News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
What is giving you the idea that a pardon automatically admits guilt? I've seen this so many times and it makes absolutely no sense. There's one court case from the 20's in which the court suggested that accepting a pardon "may imply guilt." And there's like 528 court cases saying the opposite. There's also nothing in the verbage of a pardon that states that. It simply removes any legal consequences from relevant acts. I'm not sure why so many people insist that if you accept any type of pardon for any reason, you are confessing to have perpetuated whatever you are accused of. It makes absolutely no sense. You could be guilty as hell. Or you could have been on the other side of the planet and accused of something random. I'm either case, all a pardon does is just get you out of trouble.
This isn't to say that I think Giuliani is innocent or anything. He's a complete and utter dirt bag. But of all things, him merely accepting a pardon is not the smoking gun a lot of people seem to think it is.
That's what's called obiter dicta: a side comment with no direct bearing on the case at hand and with no potential to set precedent. And you're right, Garland (the name of the case) keeps getting cited by people as though it is precedent.
There is no part of the pardon process where admission of guilt is required, not even a checkbox on a form. You either accept a pardon or you don't. That's it.
Anyway, the existence (upheld by courts many times) of blanket pardons renders the admission of guilt argument absurd. If you accept a pardon for (for example) any crimes you might potentially be charged with between January and February of 2025, what are you pleading guilty to? Every one of those possible crimes? Really? And yeah, it's possible to pardon someone for something they haven't even been charged with yet. The only thing that has to be in the past is the time period the pardon covers.
Further evidence that the Garland dicta is bullshit is that, since the US was founded, pardons have, on occasion, been used to correct miscarriages of justice. In that case, even the person issuing the pardon is of the view that the pardonee is not guilty. So "we're pardoning you because we think you're not guilty, and to accept the pardon, you have to admit guilt"? Again, that makes no sense.