SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a full-page ad taken out in major US newspapers on Monday, tech manufacturer Samsung has offered an apology for the Galaxy Note 7 smartphone, which was fitted with a faulty battery, leading to an unprecedented number of the devices exploding. In September of this year, Samsung issued a full recall; now it's promising to fully investigate the phone, Korea Herald reports.
"An important tenet of our mission is to offer best-in-class safety and quality. Recently, we fell short on this promise. For this we are truly sorry," the ad reads."A careful Note 7 investigation is underway and the findings will be shared when the process is complete...We will re-examine every aspect of the device, including all hardware, software, manufacturing and the overall battery structure. We will move as quickly as possible, but will take the time needed to get the right answers."
Is it too late? The devices have been exploding for months.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday November 10 2016, @08:34PM
Curious non-American here. What happens to the sexual assault charges/accusations now that he is president, or, if charges are not laid yet, but are after he's president? Can he pardon himself?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday November 10 2016, @08:57PM
Fantastic question, but I think the answer is no. While I don't know that definitively, Nixon did not pardon himself. It was Gerald Ford that pardoned [wikipedia.org] him.
Presidents can't pardon everyone for any reason either. IIRC, Presidents can only deal with the federal courts. So if a President or citizen were convicted in a state court under state laws, even the next President can't pardon them. In that case, it would need to be a governor :)
Seriously, Ford did establish the precedence, with the reasoning of protecting the union from divisive scandal, of pardoning a past President of their alleged crimes. Nixon resigned and was only indicted, which is exactly what is going on with Hillary Clinton right now. Quite likely under the federal courts which places her under Trump's jurisdiction (brb gotta vomit after saying that).
A wise and knowledgeable President would do that. I'm going to get popcorn ready for her hanging on the White House lawn though with Trump's known proclivities, although I hope I can afford the pay-per-view fees that he negotiates ;)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:11PM
It had always been the case that cases against the President would be deferred until they were no longer President so, for the good of the country, he couldn't be distracted/railroaded by people bringing real or questionable cases against him. This was always more rooted in custom and not written in law, but it never really occurred to any major extent before. However, the Republicans decided it was a grave and serious issue and insisted on the importance of civil cases being brought against the President when Clinton was in office. Now, if there is any cosmic justice, they get to pay the price for their relentless dogging of Clinton at all costs because, surely, it is still a grave and serious issue. Unfortunately, it really won't be cosmic karma justice because the Republicans in Congress would love to see Trump thrown out so that they can get a "true" Republican in his place; remember, they hate Trump too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:25PM
While in office, a US president is immune from prosecution for "petty" crimes.
If the House of Representatives decides that a sitting president needs to answer for "high crimes or misdemeanors", they can bring articles of impeachment against the president and vote to approve those.
If the charges are approved, the trial is then held in the Senate who judges whether an officeholder is guilty and unsuitable to remain in office or not.
The period before the January 20 inauguration is still available to charge, try, convict, and imprison President-Elect Trump via normal criminal courts.
The Constitution does not specify what happens after that.
One assumes that either Trump would govern from inside prison or that another election would need to be held.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:45PM
> The Constitution does not specify what happens after that.
> One assumes that either Trump would govern from inside prison or that another election would need to be held.
Neither.
A president incapable to fulfill his duties is replaced by his vice-president.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:12PM
This was a plot point in a "The West Wing" episode.
(Jed Bartlett had disabling episodes due to multiple sclerosis.)
The Constitution specifies that the vice-president takes over if the president DIES in office.
(Remember Edith Wilson after Woodrow had a stroke?)
...and it says nothing about someone who hasn't yet taken the oath of office.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:32PM
The constitution has nothing to say about a random citizen until the day he is sworn in.
>The Constitution specifies that the vice-president takes over if the president DIES in office.
Incorrect.
The constitution did specify "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, " (2.1.6)
And since that removal mess was still a bit ambiguous, wise people fixed the problem in 1967:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:28PM
This is a matter of unsettled law, actually. The consensus is that if a President commits illegal acts while in office, he would be impeached first, where Congress could vote to remove him from office. Assuming the vote succeeds and he is removed, criminal charges could then theoretically be filed.
But things are more murky when you're dealing with acts committed before the person assumes office. There is a 19th-century precedent that basically implied that impeachment should only apply to acts committed while in office, which leaves open the question of how exactly the legal process would work to deal with an ongoing criminal investigation on a sitting President about alleged acts before taking office.
The Constitution is also silent on the matter of whether an executive could pardon himself. But my guess is that any attempt to do so would likely result in impeachment for abuse of the powers of his office.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:30PM
Since they were pretty much all Democrat propaganda they will all probably shut up or be sued.
You seem to have no understanding of the depths the Democrats will go to when smearing someone for political gain. Remember Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas? If you don't google them.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:01PM
I absolutely do.
...and there's yet ANOTHER case of sexual abuse against him.
Clarence Thomas is a serial sexual predator.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]