- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
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 davyjones
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:01 pm to davyjones
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 on 1/5/24 at 7:04 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
And this should be the answer:
Speaking of fan fiction...
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No one has even defined what this is for me to make a decision about
Then use the standard dictionary definition.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
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.
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 on 1/5/24 at 7:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Speaking of fan fiction...
I doubt you are carbon based.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
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 on 1/5/24 at 7:45 pm to BBONDS25
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 on 1/5/24 at 7:47 pm to dgnx6
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 on 1/5/24 at 7:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yes. Specifically with the "impeachment is only the avenue" argument.
I figured.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 7:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
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 on 1/5/24 at 8:00 pm to OceanMan
quote:
This is reasoning. This is truth.
An absolute immunity from criminal acts means absolute immunity from criminal acts.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Speculation on what someone might do, should be relevant past setting bond.
No. He lists other potential crimes
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:06 pm to Taxing Authority
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 on 1/5/24 at 8:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
An absolute immunity from criminal acts means absolute immunity from criminal acts.
It’s that the states’ position? Statute of limitations?
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:11 pm to OceanMan
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 on 1/5/24 at 8:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote: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
Speculating on what someone may do in a proposed legal standard is how you make a legal argument.
This post was edited on 1/5/24 at 8:28 pm
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's Trump's position.
Who is prosecuting who?
Like you said, juries are subjective. Prosecutors?
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:14 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Otherwise we’re just arguing ad absurdism
That's the point. A standard is not supposed to allow for absurd results.
Popular
Back to top


1




