probably subject to legal action which had not been initiated. Sort of like the status of people who have failed to file their tax returns but have not yet had any legal action taken against them.
That is a good question. It is almost certain that if you consider a person who violated local, state or federal law a criminal, then just about every person over the age of 18 who is compos mentis is a criminal.
But the definitions in the article are inherently inconsistent. You can pick the one then that is necessarily false. If only people who are convicted (or at least charged) are criminals, then it is not true that every person who receives a pardon is a criminal.
The crimes were nitpicking, pretextual, politically motivated prosecutions. Such pretextual uses of the law should be criminalized itself, and should carry the penalties for perjury.
The jury question is, would the prosecutions have taken place if the opponent had won the election, instead?
Prosecutors should lose all immunities. They should be made to pay for their false uses of the law for political attack purposes, from their own assets. Let them carry liability insurance as everyone else does.
Liability improves the practice, and is a substitute for violence. It would be for the good of the prosecution business. That business stinks. It allows 15 million common law crimes a year, and billions of internet crimes a a year. Prosecutors should also be liable for failing to prosecute criminals who damages plaintiffs with a reasonable degree of foreseeability, for example repeat offenders who were not prosecuted. In one case, a judge ordered a husband to stay away. He did not. The police, who are agents of the prosecutor, were handed the formal judge order. They refused to enforce it. The husband murdered the wife after the police left. The Supreme Court ruled, no police liability. That is wrong.
A good case study about remarks being inappropriate but not wrong.
A good case study about remarks being inappropriate but not wrong.
Except that some of them were factually false.
Yet another norm blithely discarded by the people who pretend they're The Good Guys. It will be interesting to see what the new excuse for wrongdoing is after Trump is out of office. I will guess it's GOP seizes on [Dem] missteps followed the next day by it never happened at all.
Articles of impeachment should be filed against this judge in the next congress. And every congress until the judge either retires or issues a sincere apology acknowledging he was wrong both in making the remarks and in their tone.
Quit whining, clinger. Try to lose with some dignity. Maybe develop some character, too.
Good lord! Perhaps with the holiday season you could at least bathe with soap, or perhaps bathe at all? You smell of many, many cats who appreciate you as a place to relieve themselves.
Please, please address your horrible stench with some kind of public-spirited remediation: hot water, soap for you and those fetid sweaters!
Make sure your booze cabinet is stocked for January 6, whiny leftist. You're going to need it.
What is wrong with federal judges? Trump derangement syndrome has permeated Article III.
Per Wikipedia there are 870 authorized Article III judges. Allowing for some vacancies it's hardly the case that the two mentioned by Blackman prove that TDS has "permeated" Article III.
Kind of a silly statement, in fact.
"On good behavior", huh?
I can't say I see much "appropriate" about a law professor and member of the bar referring to the federal judiciary as being permeated by so-called "Trump derangement syndrome." That sort of rhetoric befits clueless Reason commentators with zero legal expertise or accreditation, but it is not something a learned professor of law should be using to describe his colleagues.
Where's your apology, Josh? Or do you deny that you have any particular standard to meet, yourself?
Blackman's public appearances speak for themselves if you ever want to check his youtube out.
Blackman is self-radicalizing in his desperate efforts to get noticed by the right-wing nutjobs responsible for appointing Judges.
Considering his intended audience, he has no reputation to worry about, and is free to be a disgrace to Law Professors and the legal profession all he wants.
I suppose one solution would be for federal courts to only accept as legitimate pardons or clemency granted by presidents who are members (or nominated by) the Democratic party. An easier solution would be to outlaw all political parties except the Democratic party.
That's rather ironic considering that the current party trying to steal an election is the Republican party. Just today, Trump filed with the SC apparently to get the SC to :
" Set Aside the Wisconsin Election as “Failed” Under 3 U.S.C. § 2,
Thus Affording the Wisconsin Legislature Explicit Statutory Authority to Appoint Presidential Electors to Represent Wisconsin."
And, just the other day there was the Gohmert suit.
You can't steal something that's already been stolen, jackhole.
The Trump campaign's pre-election efforts to steal the election were inadequate, and enough Biden voters showed up to overcome their chicanery. so they weren't able to already steal the election, jackhole.
"I suppose one solution would be for federal courts to only accept as legitimate pardons or clemency granted by presidents who are members (or nominated by) the Democratic party. An easier solution would be to outlaw all political parties except the Democratic party."
Or the Republicans could grow the fuck up and act like adults if they want to be taken seriously by other adults.
I want to start and make it clear I agree this was highly inappropriate and unnecessary.
Now to critique you. "These comments are utterly inappropriate. He called the President a "criminal." I understand that blue checkmarks see no problem with liberally libeling Trump as a criminal, even though there has been no final conviction, let alone any criminal charges." To put this as a left issue is absurd in it's fullest. I seem to remember "lock her up" being a pretty big mantra for Trump and the right in 2016. And yet there was "no final conviction, let alone any criminal charges." I am not saying this as a whataboutism. I am simply saying calling a politician you don't like a criminal for perceived illegal acts that have not been adjudicated or charged is not limited to blue check liberals against Trump. Stop sycophanting
"Stop sycophanting"
My favorite verbing of the day.
Amateurish clingers taking a break from breathless, silly "hot takes" and delusional victory laps to whine about others who express opinions are among my favorite culture war casualties.
The young ones are the most striking cases, regardless of whether they possess the self-awareness to recognize they are destined to spend their entire lives flailing on the wrong side of history.
Sycophancy toward Trump will hound clingers for all their days, and properly so. Sidestepping the Blackwater bodies to aim a downscale partisan arrow that ignores abuse of the pardon power is a particularly immature, disgusting move.
Carry on, clingers. But just so far as your betters -- including your deans, at times -- permit.
Fuck off. I don't need your "permission" for anything. Go die in a fire.
You need permission to play with matches, big boy.
When admitted to the South Texas College of Law Houston, and assigned to Prof. Blackman's class, do you get a free bowl of soup?
I honestly feel sorry for Josh's students. They have no idea what they're getting.
I remember taking a class with a law professor who was enamored with his own farts as Josh seems to be. We spent more than one class chasing irrelevant tangents to explore pet arguments that he (falsely) felt refuted one particular school of jurisprudential thought. It was utterly impossible to try to have a reasonable disagreement with him, because any whiff of a divergence of opinion would shift him into a haughty, "holier than thou" mode. Such a disappointment of a class.
So I can just imagine Josh wasting his students' time, in a Federal Courts class, talking about his "shadow docket" hobby, or falsely characterizing Roberts' opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius in a Constitutional Law class, or making utter nonsense out of Employment Div. v. Smith. And, given the caliber of students his school attracts, none of them will have the analytical skills to see the problems with his analysis of these cases.
Contrast this to Eugene or Orin. Anyone in a First Amendment class with Eugene is sure to get an earful of his grand theory of free speech. But, as far as I've ever seen, his theory is firmly supported by the relevant caselaw, and does not require bizarre or tortured reasoning. Ditto with Orin and his theories on the Fourth Amendment. Taking classes with them would be a genuine benefit; people would come away having studied with some of the preeminent scholars in their field.
Whereas, with Josh, some years hence, when Josh has been appointed to some appellate court and has started handing down egregiously activist cases pushing big-C "Conservative" interests, his students will only be able to say, "Christ, I had to take a course with that asshole."
I had magnificent first-year professors. They complemented one another in many respects; each worthwhile, with varying attributes enhanced by the others'. I doubt there was an important element of first-year legal education not addressed -- and splendidly -- by at least one. Their lessons have been important to this day.
Blackman? His students deserve refunds -- although if they are attending South Texas it could be readily argued they should have known what they were getting into.
"Their lessons have been important to this day."
Don't drag your professors to your level.
Short term and selective memories. I'm not a fan of President Trump but, his pardon actions pale in comparison to President Bill Clinton. Pardon granted for Mark Rich after his attractive wife makes a "personal visit" to the Oval Office. 100 pardons on his last DAY in office.
Trump says, "hold my mineral water."
I suspect you meant to write that Trump's pardon actions -- so far -- pale in comparison to Clinton's. Because we all know what's coming: pardons for his family (including Jared) and pardons for his friends, cronies, and fellow grifters (including Guiliani). And don't forget the grand finale: President Pence's pardon of Trump after Trump resigns. Stay tuned: the best is yet to come.
"And don’t forget the grand finale: President Pence’s pardon of Trump after Trump resigns."
That would require Trump to voluntarily relinquish power. That's not going to happen. He'll claim he can use the pardon power on himself, and then get all pissy when nobody else recognizes his self-pardon but nobody will have to care because then he'll just be Twitter loudmouth Donald Trump instead of President of the United States Donald Trump.
As though mentioning Mark Rich and the number "100" somehow makes a valid argument of whether pardons are warranted, or corrupt in nature, and somehow of equal weight.
You're from Florida, so you're excused.
Clinton would have pardoned Marc Rich even if he had no connection with him. A lot of heavy hitters and good people went to bat for Rich.
There were good people on both sides that day.
As was stated by others, Rich is incomparable to Trump pardoning people who went to jail for illegally helping him get elected and covering up stuff about the election.
And 100 pardons doesn't mean much unless you discuss what they were about. Which you don't, just gesture at Rich's pardon. Which means either you were deceived and are passing it on, or are okay with deceiving others.
" Trump pardoning people who went to jail for illegally helping him get elected and covering up stuff about the election."
There is no evidence to support that statement.
What did Roger Stone go to jail for? What about Papadopoulos? van der Zwaan?
Susan MacDougal, otoh...
Digging up whitewater? Oy, man.
She was already out of jail and not a felon, I think, so not anything like the same thing.
". I’m not a fan of President Trump but, his pardon actions pale in comparison to President Bill Clinton."
Bill had eight years to rack up his record and the peak came in the last month.
Let's compare after Donnie the T has his last month. He's still trying to jack up the price by keeping the supply small.
The judge is right: Trump loves his criminals.
He's an America-hating shitbag. So are his fans.
Go die in a fire, jackhole.
Correction: America-hating shitbag arsonist.
Judge Pratt is not only a bad judge without judicial temperament or discretion, but also an idiot. Trump only pardons Republicans?? One of his most famous and controversial pardon was that of Charles Kushner, long time Democrat who made massive contributions to the Clintons and to the Democratic Party. Nice to have a job for life and absolute immunity.
What Pratt said: "But apparently to get a pardon, one has to be either a Republican, a convicted child murderer or a turkey."
Apparently, Kushner is a turkey.
Um. . . Charles Kushner was also the father of Trump’s son in law.
You knew that, and yet you posted your easily refutable comment. Why?
He also pardoned Blagojevich.
Another turkey.
Dear Judge,
The court isn't part of the NBA. You won't be fined for not talking to reporters. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/12/11/after-nba-fines-kyrie-irving-for-not-speaking-to-reporters-he-declares-i-do-not-talk-to-pawns/?sh=2acae0ec36fb.
Nor the NFL (if I had a link to Marshawn Lynch saying "I'm just here so I won't get fined" in response to reporters' questions, I'd put it here.)
Also, I'll point to the fact that the better NBA example was one of the Trail Blazers who answered every question with "both sides played hard" but I don't remember which one it was... maybe Lamarcus Aldredge back when he was still in Portland?
"Judges should never, ever, talk to reporters."
When Josh gets appointed to the federal bench -- a burning ambition which he will someday achieve -- he will have to get a laryngectomy. Otherwise his head will explode in frustration.
Call me crazy if you'd like, but generally I'll take genuine candor over holding one's peace. If people in positions of power have thoughts rattling around inside their head, and they express them genuinely off the cuff (rather than as pre-packaged spin), then we all should welcome letting them get it all out. Maybe the appearance is bad when it's all expressed publicly, but the thoughts would still be there anyway even if not expressed. Since no potential jury pool could be influenced here, the court of public opinion should welcome the genuine candor that is on offer.
One of Trump's greatest services to this nation has been getting various government officials - from federal judges to individuals in federal law enforcement and the intelligence community, among others - to allow their masks to slip and reveal who they really are. Gone is the illusion that these people are serious, sober professionals above things like petty politics. They are often petulant personalities of no particular skill or intelligence, driven by petty politics and their feelings, Never in my life, and probably in history, has the membership of federal judiciary done so much to degrade its own reputation. And given the complete degeneration of higher education, the federal judges of tomorrow will be even worse.
You consider the granting of pardons in an unjust way to be "petty politics"?!?
" They are often petulant personalities of no particular skill or intelligence"
You applied this label incorrectly.
You are right that the "federal judges of tomorrow will be even worse," if only because Trump has named so many unqualified people to the bench. (Such as ACB and that petulant crybaby Kavanaugh.)
So what?
trumpski and his minions are first to call everyone a criminal
Lock Her UP and all
Josh I am so sad your hero is receiving much deserved criticism for his crony pardons and pardons of child murderers, bu thtat is what happens when you worship a piece of human garbage
Well, the judge is definitely a prat, even if he spells it wrong.
A couple thoughts: Ginsburg's comments about Trump broke the dam on the judiciary's not opining on political matters; and this guy is proof that federal judges aren't necessarily smart, but are politically well-connected, since he needed both his senators to support his nomination.
"What do you call a lawyer with a two-digit IQ?"
"Your Honor."
Also currently relevant:
What do you call the person who graduates last in their Ed.D. program?
"doctor"
So counting this guy and the other judge mentioned in the post, we have two examples of inappropriate comments in the four and a half years since Ginsburg's interview.
That's some dam!
"These comments are utterly inappropriate."
How long have you been opposed to American citizens' rights to criticize their political leadership?"
"He called the President a "criminal." I understand that blue checkmarks see no problem with liberally libeling Trump as a criminal, even though there has been no final conviction, let alone any criminal charges."
Back off the libel talk, there. Truth is an absolute defense to claims of libel.
Trump operated "Trump University" which was not at any time a university. Fraud is a crime. Trump is a criminal.
QED
Most American citizens are not subject to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which specifically prohibits publicly criticizing (or supporting) politicians.
And "imputing criminality" is one of the few categories that qualify as defamation per se in a court of law. The idea that using the word "university" is "criminal" is absurd. McDonalds calls its training program "Hamburger University". Men's Wearhouse calls its training program "Suits University". Granted, given who they elect to office, New Yorkers seem to be particularly stupid, but unless the brochure says it awards degrees, anyone who is fooled into thinking it does is likely to be fooled by a Nigerian prince asking for his bank account number in an email.
And federal judges should be held to a higher standard of conduct for several reasons, not least of which being, unlike elected politicians (or almost anyone else for that matter), they have practically unaccountable lifetime tenure. They should exhibit enough self-control to at least pretend to be unbiased.
"Most American citizens are not subject to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which specifically prohibits publicly criticizing (or supporting) politicians."
They're all protected by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, though, (even the judges).
This is why you're neither a judge nor a lawyer, cause you're full of shit.
"This is why you’re neither a judge nor a lawyer, cause you’re full of shit."
You're fuller. Does that make you neither a judge nor a lawyer, nor an adult?
He's a piece of shit, just like Ruth Bader Ginsburg
rough but accurate words to describe Mr. Trump.