interesting point about the SC immunity decision. any lawfags wanna address the second half of this?
(media.greatawakening.win)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
Comments (31)
sorted by:
It is a word salad, and I hate addressing ambiguous claims because as soon as you pin it down to something, someone can claim that the text was making a completely different point.
That said, instead of addressing their claim, let us use the same thought process and see where we land.
I would generalize it to "power of the president" for this discussion.
Lets take two examples and compare them.
Biden tells the Ukrainian prosecutor that unless they drop the case against Burisma in which Hunter is a stake holder, they wont release the billion dollars in aid.
Trump calls Zelensky and tells him he should look into corruption of Burisma and why the prosecutor was fired
In both these cases, the actions are very similar - telling a foreign government what their AG should be doing. However the motivations are entirely different.
With Biden, he had a personal stake and was using the power of his office to stop probe into his son's company.
In Trump's case he was trying to undo this corruption.
So I would say the question whether a President is abusing the power for political purposes will squarely lie in Mens Rea - the motivation behind the action.
So the conclusion would be opposite to what this chunk of text is trying to imply.
Careful with throwing word salad around. This isn't a food fight!
Well the lettuce looks wilted, and there isn’t any ranch. Soooo I’m cool with it being thrown. Kek!
Greek feta salad is the only salad, unless it’s Finnish grape salad, or egg salad, or mayonnaise and tuna, or niscoise with anchovies.
Ok, I’m hungry now.
Time for chicken wings with no salad.
did you seee! i found the answer!! 😁😊
Well done Anon! Seems to fit more clear.
Now…. can you find me some ranch? Kek!
no but i always keep some hot sauce in my bag, you can have some of that..
Taco Bell hot sauce? The little packets perhaps? 😂😂
Now I am hungry
everything but the last paragraph was written by me. If anyone is guilty of word salad here, it is me due to my lack of legal knowledge. Which is why I am bringing the discussion here.
Even then, it is not word salad. At worst it is lacking context.
The crux of the issue is this:
(from the SC decision:)
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.”
The lib was arguing that this makes any criminal prosecution impossible for lack of mens rea. However, I think I now see how he's being dumb.
But further input (from those with actual legal knowledge) is welcome.
..and seriously. everybody REALLY needs to stop abusing the term word salad. It is not a definition for things you don't understand, or for things lacking context. Libs are stupid, but they can form sentences. even the vast majority of what Biden says doesn't count as word salad. Even he tends to trail off and shut up when he stops making sense. (granted that could be because he's an actor, or following a script.. but my point stands.)
Making false accusations invites the same to be made against us.
The last paragraph was the word salad I was referring to. Not sure what the problem with that term is. It simply means a bunch of syntactically correct words that have no meaning.
As far as I know, nothing in the SC decision how to determine whether something is a official act or not. It leaves it open, and the lower courts are still able to hear arguments as to whether something is official or not.
There is no mention that motivation may not be considered at all.
it does make sense. actus reus and mens rea both have meaning, and are both requirements for convicting someone of a crime.
here was the response i finally managed to give, starting with the part of the decision he was referring to:
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.”
Does that clear things up for you? The decision does not say motive cannot be considered, except in considering whether or not an act counts as official. that does not preclude or inhibit any criminal prosecution against the president.
It is in fact another preventative measure against abuse of presidential power. It prevents any 'the ends justify the means' arguments in defense of the president against criminal prosecution.
weeeoooo i'm quite proud of myself for coming up with the correct response. i'm a bit out on a limb in my last paragraph, but i think i'm right there too.
I AM SO PLEASED TO HAVE WORKED OUT THE ANSWER TO THIS. COME AT ME, LIBTARDS
Is this taken from the SCOTUS decision?
Yas
Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Those who want sauce here it is (page 4).
And yes, your answer is very well put.
That also means that in the example of Biden telling Ukrainian president to stop prosecution of Burisma, it also falls under this same SCOTUS immunity.
This may sound like a disappointment, but if we think a bit moe carefully it makes sense. This kind of act is an "official act" and is definitely "abuse of official power". Constitution already provides a remedy for addressing such corrupt behaviour - Impeachment.
PSA: OP Ask for LAWFAGS help... not regular fags help...
lmao in one of the comments i removed, I did specifically invite lawfags to comment while also inviting regular fags to stfu. great minds think alike!
This means all those little show trials Trump is facing should go away after the motions to dismiss are filed and that the pendulum swings in Trump's favor re: prosecution of those responsible for targeting Trump. It is now legally, ethically, and most importantly, under a President's Constitutional authority for a legitimate DOJ to prosecute [them] for criminally targeting Trump based on his political leanings.
this is a discussion; it needs no link.
i could provide a link to the text of the supreme court decision, or links to the role of mens rea in the american legal system.
let me be clear:
I am an amateur law enthusiast....barely. I am not looking for answers from people with my own level of legal expertise. There are people on this board who actually know law. I am not one of them, and I suspect you aren't really either. unless its just the meds?
I respect the enthusiasm. I understand the urge to quash liberal arguments very well. not trying to be insulting. All of us here have different areas of expertise. But this is a moderately complex legal discussion, and if it sounds like word salad to you, then I don't think either of us are equipped to provide the answer. But someone here is.
EDIT: Genuinely, much love to the pede that replied with much vigor, and then removed their comments. I also wanted to tell this person they were a stupid liberal spewing nonsense, but what I wanted more was to provide an actual argument based in the law. I don't need to crowd-source rage against liberals....I have loads of that. Legal knowledge is where any response I could make would be lacking.
Not trying to be an ass to you. Really I wanted to understand it.
No, I'm not a lawyer. I have read a lot of the CFR for the VA, also their regulations that could be in trouble of because of Chevron Deference.
you weren't an ass at all, fren. you are chomping at the bit for liberal tears, and willing to bite off slightly more than you can chew. this is all extremely relateable to me :)
i'm very sensitive to misuse of the term 'word salad' because it has been used against me for saying things that make perfect sense to most of us here on GAW. And by my own family. And those accusations are at the root of my recurring homelessness.
So, as much as I love calling libs stupid, I always do my very best to understand their arguments, and only call them psychotic/nonsensical as a very very last resort. Most of the time they're just not seeing the whole picture, influenced by manipulation, speaking from emotion, etc. flawed as they may be, all of those are still coherent patterns of thought. living on the street around drug users and schizophrenics, I hear a lot of actual word salad, and it is a very very serious thing.
You Jew, you deleted your own comments...
No need to reply, blocked.
oh I thought you were deleting yours to clear up this comment section, and so i followed suit.
how you gonna accuse me and block me for something that you also did?
:c oh well.. i should probably take a break from the internet for today. its too nice out.
I, personally, believe the "legal people" got the US into this Communist movement from the beginning. They start by sticking the "camel's nose" under the tent, using legal arguments as to why we can't fight the process; like people have rights and we can't dispose, or take, those rights away. I do believe lawyers serve a purpose, but if you look back in history the founding fathers used very little words to say what they wanted to say and the fewer words the less chance of readers getting confused. Today most want 40 pages, or more as if they are paid by the word, to say something fairly simple. I think, and it is my opinion, that lawyers put a lot of verbiage into laws so people can take from it what they want. Simplify the statements so we can all understand them and we can understand the meaning of what is stated.
Exactly.
The problem is that the whole legal system has been placed on a pedestal, we refer to a judge as “your honour”, why they are just civil servants and are prone to bias and political prejudice as we can witness daily worldwide.
The whole system needs a simplification reset urgently.