-->
@Double_R
there is no legal precedent for charging someone with "defrauding voters" for killing a story
Presidential Immunity
Posts
Total:
332
-->
@3RU7AL
Like personal expenses, campaign contributions are not deductible. 26 U.S.C. 162(e)(1)(B). So no matter the reason the President paid his alleged former lovers, his business could not legally have deducted the expense. There is no way out of that legal corner.
-->
@FLRW
Like personal expenses, campaign contributions are not deductible. 26 U.S.C. 162(e)(1)(B). So no matter the reason the President paid his alleged former lovers, his business could not legally have deducted the expense. There is no way out of that legal corner.
are you suggesting trump claimed the "legal retainer" (paid from a personal bank account) expense as a tax deduction ?
-->
@3RU7AL
No, the $130,000 the Trump Organization paid Cohen.
-->
@FLRW
No, the $130,000 the Trump Organization paid Cohen.
as a tax deductible "legal expense"
ok, so all of this "defrauding voters" stuff is what, incidental ?
falsely claiming a tax deduction for personal expenses can be considered tax fraud, which is a felony offense
so, there's your felony
why is this case not focused on that simple fact ?
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no legal precedent for Donald Trump, that’s for sure. The Founders never thought such a despicable person such as Trump could become President. But they never anticipated the future MAGA MORONS of America. They invented the electoral college to guard against stupid voters but that safety valve has been gutted over the years.
Here is the indictment for you to better understand
Structuring payments in a way to conceal their true intent is illegal. We do that so law enforcement can identify criminal activity. Drug dealing for example.
So Trump’s attempt to structure the reimbursement to Cohen was in and of itself a crime.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Here is the indictment for you to better understand
your link is paywalled
"They invented the electoral college to guard against stupid voters"
"our democracy" != democracy
-->
@3RU7AL
Responsible American citizens have subscriptions to real newspapers. Because to be a responsible citizen, you need to stay informed.
You're going to get indoctrinated, you're going to pay for it, and you're going to like it.
That’s what MAGA MORONS call education- indoctrination
And prosecution is persecution
That’s why so many are stupid, convicted criminals
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Discretion exists to the degree of imperfection in the law.
And the laws will always be imperfect, because no two situations are exactly the same. That's why descretion is, has always been, and will always be necessary when it comes to enforcing the law, just as it is within every society on earth as well we every society that has ever existed all throughout human history.
To the Jim Crow southern sheriff being black was enough proof of being a troublemaker. That was the context they needed to pull over a black guy. People who believe in the fallacy you just expressed tie themselves in endless loops "oh discretion is good, but not for the wrong reasons..." bla bla bla
So basically; people have used descretion to effectively outlaw being black therefore descretion itself is bad.
This has essentially been your position all throughout. You're not arguing against "my" application of the law, you're arguing against the very idea that applying thought towards enforcement of the law is itself the problem. And of course you do this completely ignoring the fact that it is literally impossible to interpret what laws mean and how they would apply to any situation without it.
You mean like noting that all classification authority flows from POTUS and if he isn't authorized then no one is?
Are you seriously about to go down the whole "Trump can declassify documents with his mind" path?
-->
@3RU7AL
there is no legal precedent for charging someone with "defrauding voters" for killing a story
The case is far more complicated than that, but setting that aside... If no prior legal precedent was a valid reason for acquittal then no crime could have ever been charged under our legal system.
-->
@Double_R
The case is far more complicated than that, but setting that aside... If no prior legal precedent was a valid reason for acquittal then no crime could have ever been charged under our legal system.
your claim is provably false
if a crime is clearly defined in the law
it doesn't matter if there is a legal precedent or not
-->
@Double_R
To the Jim Crow southern sheriff being black was enough proof of being a troublemaker. That was the context they needed to pull over a black guy. People who believe in the fallacy you just expressed tie themselves in endless loops "oh discretion is good, but not for the wrong reasons..." bla bla blaSo basically; people have used descretion to effectively outlaw being black therefore descretion itself is bad.
For example.
In general, the reason laws exist is to remove discretion from government to minimize tyranny and abuse. Laws are pointless (or worse) to the degree they allow discretion.
Using it to persecute blacks is one of an infinite number of ways it can be abused, but they are all described by the same category "unequal application of the laws". Furthermore if you familiarize yourself with the debates behind the 14th amendment you'll learn that "equal protection" does not mean "don't write laws that only effect some 'types' of people", it instead means "discretion to enforce laws is unlawful".
In other words, when the KKK hangs black people from a tree, it is a violation of the constitution to decline to enforce murder statutes.
This true meaning has been obscured and hidden by many courts since while the amendment has been twisted and mutilated to mean absurd things such as "if you have a team, it can't be gender segregated"
We have been reaping the bitter fruits of this corruption and this lawfare against a presidential candidate is the culmination of the fallacy; perhaps the final dose of poison.
Why is this so corrosive? When laws are not enforced equally, then those whom are more protected from the implication of the laws than others have no motivation to avoid or repeal unjust laws. It is the opposite of the rule of law, "discretion" is arbitrary power disguised in the skin of law.
We live now in a time where theory is accompanied by daily experiment. https://justthenews.com/government/local/ny-state-senator-calls-bill-he-voted-unconstitutional-after-hes-hit-rape-lawsuit
After voting for it, a senator says that a law is unconstitutional when it was used against him.
1.) That is how you know it was a bill of attainder
2.) This is what equal application would prevent
the very idea that applying thought towards enforcement of the law is itself the problem.
"thought", that is a strawman. The thinking that is appropriate is thinking about what the law says and whether the acts are objectively part of the category. Your burning hatred of orangeman is not "thought" no matter how much you masquerade it as something rational.
You deny that hatred like cops deny racism, there is no solution to that problem.
You can't prove the cops are racist, but you can keep them from abusing people via equal protection.
You mean like noting that all classification authority flows from POTUS and if he isn't authorized then no one is?Are you seriously about to go down the whole "Trump can declassify documents with his mind" path?
I'm all the way down that path and always have been. If your claim is that classified documents can't be in the possession of ex-presidents then by the very act of taking them home a president declassifies them in the same way that he declassifies information by making a million copies and handing them out at a public rally (which he should have done). Even further any law that tried to keep secrets from the president would be unconstitutional.
It's as deeply lawful as anything in this country can get. You may as well be accusing his right hand from stealing from the left.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In general, the reason laws exist is to remove discretion from government to minimize tyranny and abuse. Laws are pointless (or worse) to the degree they allow discretion.
well stated
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
the very idea that applying thought towards enforcement of the law is itself the problem."thought", that is a strawman. The thinking that is appropriate is thinking about what the law says and whether the acts are objectively part of the category.
That's exactly my point, in many if not most cases there is no such thing as an objective determination that any given act matches to what the law describes. That is the part that inescapably requires thought, and that is the very reason why we rely on judges, lawyers, and to some extent juries to decipher it. That is why we have an appeals process, and eventually a supreme court. If the legality of all charges were objective we wouldn't be subjected to hours worth of absurd hypotheticals in oral arguments as justices try to figure out how to rule on a legal challenge.
the reason laws exist is to remove discretion from government to minimize tyranny and abuse.
Remove descretion *as much as reasonably possible*. Because again, removing it entirely is not humanly possible.
I shouldn't have to argue this because it's plainly obvious, but I do because that's what you're relying on to hold your position.
You try to claim what Trump did with his documents and what Biden did with his documents is the same. You can't possibly make that argument with logic and reason, so you try to make this a purely legal argument (despite having no qualifications). That attempt goes no where either because you still have the same problem so you end up with no other argument but to remove the very concept of descretion and subjective determination from the application of laws themselves, a tactic that would work against any charge if accepted which is exactly why it fails.
Laws are pointless (or worse) to the degree they allow discretion.Using it to persecute blacks is one of an infinite number of ways it can be abused
Anything can be abused, the possibility of abuse doesn't in an of itself doesn't justify it's removal (otherwise you'd be fighting to remove the 2nd amendment).
The remedy is to ensure checks against abuse, which our system of justice has plenty of. The problem is that no amount of checks could ever possibly be sufficient against a cult ideology wherein anyone who attempts to hold the cult leader accountable is de facto corrupt. That's like trying to change the mind of a flat earther.
Are you seriously about to go down the whole "Trump can declassify documents with his mind" path?I'm all the way down that path and always have been. If your claim is that classified documents can't be in the possession of ex-presidents then by the very act of taking them home a president declassifies them
Oh my god. Of course you believe this nonsense.
Please explain something then... If a president declassifies something in his mind, how does the rest of the government know to treat the information as such?
-->
@3RU7AL
if a crime is clearly defined in the lawit doesn't matter if there is a legal precedent or not
But you are arguing that this charge isn't clearly defined into law, so that is irrelevant. The question is; how to we handle charges of crimes that are not clearly defined?
Answer: we litigate them and use those results as precedent for future cases.
Therefore, your original statement that there is no legal precedent for this is irrelevant. That's not an argument against the charges.
-->
@Double_R
Therefore, your original statement that there is no legal precedent for this is irrelevant. That's not an argument against the charges.
right, but the alleged "crime" is COMMON PRACTICE
if killing a story in the middle of an election was rare, or unprecedented, then there might be an argument for it being a "crime"
-->
@3RU7AL
right, but the alleged "crime" is COMMON PRACTICE
I don't think newspapers paying for stories so that they could not report them is common practice, but that's just a hunch.
if killing a story in the middle of an election was rare, or unprecedented, then there might be an argument for it being a "crime"
The argument is to look at what the law says and determine whether the actions alleged meet the definition. What's not an argument is to claim that because other people have done the same thing it is no longer illegal.
What exactly is your issue here? You don't seem very interested in understanding the law since you keep bringing this up but haven't attempted anythin a single legal argument. So what is it? Are you claiming this is lawfare like ADOL? Are you claiming this is morally wrong? What is your issue, and why?
-->
@Double_R
the very idea that applying thought towards enforcement of the law is itself the problem."thought", that is a strawman. The thinking that is appropriate is thinking about what the law says and whether the acts are objectively part of the category.That's exactly my point, in many if not most cases there is no such thing as an objective determination that any given act matches to what the law describes.
If I were to teach a class on how to debate, and someone asked me "how do you know you've won (and are no longer hearing anything relevant)", my answer:
When they start to talk about subjectivity.
Subjectivism is the adult version of a toddler saying answering "why" with "because".
the reason laws exist is to remove discretion from government to minimize tyranny and abuse.Remove descretion *as much as reasonably possible*. Because again, removing it entirely is not humanly possible.I shouldn't have to argue this because it's plainly obvious
You were saying discretion was good (because it lets me get Trump hint hint) a few posts ago.
so you try to make this a purely legal argument (despite having no qualifications)
When laws can't be understood by an average citizen you're not living in a free country. I declare any law that requires college to be understood to be unconstitutionally vague, obtuse, or esoteric. Now the funniest thing you could respond with is "Did you get a degree in constitutional law? Then you can't make such a declaration!"
Anything can be abused, the possibility of abuse doesn't in an of itself doesn't justify it's removal
That's what I say about certain unpopular sexual practices. The difference here is that there is no justified use case for discretion. Even "leniency" can be used for oppression since the net result is that they make the maximum penalties ridiculously oppressive with the knowledge that they'll only smash the people that really annoy them, or as the case may be challenge government corruption.
No one would agree to a month in jail for speeding if everyone who sped spent a month in jail. The man who spends a month in jail "for" speeding (while telling a cop he's an asshole) is not experiencing "justice".
The remedy is to ensure checks against abuse
The remedy is equal application, clear definition, and fixed ethical framework (like from a bill of rights).
Please explain something then... If a president declassifies something in his mind, how does the rest of the government know to treat the information as such?
Depends on the context.
If he starts reading off classified materials on public television, then the rest of the executive branch can infer from context that the entire population of the world has not just become authorized recipients of state secrets, nor should they conclude that the entire population of the world are now in violation of some obscure and poorly (overly broad and vague) law about keeping government secrets.
Rather they should infer that the information is no longer classified.
By the same token, if it is illegal for former presidents (or former vice presidents) to possess classified material one nanosecond after leaving office, then they should infer that anything POTUS moved or ordered to be moved to personal property is no longer classified. They should further infer that anything POTUS allowed his underlings to take personal possession of and did not order them to return before leaving office is also declassified.
Alternatively they could infer that authorization to possess classified materials survives the end of office and that is non-revocable for former presidents since if it was revocable they would simply declassify everything they wanted to keep before the end of the term.
Now this is something you may not have encountered in your preferred sources of commentary. It's often described as "common sense" or "an interpretation that doesn't imply absurdities".
It answers questions like "Why isn't every former president and all their staff in jail" and many other questions under that umbrella, such as "why would Joe Biden think having a bunch of classified stuff in a box in his garage is fine?"
The question is; how to we handle charges of crimes that are not clearly defined?
I have an idea: don't pretend charges exist when there is no law being violated and don't pretend a law is being violated when you just fucking admitted no crime was clearly defined.
One of the main advantages of this strategy is that you don't violate the 5th and 14th amendments of the US constitution and thereby exclude yourself from the privileges of the social contract (also known as being a domestic enemy).
-->
@Double_R
I don't think newspapers paying for stories so that they could not report them is common practice, but that's just a hunch.
list ten examples of politicians hiding information about an affair during an election
1. John Edwards
2. Gary Hart
3. Bill Clinton
4. Mark Sanford
5. Eliot Spitzer
6. Anthony Weiner
7. Gavin Newsom
8. Jesse Jackson
9. Larry Craig
10. Arnold Schwarzenegger
7. Gavin Newsom
8. Jesse Jackson
9. Larry Craig
10. Arnold Schwarzenegger
-->
@Double_R
You don't seem very interested in understanding the law since you keep bringing this up but haven't attempted anythin a single legal argument.
you've specifically and repeatedly stated that you don't want to get into the legal details
all of the cases prosecuted under statutes using the language of "defrauded voters" are cases of ballot tampering
1. The 1876 election in Florida, known as the "Great Fraud of 1876."
2. The 1948 Texas Senate election, where ballot tampering was alleged.
3. The 1982 Illinois gubernatorial election, involving voter fraud and ballot tampering.
4. The 2004 mayoral election in East Chicago, Indiana, marred by ballot tampering.
5. The 2018 North Carolina 9th Congressional District election, which led to a new due to ballot tampering.
6. The 2020 municipal election in Paterson, New Jersey, where ballot tampering was uncovered.
7. The 1960 presidential election in Chicago, with allegations of ballot tampering.
8. The 2000 presidential election in Florida, with the infamous "hanging chads" controversy.
9. The 2013 mayoral election in Troy, New York, involving ballot tampering.
10. The 2016 Brexit referendum in the UK, with concerns raised about ballot tampering.
2. The 1948 Texas Senate election, where ballot tampering was alleged.
3. The 1982 Illinois gubernatorial election, involving voter fraud and ballot tampering.
4. The 2004 mayoral election in East Chicago, Indiana, marred by ballot tampering.
5. The 2018 North Carolina 9th Congressional District election, which led to a new due to ballot tampering.
6. The 2020 municipal election in Paterson, New Jersey, where ballot tampering was uncovered.
7. The 1960 presidential election in Chicago, with allegations of ballot tampering.
8. The 2000 presidential election in Florida, with the infamous "hanging chads" controversy.
9. The 2013 mayoral election in Troy, New York, involving ballot tampering.
10. The 2016 Brexit referendum in the UK, with concerns raised about ballot tampering.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When laws can't be understood by an average citizen you're not living in a free country. I declare any law that requires college to be understood to be unconstitutionally vague, obtuse, or esoteric.
CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's exactly my point, in many if not most cases there is no such thing as an objective determination that any given act matches to what the law describes.If I were to teach a class on how to debate, and someone asked me "how do you know you've won (and are no longer hearing anything relevant)", my answer:When they start to talk about subjectivity.
Thank you for proving yet again what I've been saying; your schtick is transparent and predictable.
What you should be teaching the class is how to bullshit your way out of a position you can't defend. The only reason I'm here talking about subjectivity is because you are the one claiming it should never be a part of the legal process. So you brought subjectivity into the debate and are now claiming you're winning the debate because I'm talking about it. That's just plain stupid.
Your argument is essentially:
P1: Subjectivity in legal charges is bad
P2: the charges against Trump are subjective
C: the charges against Trump are bad
This is why I have to talk about subjectivity and the absurdity of an argument that relies on premises that can be used against literally any charge that has ever been brought against anyone, ever. All one has to do is play the infinite regress game until we find a point where subjectivity is required to proceed, then declare everything after it subjective, which is exactly what you've been doing.
This is why it is meaningful and relevant to talk about which actions are worse, because that is an inescapable factor in any law that has ever been crafted. But that's the conversation you refuse to have. Why? Because your position that what they did is the same is absurd and you know it.
When laws can't be understood by an average citizen you're not living in a free country. I declare any law that requires college to be understood to be unconstitutionally vague, obtuse, or esoteric.
Then go start your own country, because the founding fathers of this country understood that laws have be applied to real life, which will always be complicated. That's why the right to an attorney was built into the constitution.
The man who spends a month in jail "for" speeding (while telling a cop he's an asshole) is not experiencing "justice".
Correct. Perhaps next you can tell me what this has to do with anything I've argued.
Rather they should infer that the information is no longer classified.
So your conception of how classification of national secrets works is inference. I would really love to see how your "clear definition" of the law would apply to someone who shares US secrets with a foreign advasary without authorization. Cause you know, they inferred it must be ok.
It answers questions like "Why isn't every former president and all their staff in jail" and many other questions under that umbrella, such as "why would Joe Biden think having a bunch of classified stuff in a box in his garage is fine?"
Every former president and their staffs are not in jail because none of them repeatedly lied to the FBI telling them they didn't have the documents the government was asking to give back, none of them started moving their troves of government documents from location to location to evade detection, and none of them attempted to destroy the evidence of their crimes afterwards.
Joe Biden didn't "think it was ok". That is why he returned them immediately upon discovering them without anyone even noticing they were missing, and then fully cooperated with them as they searched every other location he could have possibly had more documents.
don't pretend a law is being violated when you just fucking admitted no crime was clearly defined.
A law being "clearly defined" (a completely subjective determination) is not a requirement for enforcing that law. What it means is that it's enforcement may have to run through some additional hurdles (as in judges, an appeals process and ultimately a jury) before it can be declared that the law in question was violated.
It's not an "admission", it's a basic understanding of how laws work.
And btw, there will always be laws that are not clearly defined so long as laws are written by human beings. That is not (as you would predictably argue) an endorsement of legal ambiguity, it's a recognition of reality.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If I were to teach a class on how to debate, and someone asked me "how do you know you've won (and are no longer hearing anything relevant)", my answer:When they start to talk about subjectivity.
Also: context magic. There is a reason why this case was dropped multiple times between now and 2016.
The entire case revolves around the possibility that Trump used campaign funds because....well it makes sense....kinda....sorta....let's just talk about it.
Now the court has to convince a jury that a felonious man who repeatedly slandered Trump with multiple violations of attorney/client privilege can be believed that an expenditure that was never reported as a campaign expense was actually a campaign expense....according to one man alone... and because that man cares about justice, not revenge. Just because an expenditure is campaign related does NOT mean campaign funds were used. A critical distinction censored by most biased media outlets.
-->
@Double_R
So you brought subjectivity into the debate
That is incorrect.
Your argument is essentially:P1: Subjectivity in legal charges is badP2: the charges against Trump are subjectiveC: the charges against Trump are bad
It would never have assumed you would cede P2, but you said there are no objective charges which means they are all subjective; then this argument wins.
P1 is also more general, in the realm of rationality the subjective is indistinguishable from the unreal.
This is why I have to talk about subjectivity and the absurdity of an argument that relies on premises that can be used against literally any charge that has ever been brought against anyone, ever.
It is an absurd conclusion, but the error is in the premise that whether an act is criminal is subjective, which is your assertion; not mine.
Then go start your own country
See if you can hold on to this one with all these lies. I don't think it's going well.
I would really love to see how your "clear definition" of the law would apply to someone who shares US secrets with a foreign advasary without authorization. Cause you know, they inferred it must be ok.
If the inference is correct they were authorized. If they were elected POTUS then action and authorization are identical.
Every former president and their staffs are not in jail because none of them repeatedly lied to the FBI telling them they didn't have the documents the government was asking to give back, none of them started moving their troves of government documents from location to location to evade detection, and none of them attempted to destroy the evidence of their crimes afterwards.
How many of them thought about climbing mount Everest? That's just as relevant to the determination of criminal retention.
Joe Biden didn't "think it was ok".
Then it was willful.
A law being "clearly defined" (a completely subjective determination) is not a requirement for enforcing that law
Definitely going into the quote list.
If you believe the meaning of laws is subjective there is nothing to debate on that subject and I will remind you every-time that you claim a law was violated that you should limit your public assertions to the objectively verifiable.
As to the opening assertions of this thread, I say I am presidentially immune from prosecution; your subjective opinion on the matter doesn't beat my subjective opinion.
End of thread, thank you all for playing, isn't subjectivism interesting?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Definitely going into the quote list.
It's as though SCOTUS judges don't have these things called...dictionaries...
Well, most of the judges that can look up the word "woman"
-->
@Greyparrot
If I were to teach a class on how to debate, and someone asked me "how do you know you've won (and are no longer hearing anything relevant)", my answer:When they start to talk about subjectivity.Also context magic.
Both excuses to avoid giving actual reasons.
The entire case revolves around the possibility that Trump used campaign funds because....well it makes sense....kinda....sorta....let's just talk about it.
Well he didn't, but as Vivek pointed out; if he had they would have called that a fraudulent use of campaign funds and attacked him on that. Basically if your name is DJT you aren't allowed to spend money and run for office at the same time.
Now the court has to convince a jury that a felonious man who repeatedly slandered Trump can be believed that an expenditure that was never reported as a campaign expense was actually a campaign expense....according to one man alone... and because that man cares about justice, not revenge.
When there are this many layers of utter failure and absurdity it's easy to become focused on the innermost layer, but after a decade of debating I have found that can be very dangerous.
Emphasis should be kept on the most fundamental error and when mentioning others being sure to point out they are less fundamental.
So yes, Cohen is one of the weakest witnesses (by objective indicators) in the history of common law. Bringing in an convicted & confessed perjurer embittered ex-wife who owes money as a character witnesses would have a similar weight.
Cohen's claims are far from the real issue. The real issue is that Trump had every right to solicit and pay for a NDA (regardless of whether he did). The real issue is that "legal expenses" is not false. There is no underlying crime, there is no accessory crime.
When I say there is no underlying crime I mean they have not proven the act and there is no law that says it is criminal.
The most outrageous is the fact that they are attempting to charge an accessory crime without the so called underlying crime even being charged. Previously in this thread Double R used obtaining a car as an example of an accessory crime when it is used as a get away car.
They are charging Donald Trump with being an accessory to a bank robbery for buying a car when there is no conviction of robbing the bank. In other words, he just bought a car.
In other words Donald Trump is facing jail time because they claim he did something perfectly legal in the service of something else that is perfectly legal via a proxy and they can't even prove that he actually ordered the perfectly legal things because his proxy is so untrustworthy.
It is reminiscent of the monty python sketch where "robbers" plot to acquire jewelry by paying for it.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The main reason why they CANNOT charge Trump with a campaign finance violation is because he would then be able to easily win that part of the case (due to lack of evidence), and then there would be no hush money trial....