ADreamOfLiberty

Laws define what motivations are improper when the mention motivations or imply motivations via the definition of words.

This conversation isn’t about an individual law, it’s about how the constitution applies to any law that seeks to hold the president accountable for his actions as president, so these concepts are relevant and necessary to address.

Impeachment and conviction by the senate or bust.

No one seriously believed that Biden could be criminally prosecuted for corruption as vice president without impeachment

Nonsense. Find one example of any prominent scholar or political figure arguing that impeachment and conviction was a necessary precursor for criminal prosecution before Trump. Ever. You won’t because it’s an absurd ad hoc rationalization that the Trump team made up whole cloth as an excuse to delay his trials.

Ok. So to be clear, when Biden loses Arizona by 9,483 votes, and he calls up the Democratic Secretary of State and tells her that he wants her to find 9,484 votes and that there is nothing wrong with telling everyone she “recalculated”, you’re going to be perfectly fine with this… right?

Troops show up after the courts decide that they are in violation, not the president.

Troops aren't under the command of courts.

Yes

Once again, impeachment is an inherently political process. The only thing it addresses is whether an office holder shall lose the power of their office. That is a completely and totally different question from whether a citizen shall lose their freedom, which is what the Justice system determines. The fact that I have to explain this is itself ridiculous.

that this absolves the defendant of being found guilty of having improper motivations

The point was to say forget that for now and *assume* this was the reason he did it. Now what?

And not for nothing, it really is amusing to me that after months and months of you arguing that you know exactly what motivated Joe Biden in Ukraine that you now act like motivations behind official acts can’t be questioned.

It's your claim not mine. Pressuring to change results is illegal over phones? Illegal when you ask the wrong people? Illegal when expressed in public? Illegal when private?

Do you believe challenging election results in court is the same thing as calling the Secretary of State and telling him to “recalculate” the results so that you win? Yes or No.

Answer the question. Or is there a reason you are dodging this?

All these questions would be answered if you know... there was a law that applied instead of your desperate inventions

Do you even read the indictments?

If you’re going to argue that the actions Trump is alleged to have taken are not illegal then present that case.

And when you do, take note that even Trump’s lawyers aren’t trying that because they know how stupid that would be.

Do you understand that the administration of an election and a constitutional amendment are two different things?

Do you know that when federal troops show up to enforce an amendment, that's kinda like the commander in chief is involved in enforcement?

Troops show up after the courts decide that they are in violation, not the president.

And yet this is how laws have been enforced all throughout human history.

Who sat in judgement at nuremberg? It wasn't a random sample of the citizens of nuremberg.

So what? What is your point?

I’d ask if you have any evidence of that but of course you don’t.

or we can apply Occam’s razor

There is no where on earth where this is a tenable principal for its citizenry to live by. You are the embodiment of a cancer on society.

so you can stop pretending you take issue with what the left is doing.

Why would I stop taking issue with people using lawfare because you define lawfare as "rule of law"?

The term lawfare gets its connotational strength by implying a wrong and inappropriate usage of the rule of law.

If there was no connection between the impeachments clause and random local courts then it would follow that the Q-Anon town could imprison a president and that president would still wield the power of their office.

That is absurd.

Yes, but what makes it absurd isn’t that no one ever thought it would be necessary to craft laws to address this possibility

That should tell you something.

We’re Taking the Capital by Storm

With an unapologetically anarchic spirit, we’ve defied the establishment by assembling a lineup of speakers who challenge the status quo and champion true freedom. We’re lining up promotions that symbolize our rejection of government control, offering attendees a taste of defiance. The debates, a battleground for radical ideas, will ignite the flames of rebellion in every heart present. And as the establishment trembles, we’ll raise a defiant toast at the reception for our chosen presidential and vice-presidential candidates, heralding the dawn of a new era of individual autonomy and liberty. This convention will stand as a testament to the indomitable spirit of libertarianism, ready to shatter the chains of oppression.

Interested in playing mafia?

Your exact words: "even if their act was entirelymotivated by personal gain?"

Correct, but you bolded the wrong part. Note the first two words quoted: “even if”. Aka even in the farthest extreme you still argue they shouldn’t be prosecuted? That was my question to you. And then you turned it around and acted as if I was implying that was the requirement. It wasn’t, just a hypothetical.

Pressuring a secretary of state to "recalculate" the results in order to hand you the victory is illegal. That is a crime. And the phone call alone proves that.

Then Al Gore is a criminal. He pressured Florida to "recalculate". Also every congress person who ever objected to electors.

So you believe challenging an election result through the courts is the same thing as calling the secretary of state and telling him to just "recalculate". Is that a serious argument?

Double R, meet reconstruction. Reconstruction, this guy needs to know about you.

Do you understand that the administration of an election and a constitutional amendment are two different things?

Now imagine 60 million people agree with the officer. You think you can live with people like that under an unrestricted government?

No, that's why it would be nice for the millions of brainwashed MAGA cultists to stop warshipping a clinical narcissist and join us in reality.

I asserted it was impossible to reject without reasonable doubt some motivations except in cases of confession.

The fact that one’s motivations can always be doubted does not make those doubts reasonable. Possible =/= reasonable to suspect.

The passion of the moment is irrelevant to the question of what motivated the murder. If it was premeditated then it would have occurred anyway. This is where the ‘but for’ test comes in. You’re trying to argue that some alternative factor also being present changes the question of why someone did something, it doesn’t.

The trials are being held in the places where the law was violated. That's how the law works.

Unacceptable.

And yet this is how laws have been enforced all throughout human history.

You should read up on the filings in the documents case.

You should probably read up on a legal dictionary. Classified by definition means it’s restricted and controlled by the government. That directly conflicts with the definition of personal.

If a cop comes to your door asking for letters, and you give him some letters but not all, that's not lying.

He made his lawyers sign affidavits telling the FBI all documents were returned despite everyone involved knowing they were not. That’s called lying.

They said they wanted more. He said come look. They swatted his house.

Total BS. Have you even read the indictment? You sound like you are getting your information from truth social.

I've said many times the crimes are made up. Stitched together from laws written for completely different contexts.

Yes I know, you say this all the time but never present a legal analysis so it’s nothing more than a meaningless rant.

Yes, unequal applications of the laws is an excuse to "violate" laws.

Then you don’t believe in the rule of law as a principal

so you can stop pretending you take issue with what the left is doing.

You care about winning and you’re pissed because you think the other side is winning. That’s it, that’s all you believe in. Thank you for making that clear.

None, so long as you admit the clear implication of the impeachments clause is to remove all jurisdiction over named office holders doing official acts to the congress of the United States of America.

No, that’s not what it implies. The impeachment process was put in place to remove office holders who have violated the trust of the people they represent and should therefore no longer wield the power of their offices. That has absolutely nothing to do with the justice system. They address fundamentally different issues so trying to combine them somehow is absurd.

Then you should have no problem bringing your prosecution. Good luck.

As an individual Sun Tzu might try to appeal to the 2000 to setup a guard around the sword so no one can get to it.

That would be even dumber than your previous claim, since its well known in warfare that trying to defend something is much harder than trying to attack it, due to stretched defense problem and supply problem.

He might try to explain that he would not oppose the survivor so he has no invincible enemy to fight.

The one who is invincible and rules the world would make everyone else his slave, or every other nation a slave while promoting his own. So yeah, Sun Tzu would not only lose chance to be great, but he would be reduced to a slave position.

The group who followed Sun Tzu had no chance of becoming invincible, because they didnt want to take risk to take the sword.

However, the other group, who risked, had over 99% chance to become invincible, as each individial had 1% chance and there were 1000 of them. 

You can, as soon as you provide evidence that the person committed a crime within a jurisdiction where the alleged defendant would be subject to the findings of a right wing jury pool. Good luck.

If you can convict anyone in any office with a jury selected from the inhabitants of Washington DC

You forgot about the part where prosecutors have to provide the evidence.

It is not possible to prove any official duty was done solely for personal gain (except confession) since by definition performing as an office holder is motivation a reasonable person could not discount.

First of all, it’s primarily for personal gain, not solely.

Pressuring a secretary of state to "recalculate" the results in order to hand you the victory is illegal. That is a crime. And the phone call alone proves that.

The framers of the constitution purposefully placed the power to administer elections in the hands of the states. The federal government has no role in overseeing them. So no, it was not his duty.

Imagine a police officer shoots a 3 year old dead and then claims he did so because he feared for his life. At that point whether he did or not is irrelevant because no reasonable person would have.

You just argued that it is not possible to know the motivations behind an official act

The deep blue inner cities are the plantations of the modern era. Authority is not given to them to decide the fate of the nation. Anyone who pretends they have that authority is the de jure aggressor in the next civil war.

The trials are being held in the places where the law was violated. That's how the law works.

And no, there is no world where classified documents are personal property.

Disputing whether the FBI had a right to the tapes is not the same thing as telling the FBI there are no tapes.

What I find most remarkable is that you aren't even trying to argue Trump didn't do what's accused, only that others did it too.

Is your position that lying to FBI investigators and destroying evidence should not be punishable? Two wrongs make a right?

Immunity (or the immunity actually implied by various constitutions) is about who can prosecute and who the defendant must be. Not whether crime is legal or not.

Right, like I said before. The person is immune from civil litigation, not criminal prosecution. So what is our disagreement here?

What legal doctrine that you acknowledge would stop them?

There is no legal doctrine that can nullify stupidity.

That's why our system depends on an adherence to the basic principals of logic and reason, evidence, and the rule of law above all else.

But every crime requires evidence to be prosecuted

Like the crime Trump was supposedly trying to obscure by labeling payments to Cohen as "legal expenses"

As in a crime that likely changed the result of a presidential election and forever alerted US history? Yes absolutely.

And it wasn't "supposed", he absolutely did.

criminal investigation for mishandling emails

and you don't have to kill baby calves for it, which was my reason for making the switch

We are telling you to just leave these people alone, and focus on your own life, because we care and want to alleviate your suffering.

Please, let us help you overcome your Transgender Dysphoria.

you're the one who asked

"how do you solve the issue of (gender) dysphoria ?"

that's like asking

"how do you solve the issue of homosexuality ?"

I suggest we outlaw outlawing assertions because some people claim that those assertions are dangerous to people who suffer from gender dysphoria. On paper this is already law (see 1st amendment), but you know there are a lot of people who don't let something like the bill of rights stop them; and of course there are all the other anglophone countries.

ok, so you're against outlawing trans people

because i don't understand why any of this bothers people so much

i certainly see no danger in promoting the "trans agenda"

don't knock it till you've tried it

saying that jesus loves me and takes a personal interest in my life is also delusion 

Yes, and a dangerous one when people start trying to criminalize anyone who denies it.

are you suggesting we should outlaw gender dysphoria ?

Also, Kristi Noem is a woman.

People kill billions of animals a year.

I really dont see what you have to complain about about Kristi Noem.

Do you believe a president who appoints someone for cash to a high position is immune? Appointing someone is after all an official act.

it is common practice for large campaign contributor to receive ambassadorships

you're arguing that there will be an apocalypse of suicides if we don't get this gender identity thing "under control" ?

Those are not delusions. Saying someone without a ovaries has an ovulation, that is delusion.

saying that jesus loves me and takes a personal interest in my life is also delusion 

 the issue was created to get attention. It worked,

i guess that means you're playing right into their hands

There are two and only two genuine solutions:

you forgot solution number three

don't look up their skirts

[Sidewalker] Two weeks before the 2020 election, Trump insisted that Barr arrest Biden and his family, Barr refused.

The same system we’ve been using for 250 years.

If it was Lincoln would have been taken out by a bunch of slavers who conveniently moved to DC and sat on a jury finding him guilty of conspiring with the moon to destroy the sun.

Is there a point you are trying to make here?

No congressmen, Senator, or judge has ever faced prosecution? Wow that’s news to me.

Not for official acts without impeachment.

I’m sure there are plenty of examples

are you ascribing to the theory that if someone acts in “an official capacity” then they are and should be immune from prosecution even if their act was entirely motivated by personal gain?

Or how about if a VP decided to use the power of US foreign policy for the sole purpose of getting a foreign prosecutor fired just to protect his son? Is that individual (rightfully) immune?

Ask a slaver. This isn't about reality but who decides.

This is a debate site so it’s supposed to be about examining rational thought, but you’d have to offer some for that conversation to take place.

Reality is Trump didn't violate any laws that everybody else didn't violate 10 times worse.

How many people have taken classified documents from the WH (including nuclear secrets), refused to give them back, lied to the FBI about having them, moved the documents to evade detection, and ordered the evidence of all of this to be destroyed… and wasn’t prosecuted?

My position is that no crime should be immune, and I can’t believe that’s even controversial.

I understand immunity against civil litigation because in some positions, actions that will adversely impact someone is not avoidable. Imagine if every time a police officer made a wrongful arrest the officer could be sued personally - no one would want the job.

But this doesn’t mean officers get to use their badge as a license to murder someone.

As if assessing a persons motivations is not one of the most basic elements of human nature that we all engage in and use to formulate opinions about people we meet every single day of our lives.

But every crime requires evidence to be prosecuted

if you don’t have it you’ve got nothing. That’s how it should work.

B) People (especially children) being sterilized and then later realizing they wanted biological children and can barely attract a mate much less pass their genes on.

do you believe parents should be allowed to make life and death decisions for their own children ?

C) Families being broken up by a disagreement over gender identity

the number one cause of families breaking up is FINANCIAL STRESS

maybe try tackling that one first

being trans is not automatically a "problem to solve"

No, I used the holocaust in an ad absurdum argument to disprove the premise that "If a thing occurred before an event, that event could not increase the frequency of that thing (or make it worse etc...)"

If that premise was true we could discard the holocaust, after all people have been murdered for being jews since there were jews.

jesus, ok, you just jump straight to "holocaust" every time you encounter a pretty standard "slippery slope" argument ?

i don't think anyone was suggesting the gender thing "will never increase in frequency"

[ADOL] People killing themselves for reasons (A), (B), and (C).

i think the general argument here is, TRANS PEOPLE DREAM OF LIBERTY

you know, to dress however they feel like dressing and talking however the fuck they feel like talking and telling you what they look like naked if and when they feel like telling you what they look like naked

they just want normal individual LIBERTY, do you know what i'm talking about ?

do you want the cops to tell you what clothes you can and can't wear ?

That in no way disproves the assertion that delusions are problematic.

there are thousands of delusions that are demonstrably MORE problematic than what pronoun someone personally prefers

A) People attracting homosexuals, then rejecting them because they claim to be heterosexual (even though they are in reality seeking a homosexual relationship)

who gives a fuck ?

straight people get mad about getting rejected by STRAIGHT people all the time anyway

they've even fought wars over it

It's not who votes, but who counts the votes.

I never thought I would see you quoting Stalin.

All I can say is if Democrat's loose the election, all the Dems involved in these clown show trails better be prepared for the same onslaught being brought upon them.   Ya'll set the precedent. This is how its going to be from here on out in every Presidential election.

Do you know where Trump was when he called Raffensburger? Do you know where Germany is?

do you know where the contract was signed ?

A jurisdiction clause, also known as a choice of law or forum selection clause, is a crucial provision often included in commercial contracts. It establishes the jurisdiction or court that will have the authority to resolve any disputes that may arise between the parties involved in the contract. This clause plays a significant role in defining the legal framework within which contractual issues will be resolved.

No, it's as long as you connect the so called crime to your territory or people no matter how many steps or how tenuous the connection.

is this west virginia thing based on a real case or are you just making this stuff up on the fly ?

I proposed nothing. I answered your questions.

you said gender dysphoria is like the holocaust

The growth curve is identical to a contagion.

i wouldn't worry too much about it

i can pretty much guarantee you're immune

You didn't answer the question.

the question answers itself

do you know what a state is ?

as long as you know WHERE the crime was committed

I’ll answer your question. It’s subjective. You can find jurisdiction where they let you

When you really press them about why it bothers them so much, they tend to talk about it as if it's contagious, I think that is very telling.

Ah, so if West Virginia makes a rule, they have standing.

within their jurisdiction

So no harm needs to be quantified?

the maker of the rules has automatic standing to enforce the rules they make

Kinda like how Trump fully repaying a European bank was zero quantifiable material harm to New York?

any technical violation of the law within the jurisdiction of new york state can be prosecuted by that state

for reasons (A), (B), and (C)

i'm pretty certain all of those things were happening long before the term "gender identity" 

For instance there is a presumption that anyone who violates any criminal statute has injured the public. That's why the court case is THE STATE vs THE ACCUSED. Yet for some reason you thought there would be no legal standing for West Virginia to prosecute Obama for murder.

zero quantifiable material harm to the state of west virginia

One lunatic claiming he is a god is a problem for that lunatic and a few others who interact with him. 50,000 people claiming the lunatic is a god is a problem for a whole lot more than 50,000 people.

what's the hypothetical "worst case scenario"

for people "misgendering" themselves ?