Iowa federal judge apologizes for comments about Trump pardons

[Judi Lynn]

Jordan Williams 11 hrs ago

An Iowa federal judge is apologizing for comments criticizing then-President Trump for multiple pardons that he issued in his last days in office.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt came under fire in December after telling The Associated Press in an interview that "it's not surprising that criminals like Trump pardon other criminals."

"Apparently to get a pardon, one has to be either a Republican, a convicted child murderer or a turkey," Pratt said at the time.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa posted a letter from Pratt on Monday addressing the comments. In the letter dated April 16, the judge said he accepts that his comments constituted "cognizable misconduct," adding they could be construed as "inappropriate partisan statements."

More:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/iowa-federal-judge-apologizes-for-comments-about-trump-pardons/ar-AALFVWv?li=BBnbfcL

[Skittles]

1. what did he say that was wrong?

[SheltieLover]

2. Wondering the same thing.

[Baitball Blogger]

7. A case of speaking the quiet parts, out loud.

Inside voice went truthful.

[lagomorph777]

10. I can't find the bad part.

[secondwind]

3. He should not have apologized.

[diane in sf]

4. Seems pretty accurate. Too bad he apologized.

[mdbl]

5. He's probably trying to minimize the death threats to his family

by weird, asshole, unhinged and whacked out armed trumpers.

[cab67]

6. the problem isn't what he said.

It's the fact that he's a federal judge. They're supposed to at least pretend to be non-partisan.

[speak easy]

8. He ought have been more careful before slandering

convicted child murderers.

[cab67]

12. In no way do I disagree.

The issue here is a federal judge making statements that imply guilt on someone who hasn't been charged (yet) with federal crimes, but who could easily (and hopefully) face them. It's seen as prejudicial.

[lagomorph777]

11. That's so quaint.

Haven't seen any sign of that on the right lately.

[cab67]

13. Not saying I like it.

Just explaining that federal judges implying that someone who hasn't been charged might be guilty of something, even if that person is flagrantly guilty, is frowned upon.

RW conservative judges say a lot of stupid shit, but off-the-cuff statements implying someone might be guilty of something would bring equally swift condemnation from the legal community.

[3Hotdogs]

9. Will he be able to repeal the retraction after Trump is convicted?