Started By
Message

re: Jack Smith Court Filing-If Trump reelected, will incite to murder Democrat politicians

Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:01 pm to
Posted by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
26542 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:01 pm to
quote:

“Lawfare” seems pretty self explanatory, at least to me. I interpret it as the practice of using “law” as a weapon of political warfare. The term “law” is where there might be some varying definitions I suppose.


And this should be the answer:

quote:

18 U.S.C. § 242

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This provision makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. It is not necessary that the offense be motivated by racial bias or by any other animus.

Defendants act under color of law when they wield power vested by a government entity. Those prosecuted under the statute typically include police officers, sheriff’s deputies, and prison guards. However other government actors, such as judges, district attorneys, other public officials, and public school employees can also act under color of law and can be prosecuted under this statute.

Section 242 does not criminalize any particular type of abusive conduct. Instead, it incorporates by reference rights defined by the Constitution, federal statutes, and interpretive case law. Cases charged by federal prosecutors most often involve physical or sexual assaults. The Department has also prosecuted public officials for thefts, false arrests, evidence-planting, and failing to protect someone in custody from constitutional violations committed by others.

A violation of the statute is a misdemeanor, unless prosecutors prove one of the statutory aggravating factors such as a bodily injury, use of a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, death resulting, or attempt to kill, in which case there are graduated penalties up to and including life in prison or death. If charged in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. § 250, as noted below, all sexual assaults under color of law are felonies.
This post was edited on 1/5/24 at 7:02 pm
Posted by Pax Regis
Alabama
Member since Sep 2007
15280 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:02 pm to
Democrat fan fiction.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477252 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:04 pm to
quote:

And this should be the answer:

Speaking of fan fiction...
Posted by OceanMan
Member since Mar 2010
23222 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:16 pm to
quote:

No one has even defined what this is for me to make a decision about


Then use the standard dictionary definition.
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
59474 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:17 pm to
I haven’t read the filing or this thread in its entirety. I’m guessing this isn’t Smith claiming this will happen, but an argument that the precedent could lead to absurd results?

I think Smith is a scumbag. He has been slapped down before for partisan prosecutions, but I suspect this is not the hill people need to die on.

Posted by OceanMan
Member since Mar 2010
23222 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:18 pm to
quote:

Speaking of fan fiction...


I doubt you are carbon based.
Posted by dgnx6
Member since Feb 2006
89838 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:33 pm to
quote:

Nobody is arguing Trump "will" do any of this stuff.



Trumps being accused for trying to unlawfully stay in office.

By this guy saying a president could have his adversaries killed to stay in office.


So he’s doing this on purpose to equate how dangerous Trump is.

But what’s really happening is the current president and the dem party is assassinating trump with impunity.

This is how they do it to destroy opponents.

This post was edited on 1/5/24 at 7:39 pm
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477252 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:45 pm to
quote:

I’m guessing this isn’t Smith claiming this will happen, but an argument that the precedent could lead to absurd results?

Yes.

Specifically with the "impeachment is only the avenue" argument.

quote:

but I suspect this is not the hill people need to die on.

No. He lists other potential crimes
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477252 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:47 pm to
quote:

So he’s doing this on purpose to equate how dangerous Trump is.

He's literally not. He's discussing the logical ends of a legal argument Trump's team is making about presidential immunity.

If Trump is correct, Joe Biden can legally kill any of us. Biden can take any bribe from any party/country. Biden can sell China our nuclear secrets.
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
59474 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:51 pm to
quote:

Yes. Specifically with the "impeachment is only the avenue" argument.


I figured.
Posted by OceanMan
Member since Mar 2010
23222 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:57 pm to
quote:

He's literally not. He's discussing the logical ends of a legal argument Trump's team is making about presidential immunity.

If Trump is correct, Joe Biden can legally kill any of us


This is reasoning. This is truth.
Posted by Turbeauxdog
Member since Aug 2004
24273 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:58 pm to
quote:

the logical ends


Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477252 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:00 pm to
quote:

This is reasoning. This is truth.

An absolute immunity from criminal acts means absolute immunity from criminal acts.
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
63500 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:03 pm to
quote:

No. He lists other potential crimes
Speculation on what someone might do, should be relevant past setting bond.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477252 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:06 pm to
quote:

Speculation on what someone might do, should be relevant past setting bond.

It's not specifically about Trump.

Speculating on what someone may do in a proposed legal standard is how you make a legal argument.

You don't just argue for/against proposed legal standards in the abstract.
Posted by OceanMan
Member since Mar 2010
23222 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:07 pm to
quote:

An absolute immunity from criminal acts means absolute immunity from criminal acts.


It’s that the states’ position? Statute of limitations?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477252 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:11 pm to
quote:

It’s that the states’ position?

That's Trump's position.

His team is arguing the only remedy is impeachment

That's why Smith used the hypothetical of using behavior that would be otherwise illegal to thwart impeachment. It was a specific responsibility to both of Trump's main arguments (absolute immunity and impeachment).
This post was edited on 1/5/24 at 8:11 pm
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
63500 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:12 pm to
quote:

Speculating on what someone may do in a proposed legal standard is how you make a legal argument.
II getd how hypotheticals work, esp. in regard to SCOTUS arguments. But as I said in the Vivek winning Iowa thread, hypotheticals need to have some basis on plausibility. Otherwise we’re just arguing ad absurdism
This post was edited on 1/5/24 at 8:28 pm
Posted by OceanMan
Member since Mar 2010
23222 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:13 pm to
quote:

That's Trump's position.


Who is prosecuting who?

Like you said, juries are subjective. Prosecutors?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477252 posts
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:14 pm to
quote:

Otherwise we’re just arguing ad absurdism

That's the point. A standard is not supposed to allow for absurd results.
first pageprev pagePage 6 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram