5 ms·

With all due respect, I'm of the opinion that the alternative here is the weaponisation of the judicial branch. Most commenters on this post has knowingly or u

With all due respect, I'm of the opinion that the alternative here is the weaponisation of the judicial branch. Most commenters on this post has knowingly or unknowingly broken the law multiple times in their lives. As the Buffet saying goes: "If a cop follows you for 500 miles, you’re going to get a ticket." Buffet said this in relation to JP Morgan's "London Whale" scandal. Whats interesting here is he went on further to say: "You can’t be active in a big business without making some mistakes, and sometimes they may be big ones". This is especially true for government. For example, something as simple and normal as taking some work docs home or discussing work with a spouse could lead to breaking serious federal laws. Clinton's private email server is a perfect example of this, she committed a clear crime here but Comey chose to not prosecute. Despite this decision, he faced heavy scrutiny for delaying the decision which many believe had an impact on the outcome of the election. It is important to take note of my earlier point, this is not a debate on whether leaders and "aristocrats" should be subject to the law. We are witnessing a departure from practices established centuries ago in common law tradition.

monetus 4y ago
(Not who you responded to) Spiro Agnew was felonious, so there is some precedent. He did plead however. The courts are frequently already seen as weaponized, for legislative purposes at least. The grand jury system isn't seen that way though, and I have trouble seeing how it would be twisted to be so.
SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
> "If a cop follows you for 500 miles, you’re going to get a ticket." There's a lot of nuance here. Again, we don't know whats in the indictment, but the 500 laws I break today probably are going to be minor or non-felonies. This isn't a matter of "well everyone breaks the law", this is a matter of "some people break major laws and they aren't being held accountable". > For example, something as simple and normal as taking some work docs home or discussing work with a spouse could lead to breaking serious federal laws. And that's why intent is included when considering whether someone has broken the law. > Clinton's private email server is a perfect example of this, she committed a clear crime here but Comey chose to not prosecute. And I believe that if there was a case that could have been brought against Clinton there should have been. I don't think that's a get out of jail card for others, I think that was a failure of justice. I wouldn't have had one moment of poor sleep over her going to jail. > We are witnessing a departure from practices established centuries ago in common law tradition. That tradition has led to a place where obvious criminality isn't punished. There appears to be no respect for the law from the leadership. If this is a departure, it's a good one.
- pc_edwin 4y ago
  We'll I suppose we are somewhat at an impasse. I Believe you understand why it is prudent for the judicial branch to refrain from prosecuting key figures from both political parties if the crime committed is just a minor technicality such as not paying a parking ticket or accidentally using non-secure lines of comms. I think we disagree on whether what Trump is rumoured to be charged on falls under the category of "reasonable to refrain from prosecuting". I think this is a politically biased DA, going out of his way to use a technicality to charge Trump. In my opinion, this is way outside of what is acceptable. If the rumours are true there is no major nor minor crime committed here, this is at best a technicality and will likely be thrown out. Besides my opinions on the specific case, I think we also disagree on how much leeway these key political figures and officials should be given before the justice department gets involved. I personally believe we should give much more affordances. I despise the modern idea of the "civil servant". Its a sort of neutering of what should be very revered roles. Everything from the laughable law salaries which are earned by 20 something kids in silicon valley or wall street. To little things like the secret service being able to veto the president on what he/she wants do etc. It just seems so unamerican to me. In a very short timeframe, we have lost so much of the reverence and weight given to these roles. Anyways, I can go on a very long tangent here, so I'll stop myself.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    If the charges do turn out to be minor I too will agree he shouldn't be prosecuted. We just don't know. At the moment I think it's disingenous and diminishing to assume it's something like a parking ticket. > I personally believe we should give much more affordances. Yeah, totally at an impasse here. I'm not American, but it seems very un-American to me to consider political leaders part of an untouchable special class. I'm fairly certain one of the founding ideals of America was that there should be no kings. I agree that they should be respected, but that requires holding them to a higher standard. You don't become senator or president and then can do whatever you want. A country can only ever be as good as its leaders.
d23 4y ago
> she committed a clear crime here False. https://archive.is/FM1US https://archive.is/FM1US > “Instances of classified information being deliberately transmitted via unclassified email were the rare exception and resulted in adjudicated security violations. There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails-051380 https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/state-department-hi... > “While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience, by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations,” the report said.
- pc_edwin 4y ago
  I didn't mean to get into the politics of it, I was using the case as an example where Comey went as far as setting a new precedent of "intent" as the standard of prosection in order to avoid the prosecution and impacting the election. Mishandling of classified material is a crime, regardless of intent. Here's a short summary of chatGPTs take: > This statute does not require that the person transmitting the information have a specific intent to harm the United States or aid a foreign government; > Additionally, under 18 U.S. Code § 1924, it is a federal crime to knowingly remove classified material from its proper place of custody or to transmit it to an unauthorized person, regardless of whether there is any intent to harm the United States or aid a foreign government.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    > a new precedent of "intent" I'm confused by this. Intent is a well considered and discussed topic in the legal system. People are charged for entirely different crimes based upon intent (for example, murder vs homicide) and sometimes won't even be charged (for example, in an instance of a vehicle accident causing death).
    - pc_edwin 4y ago
      The key is "as the standard of prosecution". They could've still prosecuted her and gave her a slap on the wrist. This is what they would've done to anybody a level or two beneath her but Comey set a new precedent that the standard to prosecute would be intent. This is why they can't prosecute trump for the files at Mara-lago, besides the (very reaosnable) argument that he was the president so be definition anything he takes home should be deemed unclassified, Comey set the precedent of intent so if they cant prove intent they cant prosecute.

monetus 4y ago

(Not who you responded to) Spiro Agnew was felonious, so there is some precedent. He did plead however. The courts are frequently already seen as weaponized, for legislative purposes at least. The grand jury system isn't seen that way though, and I have trouble seeing how it would be twisted to be so.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago

> "If a cop follows you for 500 miles, you’re going to get a ticket." There's a lot of nuance here. Again, we don't know whats in the indictment, but the 500 laws I break today probably are going to be minor or non-felonies. This isn't a matter of "well everyone breaks the law", this is a matter of "some people break major laws and they aren't being held accountable". > For example, something as simple and normal as taking some work docs home or discussing work with a spouse could lead to breaking serious federal laws. And that's why intent is included when considering whether someone has broken the law. > Clinton's private email server is a perfect example of this, she committed a clear crime here but Comey chose to not prosecute. And I believe that if there was a case that could have been brought against Clinton there should have been. I don't think that's a get out of jail card for others, I think that was a failure of justice. I wouldn't have had one moment of poor sleep over her going to jail. > We are witnessing a departure from practices established centuries ago in common law tradition. That tradition has led to a place where obvious criminality isn't punished. There appears to be no respect for the law from the leadership. If this is a departure, it's a good one.

pc_edwin 4y ago
We'll I suppose we are somewhat at an impasse. I Believe you understand why it is prudent for the judicial branch to refrain from prosecuting key figures from both political parties if the crime committed is just a minor technicality such as not paying a parking ticket or accidentally using non-secure lines of comms. I think we disagree on whether what Trump is rumoured to be charged on falls under the category of "reasonable to refrain from prosecuting". I think this is a politically biased DA, going out of his way to use a technicality to charge Trump. In my opinion, this is way outside of what is acceptable. If the rumours are true there is no major nor minor crime committed here, this is at best a technicality and will likely be thrown out. Besides my opinions on the specific case, I think we also disagree on how much leeway these key political figures and officials should be given before the justice department gets involved. I personally believe we should give much more affordances. I despise the modern idea of the "civil servant". Its a sort of neutering of what should be very revered roles. Everything from the laughable law salaries which are earned by 20 something kids in silicon valley or wall street. To little things like the secret service being able to veto the president on what he/she wants do etc. It just seems so unamerican to me. In a very short timeframe, we have lost so much of the reverence and weight given to these roles. Anyways, I can go on a very long tangent here, so I'll stop myself.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  If the charges do turn out to be minor I too will agree he shouldn't be prosecuted. We just don't know. At the moment I think it's disingenous and diminishing to assume it's something like a parking ticket. > I personally believe we should give much more affordances. Yeah, totally at an impasse here. I'm not American, but it seems very un-American to me to consider political leaders part of an untouchable special class. I'm fairly certain one of the founding ideals of America was that there should be no kings. I agree that they should be respected, but that requires holding them to a higher standard. You don't become senator or president and then can do whatever you want. A country can only ever be as good as its leaders.

d23 4y ago

> she committed a clear crime here False. https://archive.is/FM1US https://archive.is/FM1US > “Instances of classified information being deliberately transmitted via unclassified email were the rare exception and resulted in adjudicated security violations. There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails-051380 https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/state-department-hi... > “While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience, by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations,” the report said.

pc_edwin 4y ago
I didn't mean to get into the politics of it, I was using the case as an example where Comey went as far as setting a new precedent of "intent" as the standard of prosection in order to avoid the prosecution and impacting the election. Mishandling of classified material is a crime, regardless of intent. Here's a short summary of chatGPTs take: > This statute does not require that the person transmitting the information have a specific intent to harm the United States or aid a foreign government; > Additionally, under 18 U.S. Code § 1924, it is a federal crime to knowingly remove classified material from its proper place of custody or to transmit it to an unauthorized person, regardless of whether there is any intent to harm the United States or aid a foreign government.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  > a new precedent of "intent" I'm confused by this. Intent is a well considered and discussed topic in the legal system. People are charged for entirely different crimes based upon intent (for example, murder vs homicide) and sometimes won't even be charged (for example, in an instance of a vehicle accident causing death).
  - pc_edwin 4y ago
    The key is "as the standard of prosecution". They could've still prosecuted her and gave her a slap on the wrist. This is what they would've done to anybody a level or two beneath her but Comey set a new precedent that the standard to prosecute would be intent. This is why they can't prosecute trump for the files at Mara-lago, besides the (very reaosnable) argument that he was the president so be definition anything he takes home should be deemed unclassified, Comey set the precedent of intent so if they cant prove intent they cant prosecute.