Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 6
1/25/2025, 6:25:23 PM
X
In reply to:
Fred Mason
@NosamDerf
·
278d
@mtaibbi They weren't pardons. That's the point.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
278d
The overwhelming majority of these people had misdemeanor convictions which have since been commuted, so I’m curious how any judge has jurisdiction over them. You can disagree with Trump’s pardons, but they’re legal. This? I don’t know
Cool Clear Waters
@Coolclearwaters
·
278d
@mtaibbi I think their attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power was treasonous. The commutations & pardons were scandalous.

The statement by @NosamDerf engages in a discussion about the legal implications of commutations and pardons, which is a substantive public issue related to the justice system and governance. The tone is dismissive, suggesting a lack of respect for the judicial authority in the context of commuted sentences.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but dismisses the authority of the judiciary, which could undermine respect for legal processes. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue; it dismisses the judge's authority without providing a reasoned argument. [-1]
  4. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement engages in public discourse but does so in a dismissive manner, which may not uphold the integrity of free speech. [-1]