Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Thursday November 10 2016, @06:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the too-little-too-late? dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:28PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:28PM (#425324) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2