Not sure what to call this loophole and other opportunities for corporate beings to escape to and exploit “uncharted legal landscapes”. Cue US Blues.
1 Like
They cliche is that there are people whom the law binds but does not protect, and those the law protects but does not bind.
Merrick Garland’s DOJ, and Trump’s judiciary’s understood that very well. In fact, Garland’s DOJ was self bound, more concerned with PR than the justice.
Trump’s DOJ will not be bound.
Ironically, it too will be more concerned with PR than justice, but from the opposite direction. The law will be turned into a weapon to punish Trump’s enemies. Those who think the law will protect them from unjustified prosecutions should look up what happened to Hunter Biden when his own father was President.
3 Likes
Shame on you Speaker Johnson
Another reason to not watch the coronation. Yes coronation, not inauguration. trump has no intention At All of being true to the oath of office. To him the words are meaningless.
… … … … … …
ABC NEWS…
Johnson says flags will be raised for Trump’s inauguration
The flags are at half-staff due to the death of former President Jimmy Carter.
8 Likes
Time, or rather the country, ran out on Jack Smith. It could have been a lifetime opportunity to contribute to clarifying core values and readings of US liberty and democracy. What better case to put fundamental values to test? The election beat him to it, but at least he succeeded in leaving his case to the public domain for future reflection.
10 Likes
R’amen to that!
1 Like
I feel silly lecturing a user whose tag includes the word “lawyer” about law. Given what we’ve seen for the past twelve years, though, there are lawyers and then there are lawyers. And the way you tried to imply that I had used the word “crime”, which I did not, as the basis of your argument is very much a part of that.
The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. All other laws derive their validity and legality from the Constitution. Several parts of the Constitution specify the penalties for their violation, such as the 14th Amendment’s prohibiting insurrectionists from holding public office. The parts that do not so specify are in no way less “laws” than the parts that do. The lack of a specified penalty makes no difference.
Not all that long ago, that’s what judges were for - to determine what punishment was appropriate for violating a law. The obfuscating custom has somehow become that if a penalty is not specified, it’s not actionable, as per several recent SCOTUS “decrees”. Are you saying, then, that violating the Constitution is in no way illegal? That performing acts defined by the Constitution as illegal should not be punished even absent a law - which derives its legality from that Constitution? That the Constitution is at most a series of suggestions, not a legal document specifying the structure and operation of the government which can be violated at will with complete impunity? If so, that’s a losing argument. And if not, you owe me, and Jack Smith, an apology.
1 Like
Doubling down on the thing you’re totally wrong about is brave.
You wrote, quote, “Smith should have charged Trump for every unconstitutional action he took while President, and the list is a very long one.”
What do prosecutors charge, pray tell?
A: Crimes.
1 Like
I was about to say that it is time to get some precedents set due to Trump’s obvious incitement of insurrection, but then: This SCOTUS.
1 Like
This is all moot. All Donnie has to do is resign at 11:15 am on Jan 20 2029, and have Vance pardon him for any Federal crimes, and he walks free of the DC case and the Mar-a-Lardo case. The only one he still may face is the Georgia one, and that is the very one I want him to get hung on. Sending him to a Georgia State Prison would just do my heart good.
4 Likes
The law is half-ass. Steal a room’s worth of classified documents and your Scott free, if your a former President who appointed the Judges who hear your case.
Leak a single document and it’s 5 years if your not a member of his cult.
8 Likes
Nah, jusst declare Georgia a non-state due to (mumblemumblemumble…) and you’re there! 
1 Like
Yes, and therein lies the rub… Though maybe it should be refined as " a functioning democracy ". We just had free and fair democratic elections and a convicted felon and known traitor won the Presidency. So the democratic process worked just fine. But for democracy to function as intended it requires an informed and thoughtful electorate, and the evangelical right erased all hope of that. If we the people vote for bread and circuses or the return of a messiah then the country is certainly doomed
5 Likes
Speaking of Reality Winner, I doubt Joe Biden is going to pardon her. But he absolutely should.
9 Likes
That man has either been so focused on his investigation so that the Cause of Justice may be served that he has not read, seen, or heard any news reports at all for the last year at least, OR he is a partisan toad without a shred of honor or even shame.
I know which one I’m betting on.
8 Likes
Been done. Didn’t go so well.
2 Likes
In other news, House Squeaker Insurrection Johnson is still a cad.
1 Like
I sympathize with your frustration. I am not a lawyer either and I hesitate to intrude on your exchange with the formidable txlawyer. I would only suggest this, that “law” is not used in every context with the same valence. Except where the Constitution specifies a penalty (e.g, the 14th Amendment) or an action (e.g., the presidential oath of office), and although we may sometimes usefully describe it as “the ultimate law of the land,” it does not in and of itself create laws but rather provides a framework for creating laws: Congress (the legislative branch) and the President (who will sign bills into law, veto bills, or have his/her veto overriden) will do so within the constraints of the Constitution as the Supreme Court (since Marbury vs. Madison) interprets that document. That framework is not “a series of suggestions,” but neither is it a set of laws. The Constitution provides a framework for making laws.
A prosecutor needs a specific law, a legislative act (normally) signed by an executive, on the basis of which to seek an indictment. Any specific law will be applied in the context of other laws and intricate judicial procedures. Jack Smith explains why he believed his using the Insurrection Act would be problematic and, in any case, unnecessary for bringing Trump to justice, had Trump not been reelected.
1 Like
That’s the spirit! Of people who say, “He’s Black! He was in the vicinity of the crime at the time of the crime! He’s GUILTY!” It’s all so simple!
Yes! Acquiesce in advance! It’s the only reasonable thing to do.
Why, if you charge him, you might find out that he’s able to do it.
Better to just let him do it upfront without any consequences!
Do you truly believe that’s what Jack Smith was doing, acquiescing in advance? God help us.
1 Like