Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Now imagine that nobody was indicted for burglary but you're still getting charged with a felony as an accessory.Sounds pretty messed up. Do you have a point?
Yea. There is no real court case against Trump in New York because the analog of the burglary was a vaguely alluded to campaign finance violation that was never charged much less convicted.
This means there is no genuine court standing in judgement of Trump and you are a hack with no principles.
The constitution protects the federal government from fake courts in insane pockets of seditious zealots via the impeachments clause, but because you are a hack you don't acknowledge that too. You are just crossing your fingers and hoping the right-tribe zealots don't have the gumption to follow suite, but it's a bad bet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
so, NOT specifically paid with campaign money
No, that's still not the same issue.
There is campaign spending (in theory) and there is campaign money.
Campaign money comes from registered and monitored escrow accounts. When you donate to a campaign the money goes into those accounts. There are all sorts of limits about who can give how much when. I think typically a candidate is allowed to spend as much of their personal money on a campaign as they want BUT they still need to route it through a registered account due to election laws requiring transparency.
Spending money on a campaign with any money regardless of whether it was personal or a donation when you don't disclose it would be a violation of the law (or FEC policy hard to keep track of the difference these days).
They are claiming that hush money is a campaign expenditure therefore it should have been paid out through the campaign account(s) and failure to do so is illegal shadow campaigning. If Trump had paid Cohen from the campaign account, then you could say it was "campaign money", then you could say "people donated to silence Stormy Daniels". That did not happen.
These laws are reminiscent of zoning laws in that nobody really knows what they mean and you can use them to go after anyone.
They have been twisted to attack right-tribers before, see Dinesh D'Souza.
In the case of these Cohen payments though, it is beyond all pale. A payment from a personal account to a lawyer labeled as "legal expenses" has now been declared to be "campaign spending" without any input from the FEC or anyone involved.
Basically if you went out to buy an apple, they'll claim you're trying to illegally hide campaign spending because if you don't eat you'll look unhealthy on camera and that might hurt your chances. If you said "I would have bought that apple anyway" they're saying "No you would buy something unhealthy like a snickers bar, our jury will decide these matters".
Sane people know campaign spending is when you spend money on advertisements, leaflets, mailers, campaign events. It does not include anything else that could possibly be explicable without a campaign. The Politico article you reference is stretching until you can see through it to even describe it so loosely.
As you pointed out, if non-disclosure agreements WHICH HAPPEN ALL THE TIME were always campaign spending then what about arnold schwarzenegger and the countless other examples of paid non-disclosure?
Why is it that seeking to negotiate and execute non-disclosure agreements is listed on the portfolios of thousands of lawyers? I have a theory: It's a legal practice, which means paying for it is a legal expense.
HILARIOUSLY they can't even prove Trump wanted to pay Daniels to be quiet even though he has ABSOLUTELY EVERY RIGHT TO DO THAT and TO LABEL IT "LEGAL EXPENSES"
How many hoops was that?
1.) Redefine "defrauding the voter" to include what Facebook did to the New York Post
2.) Redefine campaign spending to include pervasive legal negotiations that had never been held to be campaign spending before
3.) Ignore the fact that the underlying "crime" was never charged
4.) Redefine paying a lawyer for legal services as "anything but legal expenses"
5.) Rely only on the word of a convicted and admitted liar to establish an intent to seek a non-disclosure agreement
6.) Bring Stormy on to talk about fictional sex where she felt drugged and powerless when it's totally irreverent to the already (see 1-5) totally insane case
7.) Judge fails to recuse himself even though daughter is raising millions on getting Trump
That's seven fucking bananas on the famous Dershowitz "banana republic" scale.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's also never been considered "campaign spending" regulated by the FEC. It still is not, but pseudo-courts are content to pretend.using campaign funds and falsifying records is a MISDEMEANOR
No, it was not campaign funds. The insane claim is that since they can imagine that he didn't want sex scandals to harm his chances of election ANY payment regarding non-disclosure settlements is campaign spending.
falsifying records
There is no falsifying records. Paying a lawyer means "legal fees" is substantially true.
and if they left it at that i'm sure trump would be more than happy to pay the fine
I wouldn't be happy with that. What happens when they start stealing huge amounts of money from candidates who aren't ultra rich?
It is morally and practically unacceptable to make up crimes regardless of how light the punishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
this is not a crimethis has never been a crime
It's also never been considered "campaign spending" regulated by the FEC. It still is not, but pseudo-courts are content to pretend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Suspending a news outlet and anyone who quotes that outlet is quintessential suppression.Wow, I didn't know that refusing to comment on a story = suppressing that story.
So why aren't you going after Trump for suppressing the laptop story?
He didn't suppress it and it's your absurd legal theory not mine.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
youtube is trying to convince me that israel is 100% "justified"
Youtube is trying to convince me that Israel indiscriminately bombing civilians but that is an extraordinary claim given the context and history and I won't believe it just because clearly delusional people say it.
By clearly delusional I mean the "queers for Palestine" type. They want to kill anyone who for any reason describes themselves as queer. They've been asked and that is what they answer.
The ARI is correct about the big picture. Israel is a child of "western" civilization which means liberal civilization which walks the path laid out by Socrates, Aristotle, etc... etc.. all the way to John Locke and Voltaire.
What people call "palestininans" (but which are in fact reactionary Muslims of the region with no special ethnic or cultural distinction) are dark age theocrats with a nasty streak of cruelty.
That doesn't mean Israel is flawless or there aren't innocent people in Gaza and the west bank, but it does mean that when Israel offers a two state solution and Hamas slaps it down because they want to kill any Jews that look at them funny, I have no conflicted feelings because they are the architects of their own suffering. Gaza chose Hamas like Germany chose Hitler. Politics have consequences and those consequences are not fair to individuals.
Something tells me they aren't launching rocks, rockets, or going on raids to rape and kill as many Jews as they can.something tells me they're still getting their homes confiscated and their water storage sabotaged and being imprisoned and shot regardless
I'll believe it when I see it. Too many people willing to lie.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Something tells me they aren't launching rocks, rockets, or going on raids to rape and kill as many Jews as they can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If I walk into a sporting goods store and purchase two ski masks and two hunting rifles, I have done nothing illegal. But if my intent when making that purchase was to give it to my two friends so they could rob a bank, I am now an accessory to burglary.
Now imagine that nobody was indicted for burglary but you're still getting charged with a felony as an accessory.
Your "rule of law" is not my rule of law.
Your "democracy" is not my democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
do you think that burying the hunter biden laptop story also "defrauded voters" ?No one buried the story
[Double_R] The act of concealing pertinent information from someone before they make a decision is fraud, by definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Don't look now, but IWRA has a theory about a conspiracy!
Do you know what a person who has theories about conspiracies is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The legal theory here is complicated and ambiguous. What's not is the fact that this whole thing was clearly wrong....Whether lawmakers in NY had the imagination to cover this in their crafting of the law is just pure distraction.
You don't care that they are trying to imprison a man for an invented felony because you're just so sure it's wrong.
It's pure distraction to point out there is no broken law...
So uh.... you're the "rule of law" guy here? You're the one whose mind remains untwisted by cult-thinking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Demanding an audit and then pointing out that you only need to find one more than the purported margin to change the outcome is.Yep, nothing illegal about demanding audits.Correct, there is not. Unfortunately for your delusion, calling up the secretary of state and telling him to "find" one more vote than you lost by is not "demanding an audit".
Not a very effective tactic if there was no credible fear he could carry through.The effectiveness of the tactic is irrelevant to whether it is illegal.
It's illegal to point out things that are illegal? I'd say that's a novel theory but we're rewriting history to get Trump so you'd just ignore it.
The person who recorded it was not in Georgia. Google it.Sure."While there were rumors about a possible lawsuit against Raffensperger for recording the conversation without Trump's consent, the telephone call recording laws for both locations where this conversation was held, namely the state of Georgia and District of Columbia, only require "one-party consent", meaning any participant of a phone call can legally record it without another party's consent.[56][57][58]"
Google harder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The only way for that to be true is for certain Xq28 variants to not cause homosexuality, if they all did and all males had it then there would be no way to correlate.
It then follows that there should be a population without the "gay gene".
Where are these populations?
Suppose people start aborting children with the gene?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
you don't know anything if you choose not to look.That's called an audit,
Yep, nothing illegal about demanding audits.
It is illegal, read the lawYour claim, your homework.The prosecutors already did it when they filled the indictment. Read it.
I'll remind you that you dropped the point if you rely on it again.
There is no process for challenging election results. People have just used civil suits in lieu of congressional debate and it is an ill fitting mechanism indeed.Civil suits is the process.
It is a process that has been used. It is not the process. The process is for congress to reject electors.
So he can wield it even if it's not his to wield?It's called lying and intimidating. Not a difficult thing to understand, if you were actually trying to.
Not a very effective tactic if there was no credible fear he could carry through.
CNN didn't tell them what to do
If there was any communication it would be them telling CNN what to do.
Second and more importantly, they didn't say it was Russian disinformation, they said it has all of the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Those are two completely different things.
So do you have a straight face when you type these things?
The funniest part was the call was illegally recorded. "this is the way the law works" rofl... clownAs usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. The recording was legal, Georgia is a one party consent state. Google it.
The person who recorded it was not in Georgia. Google it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
have they even done any surveys to determine if this stormy daniels thing would have made any difference whatsoever ?
Doesn't matter if it would make a difference. Congress and the FBI would not survive a "legal interpretation" which claims that any attempt to hide information from the public is defrauding the American voter. (also there is no immunity so all these people can be guilty even if their job is to keep secrets).
They called releasing Clinton's emails "election interference" even though there hasn't any credible shadow of doubt cast on their authenticity.
It all boils down to "How dare people who I claim but can't prove were Russian release accurate information at an inconvenient time!"
They stopped that from happening again with the Hunter Biden laptop story, and polls have been conducted on that which showed it would have changed the outcome.
So if paying someone to hide information (which Trump maintains was not information but a lie) is "defrauding the American voter" and releasing information is "election interference" then the only way to avoid destroying American democracy is to know nothing.
The real pattern is simple: Any act which causes people to be less likely to vote for corrupt war mongers is a "threat to our democracy"
I say unrepentant liars, state secrets, and 'elections' that can't be audited are the real threats to our democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, illegally cast or counted; and you don't know anything if you choose not to look.Oh, so you can't look for 11,000 fraudulently tallied votes for Biden if your name starts with a T?You have to demonstrate that there are fraudulently cast ballots before having a reason to look for them genius.
Go on….You go on, you're asserting it's illegal, but all you've said is "pressuring". It's all pressuring to change the outcome by changing the procedure.It is illegal, read the law
Your claim, your homework.
Here, let’s try this: Do you think there is a reason why there is a process for challenging election results written into the law that involves a court of law with legal filings, an established burden of truth, legal representation on both sides, and a judge, but what is not written into that law is the right to just call the person in charge of elections and telling them how many votes you need then to go out and "find"?
There is no process for challenging election results. People have just used civil suits in lieu of congressional debate and it is an ill fitting mechanism indeed.
It wasn’t Trump’s to wield genius.Then there was no threat *grins with halo hovering*If it wasn't Trump's to wield that's part of what makes it so egregious.
So he can wield it even if it's not his to wield?
Everyone knows that Trump had many more ways to go after people, like his Twitter account that every republican is terrified of.
Super scary, people might listen to him.... you know... like they might listen to CNN... or all those "intelligence" officials that all signed a letter that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation when it was in fact NOT.
They might listen to Biden when he lies about what Trump said at Charlottesville.
They might listen to Adam Schiff when he assured the nation there was secret damning evidence.
They might listen to Alvin Bragg who doesn't care what crime is being obscured or whether a guilty verdict was ever reached.
Yes speech can be very dangerous.
The fact that he recorded the call itself demonstrates this, he knew Trump was going to attack him if he said no, this is why the law works the way it does.
The funniest part was the call was illegally recorded. "this is the way the law works" rofl... clown
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
For more than a decade, when analysts described the strategy utilized by Israel against Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, they’ve used a metaphor: With their displays of overwhelming military strength, Israeli forces were “mowing the grass.”
By which they mean airstrikes against rocket artillery launching or assembly sites.
If airstrikes are "going in" then Hamas has "gone into" Israel quite a few times.
I meant IDF soldiers did not go into Gaza for a long period.
The phrase implies the Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip and their supply of crude but effective homemade weapons are like weeds that need to be cut back.Such tactics have faced significant criticism from international human rights groups
I didn't know the 2nd amendment had an international following.
often due to the disproportionate number of deaths caused by Israeli forces, compared to those caused by Palestinian militants during conflict.
and all the people who died on Jan 6 were protestors. No international groups I know have complained about "disproportionate death".
How irrational Israel is, don't they know they need to equalize the kill/death ratio for the insane sensibilities of people who don't have to worry about being murdered by people who hate your guts?
the long-term benefits of the “mow the grass” strategy have come under question.
Sane question: How long are you going to keep doing this before you say "this is ridiculous" and just annex the region and deport all the crazys to countries that actually have something to lose if they bombed Isreal."
Insane question: Why don't you just let them shoot rockets? Isn't it fun to guess where they land? It creates a whole new insurance industry. Also if they occasionally break into your borders with heavy machinery and start raping people and murdering babies what's the big deal?
Dec 15, 2023 — 20, Israeli forces had arrested as many as 880 Palestinian children this year, a practice made possible under Israel's draconian military laws.
Caption under photo "A Palestinian youth is arrested by Israeli soldiers for throwing stones during a protest on October 23, 2010."
PERHAPS THEY "DREAM OF LIBERTY"
No, they dream of stoning infidels and homosexuals. If they dreamed of liberty they wouldn't throw stones as Israel which does not tax them. They would form a liberal state as has been offered many times.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If tradition was the root value of all objective moral frameworks, yes.You actually think that liberalism is some objective moral framework? I mean, seriously, this one would even make liberals laugh.
If they laugh at the idea that liberty is an objective value, were they really liberals?
Death before enslavement is my versionOh great, you even have your own version. What are you? Liberal samurai?
Sure, whatever floats your boat. "New Hampshire, the state of liberal samurai"
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
They did not go into Gaza for yearsAnd you know this because you were there for all those years to observe all the soldiers near the wall?
No I just thought I would take the claims of one side at face value. You know how it is.
but all that achieves is even more wars and killings.
What happened to death before dishonor?
Death before enslavement is my version.
By your logic, just reverse, because Israel is less traditional, Palestine is justified in invading it?
If tradition was the root value of all objective moral frameworks, yes.
By your logic, every society is justified in invading other societies to impose their own values on other societies?
Not every society is more liberal than others. Also you need to ask nicely first, just to make sure they want to die for the sake of oppression.
I must say there is no much sense to your words and you are obviously a liberal imperialist, which is about as funny as it gets.
What are you pretending to not be a troll now? Sorry, clowns don't get to clutch pearls without it looking hilarious.
Well it's pretty hard to justify beating actual children. Post the videosIs it really that hard to google "israeli soldiers beating children"?
It's apparently harder than you typing that.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
They did not go into Gaza for years. If Gaza didn't want IDF going into Gaza I have this brilliant idea: Stop the people shooting rocket artillery into Israel.I think it's highly likely that Israel provides more liberty to its citizensNo, Palestinians in Gaza are chased out from homes, beaten, imprisoned just for some Israeli reporting them,
Israeli soldiers often beat Palestinian children for playing too close to the wall or because some Israeli reports them. There was plenty of video evidence on this
Well it's pretty hard to justify beating actual children. Post the videos.
Being incessant terrorists is a good way to get treated poorly.So after Israel has terrorized Palestinians for over 70 years
I see no special source of terror. They were threatened with a social contract very similar to the one in the united states. They steal some of your money, and you don't get to throw the homosexuals off buildings and you have to let other religions talk in public.
I know that is terrifying to them, but that's more of a 'them' problem.
Palestinians deserved it because they are terrorists
Or threw in with terrorists. They choose to leave in the founding wars because they did not find living in a liberal jewish state to be acceptable. It was a bit of that "if you don't like it leave" bullshit that people constantly pull out like some kind of ace card whenever I suggest that maybe mass institutionalized theft (taxes) isn't moral.
Now preventing islamists from terrorizing anyone their book tells them to is not like taxation, it is objectively immoral; so I wouldn't have minded if Israel had kept every square centimeter they won in war, and in fact I wouldn't complain if they declared war and invaded Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, or Arabia.
They have the higher moral ground in my eyes and will continue to until the people they're fighting are more liberal.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It wouldn't be so funny if the IDF didn't have a lot of very expensive rocket interceptor systems or Hamas could get close enough with their AKs. Actually we know what happens when they get close enough, it just happened to quite a few unfortunate civilians.
It wasn't funny, it was disgusting.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Just because they're bad at genocide doesn't mean they aren't trying. They tell you what they want and they have kept trying for decades.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I can also watch videos of Palestinians cheering in the street for 9/11, and raping people, and murdering babiesIs it really likely that Israel and USA did nothing wrong to Palestinians?
All extant governments have done things wrong. I think it's highly likely that Israel provides more liberty to its citizens than any islamist government would and that the mob of theocrats who fled after trying to murder every Jew in sight are the problem whether they have an internationally recognized government or not.
After all, mistreating people a lot is a good way to turn some of them into violent terrorists.
Being incessant terrorists is a good way to get treated poorly.
I don't know exactly what is happening in Gaza right now, but I am stunned at how many times Israel has held out the olive branch over the history of its recent existence, just I am stunned at how many times that gesture was accepted as a ruse to prepare another round of rockets or another invasion with the explicit goal of killing every Jew in the region.
Some of the genocidal attackers do make exceptions that if the Jews begs for mercy, pays the tax, and sells their daughters for sex slaves they can stay.
Do I feel guilty for doubting the word of such people? No... No I do not.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
maybe you should tell this guy to slow down
Maybe that guy wants to win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You can debate whatever you want, but if it's not in the constitution or implied by the constitution it isn't a constitutional debate.Wow, that’s news to the 9 justices on the SC, all of the judges on the appellate court, the justice department, Trump’s legal team, the entire media, and every other lawyer and constitutional scholar in the country.As usual, the only expert whose opinion is worth anything on the subject is ADOL on debate art.
lol, there are no idiotic voters to impress with your sophistry Double_R. Could you please practice your sick sport on someone else? You're wasting my time.
Go on….
You go on, you're asserting it's illegal, but all you've said is "pressuring". It's all pressuring to change the outcome by changing the procedure.
It wasn’t Trump’s to wield genius.
Then there was no threat *grins with halo hovering*
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
All I see is you blabbingDo you have any idea why Palestinians hate Israel so much? I mean, whats up with that?
Not sure, hating Jews has always been objectively justified before so there must be a good reason. Let's think on that.
I assume you didnt bother to search all the videos of Israel mistreating civilians
I can watch government mistreat civilians right here at home. I can also watch videos of Palestinians cheering in the street for 9/11, and raping people, and murdering babies, and reminding everyone how proud they would be to stone the gays.
but hey, at least they didn't sit in Nancy Pelosi's chair, that is unforgivable.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Neither of us have any reliable intelligence on who is being killed or not killed in Gaza.why the fuck are we sending millions of dollars worth of bombs to israel if they can't even slaughter people properly ???!!
The fewer people you slaughter the longer the war can last, good for business. See Iraq and Afghanistan.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
All I see is you blabbing
Created:
Posted in:
Looks like this thread is obsolete, Biden has a plan to make sure no one ever has an opportunity to steal an election again:
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
At least one of us can examine your dick. Neither of us have any reliable intelligence on who is being killed or not killed in Gaza.But my dick is not the topic of this conversation, so lets not talk about my dick.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
When people know you're trying to trigger them, it becomes much harder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You can debate whatever you want, but if it's not in the constitution or implied by the constitution it isn't a constitutional debate.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.Constitution doesn't say anything about motivations, so no it isn't. It specifies who decides, that is all.Funny, not one single justice on the SC or any of the lower courts seemed to think the constitution needed to specifically talk about motivations in order to debate this topic.
Now if you want to talk to the supreme court, go talk to the supreme court. If you want to talk to people on this website post a topic on this website.
I’ve already explained why multiple times
No, you asserted it.
It's not asking that is illegal, it's the forging and breaking election laws.Pressuring a campaign official to find a way to hand you the victory when you lost is illegal.
Then everyone who has publicly or privately expressed objection to voter ID laws is a criminal
and threatening them (as Trump did if you actually listened to the entire call) is even clearer.
Threatening them with the law. Suddenly you're not about the rule of law anymore when Trump is wielding it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
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.
Constitution doesn't say anything about motivations, so no it isn't. It specifies who decides, that is all.
Impeachment and conviction by the senate or bust.No one seriously believed that Biden could be criminally prosecuted for corruption as vice president without impeachmentNonsense. 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.
Find one person charged for official acts before Trump. You can't because it is an absurd notion that you can bypass the impeachments clause to construe official acts as crimes.
The desperate rationalization that no official acts have been criminal in any prosecutors eyes before doesn't pass the historical test.
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?
It's not asking that is illegal, it's the forging and breaking election laws.
Troops show up after the courts decide that they are in violation, not the president.Troops aren't under the command of courts.Yes
There ya go.
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.
The absurd implication of your interpretation remains.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
that this absolves the defendant of being found guilty of having improper motivations
Laws define what motivations are improper when the mention motivations or imply motivations via the definition of words.
The point was to say forget that for now and *assume* this was the reason he did it. Now what?
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. It was only the payments he received from his corrupt activities that were susceptible.
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.
Your two strawmen are dancing, cute.
I have not said motivations for official acts can't be questioned in this thread and I did not claim to know beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden didn't have other motivating factors besides providing a service to Burisma.
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?
The lines of comparison are unclear.
Are they the same legally? Yes both are totally legal.
Are they the same morally? Yes both are totally moral (if you believe there was inaccuracy).
All these questions would be answered if you know... there was a law that applied instead of your desperate inventionsDo you even read the indictments?
Yes, but the problem (for the propagandists and hacks like yourself) is that I also read the cited laws, the defense motions, and then used logic.
If you’re going to argue that the actions Trump is alleged to have taken are not illegal then present that case.
Make a thread and in the OP admit that the burden of proof is on the accuser. This thread is about "immunity"
And when you do, take note that even Trump’s lawyers aren’t trying that because they know how stupid that would be.
rofl, see if I was as dishonest as you I would say "and the prosecutors aren't even trying to claim a law was broken"
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.
Troops aren't under the command of courts.
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?
Playing dumb about something so obvious means you have no response.
I’d ask if you have any evidence of that but of course you don’t.
I'd tell you to read the unredacted filings, but of course you won't.
or we can apply Occam’s razor
Now that I've seen you try to use that term like a bible thumper appeals to divine inspiration it's just funny every time you mention it.
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.
I'm the symptom, just like the people who created the united states of America were symptoms of tyranny masquerading as "rule of law"
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.
My definition of "rule of law" is mutually exclusive with "wrong and inappropriate usage of"
Twisted interpretation or unequal application is wrong and inappropriate. That is men ruling using laws as a weapon. Rule of law is when the objective meaning of the law prevails and is applied without favor, see the blinded goddess weighing.
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
So... the people who wrote the impeachments clause never imagined criminal behavior from the most powerful person in the nation?
Interesting lack of imagination given what they just wrote mentioned crimes by name.
So we could believe they were all suddenly struck by amnesia before they could address this absurdity or we could believe your interpretation of the impeachments clause is absurd.
That should tell you something.
That they are cowards who think non-interventionism and slow, boring, technical delay is the best chance to avoid a civil war. Which is a sword that cuts both ways because it also means they won't be coming to the rescue of the left-tribe either.
Created:
Posted in:
Couldn't be more pleased with this choice. Debate people who give a shit instead of a drugged up senile corrupt puppet zombie (Biden).
Looks like the libertarian party is trying to incite an insurrection:
We’re Taking the Capital by StormWith 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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
This obviously comes from another thread, why do you make new threads like this? You should just keep responding in the original thread.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is no chance Japan will cede anything to the cult so I don't really care. It might make them more symapthetic to the right-tribe but they don't really have any influence to wield so again doesn't matter.
Japan will keep being Japan, their first instinct has always been isolationism. Of course it would be a lot easier if they were self-sufficient in food, energy, and military defense. (they need fusion bombs)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
We also concluded that the problem is people looking up skirts.
If we could somehow detect these invisible people who cause gender dysphoria we might be able to stop them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
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.
A legally impossible hypothetical with no legal relevance since I've never seen a law which defines a crime based on "entirely motivated by".
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?
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?
All these questions would be answered if you know... there was a law that applied instead of your desperate inventions (and by "your I am including the pseudo-prosecutors")
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?
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?
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.
Good job ignoring the rest. Best way to avoid consequences is to pretend they don't exist.
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.
Strawman
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.
You were the one who tried to introduce the premise that official acts might be more or less immune due to motivation.
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.
Who sat in judgement at nuremberg? It wasn't a random sample of the citizens of nuremberg.
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.
Take it up with all the previous POTUSes
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.
BS, no lawyer would sign such a thing if they knew it was false. "made"
What he threatened them with cutting off the big macs? rofl
At least people have a theory that Clinton kills you if you don't go along with her, of course that might explain the near total lack of surviving whistleblowers. They would definitely fall on the sword for Clinton.
What happened was that NARA conspiring with the FBI and the white-house intentionally made a mess messier (for example by shipping extra boxes to mar a lago) so that nobody knew what they wanted or who owned what. They made a vague request and then called it lying when what they 'recovered' didn't match one of the many interpretations of what was requested.
Entrapment from day one, classic deep state style attack.
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.
Have you read anything besides what the feds and their dogs have publicly asserted?
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.
You dodge, that is why I don't deny the so called acts. They aren't illegal by any equal application of law and therefore they aren't illegal in any way I care about.
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
If that's what you call "rule of law" then I don't believe in it.
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"?
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.
I believe in morality and I believe there are predictable consequences to certain actions. What you call "rule of law" is not "winning", it's the suicide of a strong central government and interstate trust.
There is a machine, your side is throwing a wrench in it because they don't like how it was working (electing DJT), now you're smirking at the idea that you think you've beaten him but you did it in the name of saving the machine which just makes you fools or liars.
I am not a huge fan of the machine, but I can see how it works and that it won't work for long like this. That is all.
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.
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.
Then you should have no problem bringing your prosecution. Good luck.
Yep
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
He wouldn't pickup the sword if the goal is personal survival and neither would anyone else.As long as the goal is personal survival, that is, playing it safe, he will never achieve any greatness, which is kinda the point of this example where 1000 brave people take victory over 1000 people focused on individual survival, and since each of those 1000 who would have Sun Tzu mentality, none would take the sword and none would ever achieve greatness, since Sun Tzu has problem with sacrificing himself.
You aren't engaging with the points that were made.
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.
You aren't even thinking. Swords are not very big, there is no stretched anything.
It would reduce the odds of survival even further reducing the number of people who would try.
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.
If there is no such thing as a just sword-wielder then the only solution to the game is for everyone to try to kill anyone who approached the sword, just as I described.
Each group of 1000 would know that even if one among them survived touching the sword, they would enslave the rest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Sun Tzu (and Clausewitz) taught to apply rationality to warfare as science is the application of rationality to understand/predict phenomenon.
His conclusions cannot be accurately reduced to "play it safe".
More like "understand what's going on, then choose the highest reward for the lowest risk among your options"
Your scenario confuses individual and collective goals and makes the game rules transparent to all players which skips past the vast application of art of war (which is about figuring out the rules of the specific game).
Observe:
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.
If the goal is for the group to win, then of course Sun Tzu would ask for volunteers to pick up the sword.
He wouldn't pickup the sword if the goal is personal survival and neither would anyone else. Everyone who goes to war knows individuals die no matter how perfect your strategy. History has proved people will take 99% chances of death, much more often they don't know the chances but they know they aren't good.
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. He might try to explain that he would not oppose the survivor so he has no invincible enemy to fight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
We don't need evidence, or laws, or jurisdiction. All we need is a judge who will pretend.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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
A monster, a frothing at the mouth monster.
Alex Jones if possible... and make sure he's drugged up on testosterone and cocaine.
I would want to see someone who is so insanely partisan and paranoid that the courts have no choice but to create powerful precedents that seal every gap in the walls for centuries to come.
I mean the best case scenario is that they start having to delete huge parts of federal law for "unconstitutional vagueness".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If you can convict anyone in any office with a jury selected from the inhabitants of Washington DCYou forgot about the part where prosecutors have to provide the evidence.
No, they did.
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.
Your exact words: "even if their act was entirely motivated by personal gain?"
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.
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.
Double R, meet reconstruction. Reconstruction, this guy needs to know about you.
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.
Now imagine 60 million people agree with the officer. You think you can live with people like that under an unrestricted government? I wouldn't. You should be asking for peaceful divorce if transparent and secure elections are no different than shooting three year olds in your mind.
You just argued that it is not possible to know the motivations behind an official act
I did not. I asserted it was impossible to reject without reasonable doubt some motivations except in cases of confession.
A murder may be premeditated, but that does not mean the murderer wasn't angry in the moment as well. That can't be proven, and that why crimes of passion and premeditation are defined in such a way that it is not necessary to disprove passion in order to prove premeditation.
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.
Unacceptable. The fervor of politics taints entire regions and cities. Unaccepted by the founders, hence the impeachment clauses.
And no, there is no world where classified documents are personal property.
You should read up on the filings in the documents case.
Disputing whether the FBI had a right to the tapes is not the same thing as telling the FBI there are no tapes.
I know, but lunatics call disputing whether the NARA had a right to the documents is lying about whether there are documents.
They told him to give documents. He sent lackeys so he could look through documents. He sorted some (not all). He gave some documents back, not all documents he sorted through and not all that were at the house, why? He was giving up what he didn't care about. He at no point surrendered his claim to any documents he was just cooperating.
If a cop comes to your door asking for letters, and you give him some letters but not all, that's not lying.
They said they wanted more. He said come look. They swatted his house.
That's what they're calling "lying". They called Flynn answering the same question in two different interviews with "X" and "I don't recall" as "lying". They are criminals and need to face more than disbandment.
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.
Why is that remarkable? I've said many times the crimes are made up. Stitched together from laws written for completely different contexts. Just like the obstruction charges for the Jan 6ers that will hopefully be struck down soon.
The fact that every other did the same things including the one currently conspiring to lock Trump up is like the entire icecap of greenland being icing on the cake. They are so desperate that they are charging Trump for J-walking while he was on the sidewalk... while they're on the sidewalk.
Is your position that lying to FBI investigators and destroying evidence should not be punishable? Two wrongs make a right?
One wrong makes the same behavior from another party right in many circumstances.
Violence is right when it comes after aggression. Ceasing to follow a contract is right after other parties did it first.
There are many points where morality and reason differ from the traditional government assertions, and this is one of them. Yes, unequal applications of the laws is an excuse to "violate" laws. This is especially true with vague and twisted laws (vague laws are easily twisted). I speed all the time, I don't feel the slightest remorse for it, and I would definitely deceive police to protect people from unequal application of speeding laws.
When police and legislatures stop speeding, then I'll consider taking that law seriously.
Law is a tool, not an end. When it fails its just purpose it loses its authority. Just like a government.
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?
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.
What legal doctrine that you acknowledge would stop them?There is no legal doctrine that can nullify stupidity.
So this is a perfectly legal strategy. Bring it on. Maybe the next government will be better.
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.
Ah, so that's why we're doomed.
But every crime requires evidence to be prosecutedLike 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.
Absolute certainty, and without even an indictment.
What did you just say? "adherence to the basic principals of logic and reason, evidence, and the rule of law above all else."
Yea... we're doomed.
criminal investigation for mishandling emails
Destroying evidence actually.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Just call it a late term abortion.and you don't have to kill baby calves for it, which was my reason for making the switch
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
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.
If you knew how to let it go you wouldn't have Trump dysphoria and be posting online to make sure strangers know you fantasize about him being raped.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think it's kinda pathetic and often a failure when they try to pretend they've found a substitute. There is no substitute (especially for milk).
Instead of trying to revive a frankenstien cuisine they should just pick from the many time tested recipes that just work without pretending to be something else.
Almond milk is an excellent example. Wretched stuff. Almonds aren't wretched, you can make a lot of good things with almonds sweet and savory; but that 'milk' is inferior to water with white dye.
Created: