Hypocrisy on the Stormy Daniels front

[T.Lex]

What is the definition of real criminals being used here?

I guess I'm using to mean... people who committed crimes.

I'll even narrow it down to felonies. I know too many misdemeanants who've gone on to make something of themselves.

 

[KLB]

I guess I'm using to mean... people who committed crimes.

I'll even narrow it down to felonies. I know too many misdemeanants who've gone on to make something of themselves.

I ask, because I imagine most of us have broken one of the plethora of laws we have. Are we all then criminals?

 

[churchmouse]

I ask, because I imagine most of us have broken one of the plethora of laws we have. Are we all then criminals?

Exactly

 

[T.Lex]

I ask, because I imagine most of us have broken one of the plethora of laws we have. Are we all then criminals?

Totally different rabbit hole, but things like ordinance violations (and even some infractions, I think) are "laws" that don't make criminals when they are broken. They are in the nature of a civil action.

Areas like campaign finance are chock full of "unlawful" acts that create civil penalties (like fines), but do not create criminals (meaning jail time). Now, there are SOME campaign finance laws that do create criminals. I think those are the ones at issue here. And elsewhere.

 

[KLB]

Totally different rabbit hole, but things like ordinance violations (and even some infractions, I think) are "laws" that don't make criminals when they are broken. They are in the nature of a civil action.

Areas like campaign finance are chock full of "unlawful" acts that create civil penalties (like fines), but do not create criminals (meaning jail time). Now, there are SOME campaign finance laws that do create criminals. I think those are the ones at issue here. And elsewhere.

In that area, I would have to see what was being forgiven and what the crime supposedly was that they are trying to get the other guy for. I am not as trusting as you when it comes to politicians making decisions on who to charge and whom to let go. The one that brings more publicity is the one they will want to prosecute.

 

[T.Lex]

In that area, I would have to see what was being forgiven and what the crime supposedly was that they are trying to get the other guy for. I am not as trusting as you when it comes to politicians making decisions on who to charge and whom to let go. The one that brings more publicity is the one they will want to prosecute.

Having seen the process first hand, at least in my experience, that isn't the main motivation. Rather, it is to net the most responsible criminal. If that brings publicity, then so be it, but that is the effect, not the cause.

 

[KLB]

Having seen the process first hand, at least in my experience, that isn't the main motivation. Rather, it is to net the most responsible criminal. If that brings publicity, then so be it, but that is the effect, not the cause.

To use a mob example, which seems to be where we most often hear about this type of thing. Prosecute the guy that ordered the hit, rather than the guy that pulled the trigger?

 

[T.Lex]

To use a mob example, which seems to be where we most often hear about this type of thing. Prosecute the guy that ordered the hit, rather than the guy that pulled the trigger?

I was never involved in that specific kind of thing, but yeah.

Same with drugs. The mules need to be busted, but if cutting one of them loose helps get the dealer, then that's a better trade. If a small dealer can get you a big dealer, then that's a fair trade.

ETA:
Maybe a better example are the DOJ investigations of corrupt police departments. May have to cut a deal with a criminal to get the criminals with badges.

 

[BugI02]

Having seen the process first hand, at least in my experience, that isn't the main motivation. Rather, it is to net the most responsible criminal. If that brings publicity, then so be it, but that is the effect, not the cause.

The “process” would seem to share many of the weaknesses of torture, in that the prosecutor is inflicting (legal) pain on the person of interest with elimination of or lessening of the pain available in exchange for information. Where physical torture is used, it has been proven that the recipient will tell his abuser whatever he thinks that person most wants to hear and will quite often confess to crimes for which there is only self-implication. I suspect legal torture has quite similar effects

 

[printcraft]

 

[T.Lex]

IIRC, Web Hubbell received immunity for involvement in the Whitewater issues. Didn't seem to be a problem then.

 

[BugI02]

Prosecutors cannot be sued for injuries caused by their own misconduct. For example, even if a prosecutor deliberately withholds exculpatory evidence in violation of professional ethics and a defendant’s constitutional rights, and this willful misconduct results in an innocent person spending decades behind bars for a crime of which they are subsequently exonerated—the prosecutor remains immune from civil liability.


The policy of absolute prosecutorial immunity comes not from Congress but from the Supreme Court, which took 42 U.S.C. § 1983’s command that “every person” who, acting under color of law, violates the rights of another, “shall be liable to the party injured,” and added “except for prosecutors.” Was the Court’s originalist reasoning sound? Would a different policy open the floodgates and subject prosecutors to endless litigation, as the majority feared? And are there really other ways of ensuring proper accountability for some of the most powerful actors in our system of government?

https://fedsoc.org/events/prosecutorial-immunity

I'm sure having absolute immunity from the legal consequences of malfeasance and misfeasance, and thus zero skin in the game, could not possibly result in prosecutorial misconduct. I'm sure people like Mueller and Khuzami are our better natures, writ large and made manifest. Politics has absolutely nothing to do with it

 

[d.kaufman]

 

[jamil]

or, maybe Paula Jones is.

 

[KLB]

or, maybe Paula Jones is.

Blasphemer!

 

[EPeter213]

Bring in...The COMFY CHAIR!!!

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html?noredirect=on
‘I may never have a normal life again’: Stormy Daniels speaks out in rare television interview


NORMAL?

 

[Hohn]

Totally different rabbit hole, but things like ordinance violations (and even some infractions, I think) are "laws" that don't make criminals when they are broken. They are in the nature of a civil action.

Areas like campaign finance are chock full of "unlawful" acts that create civil penalties (like fines), but do not create criminals (meaning jail time). Now, there are SOME campaign finance laws that do create criminals. I think those are the ones at issue here. And elsewhere.

There sure are a lot of armed agents enforcing these non-law "ordinances" and regs.

And it sure as heck doesn't seem that civil to search my home, pry into my life, and cost me a vast sum of money not to mention reputation and possible livelihood.

 

[T.Lex]

There sure are a lot of armed agents enforcing these non-law "ordinances" and regs.

And it sure as heck doesn't seem that civil to search my home, pry into my life, and cost me a vast sum of money not to mention reputation and possible livelihood.

Welcome to Modern America, you must be new here.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You're going to hear the line "mushroom character in Mario Kart" today.

You're not going to like the reason.