By the way, watch out for a bunch of very aggressive defamation suits and lawsuit threats by the January 6 mob, arguing that characterizations of them are now defamatory because they have been pardoned. The usual suspects will be their lawyers.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Would they even be entertained? The pardon doesn't change the fact that they were given full due process of the law, tried and convicted (or pleaded guilty).
I know Burdick is dicta, but I gotta think defamation suits on the basis of a pardon is at least pretty damn close to vexatious litigation or even Rule 11.
“As to the issue of damages Your Honor, I believe it is hornbook law that there is nothing lower than whale shit and, as such, the Plaintiff can offer no proof of how they’ve been besmirched.
i want to believe that this won't be an outlier case, but the timing (he wasn't convicted yet on his j6-related charges and the conduct he's charged for now was in 2023) sure seems to suggest that this is one where a smart prosecutor decided to still nail the guy on stuff they'd initially let slide
possibly, but as a rule local law enforcement is also very lazy. this one looks to me like a federal prosecutor going after very low-hanging fruit. (also might be worth watching to see if the administration tries to get rid of whichever AUSA is responsible for doing it)
We’ve never really had a thousand pardons to reckon with, but I assume there’s a technical difference between “innocent” and “pardoned,” at least for defamation purposes.
Free speech is a bitch. They all deserve to be reminded every day that they are scum.
And if you are listening, you will be put on trial again because stupid is as stupid does😛
They aren’t trying to win, necessarily, they are trying to harass. All the usual MAGA attorneys will be involved and everyone will be fundraising to fund the effort.
I thought a pardon was an act of grace toward a guilty person, not a declaration that the person (duly convicted and, in some cases, having pleaded guilty) was innocent. Doesn't "innocence" require some kind of court action reversing the conviction?
Does a pardon actually mean that they didn’t do the crime they were convicted of, or just that they got pardoned for doing it?
As a non-lawyer, I’m seeing a distinction. Also, many of them confessed to their acts/crimes.
Also, f them. They broke into a building; some of them shat on things.
AIUI, a pardon means they face no legal penalty, including the legal implications of being a convicted felon, but is generally taken to mean the crime occurred.
Thank you.
So to say that they did the act that they did (& were convicted of) should not be defamation. You just can’t call them a criminal, & their criminal record becomes null & void. If you beat a cop, you beat a cop, even if you’re no longer considered a criminal for doing so. Yes?
Nah. Think about it this way: if you were factually innocent, but convicted of a crime, then you get pardoned, would you feel you had to turn down the pardon? Or would you take it to right the wrong?
No, a pardon does not imply they admit guilt. Biden pardoned Fauci, his family members, the J6 committee. None of them are implicitly guilty of anything. The folk understanding is not correct.
Note though that people can decline pardons. Separate issue.
I think the officers need to file lawsuits against the folks who beat them and are now free. If they won’t be help accountable through jail time, they should be held accountable financially.
And the offenses were already proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so proving the assaults by a preponderance should not be a heavy lift, in principle. Start gathering your hospital records, fellas.
Assuming society doesn't collapse we need a serious assessment of how our legal system has been used by oligarchs to shield themselves from even the most basic accountability - like paying your subcontractors.
A pardon doesn’t actually mean they were innocent and it never has. A pardon doesn’t wipe away the crime or the verdict, it just wipes away the punishment.
And it wipes away the legal disabilities that come with a federal felony conviction, like the right to purchase/possess firearms, and, in some states, the right to vote, all now restored.
Comments
That and they're kinda absolute so.... yeah all sorts of fuckery
https://patch.com/new-jersey/tomsriver/jan-6-pardons-not-sufficient-toms-river-man-says
Defense rests.”
https://www.kron4.com/news/national/man-who-got-jan-6-pardon-is-arrested-on-federal-gun-charge/
A : "A 'liberal'."
Well. At least the ones who haven’t be disbarred.
And if you are listening, you will be put on trial again because stupid is as stupid does😛
As a non-lawyer, I’m seeing a distinction. Also, many of them confessed to their acts/crimes.
Also, f them. They broke into a building; some of them shat on things.
I have no idea how it might impact the admissibility of evidence from the criminal justice system.
So to say that they did the act that they did (& were convicted of) should not be defamation. You just can’t call them a criminal, & their criminal record becomes null & void. If you beat a cop, you beat a cop, even if you’re no longer considered a criminal for doing so. Yes?
Note though that people can decline pardons. Separate issue.
It is a still a fact that many of these people committed violence against police officers.
Assuming society doesn't collapse we need a serious assessment of how our legal system has been used by oligarchs to shield themselves from even the most basic accountability - like paying your subcontractors.
A felon being pardoned by a felon doesn't feel like it should absolve anyone from social consequences.