happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,938
|
Post by happyhoix on May 6, 2024 18:39:26 GMT -5
The familiar irony at the bottom of Trump’s selective prosecution argument
In a new motion filed Thursday, Trump’s lawyers argue that a Chinese immigrant’s case provides the precedent for throwing out the charges in Florida. It’s hard to think of a famous Supreme Court plaintiff with whom former President Donald Trump has less in common than Lee Yick, a Chinese immigrant who was convicted of operating an unlicensed laundry in late-19th-century San Francisco. Yick sued, arguing that San Francisco’s pattern of denying permits to virtually every Chinese applicant while granting them to virtually every white applicant violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in his case, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, still stands today. It says that the application of a race-neutral law, such as San Francisco’s laundry-permitting scheme, can be so obviously discriminatory that it demonstrates an intentional (and actionable) violation of the Constitution. Donald Trump is no Lee Yick. And yet, in a motion filed Thursday in Florida, his lawyers argue that Yick’s case provides a precedent for throwing out the charges in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents prosecution. They say federal prosecutors are engaged in unconstitutional “selective prosecution” of Trump. There are two different, but equally fatal, problems with Trump’s argument. First, for better or worse, the Supreme Court has made selective prosecution claims notoriously difficult to prove. Second, Trump is just about the worst possible person to bring a selective prosecution claim — since so much of his allegedly unlawful conduct in the Mar-a-Lago case is unprecedented. A claim for selective prosecution is, in essence, a claim that the government chose to prosecute a defendant for the exact same conduct for which it chose not to prosecute a different individual. The claim includes the argument that there was no good reason (and, indeed, a nefarious one, like race or political views) for treating the two cases differently. The argument is not that the defendant is innocent; it’s that the government’s misconduct in singling out the defendant ought to be punished — by barring the prosecution of even a guilty defendant. Perhaps because the stakes are so high, the Supreme Court in recent decades has made selective prosecution claims much more difficult to prove. Under a series of cases in the late 1990s, for instance, the justices regularly held that to establish a selective prosecution claim, the burden is on the defendant to identify materially similar cases that the government did not prosecute. And even then the selective prosecution claim would fail if the government had a good reason for not having brought the other case: Say, a suspect in that case cooperated with law enforcement or there were evidentiary issues. Only if the defendant could prove that the government had deliberately and intentionally singled him out from other similarly situated suspects without any good reason would such a claim succeed. This is why, for instance, it is exceedingly difficult to prove racial profiling claims. To establish that a police officer only gives speeding tickets to Black motorists, for example, a plaintiff would have to provide evidence of the officer not pulling over other non-Black motorists engaged in the same behavior. The plaintiff would have to prove a negative. Rest of article here: The familiar irony at the bottom of Trump’s selective prosecution argument I saw this article the other day and got somewhat confused. Is Trump claiming selective prosecution because Biden and Clinton and Obama (according to Trump) all ‘got away’ with having classified documents in their homes/private offices (In Clinton’s case, in his sock drawer) and they didn’t get prosecuted, but poor Trump, who has done nothing worse than other presidents did before him, is getting the book thrown at him (according to Trump)? He keeps whining about that, but the cases are not the same at all. Especially the Clinton ‘sock’ case- what Clinton had in his sock drawer were some tapes of interviews someone had done with him - not government documents. Yet somehow Trump has fixated on that.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,447
|
Post by thyme4change on May 6, 2024 20:56:08 GMT -5
Here is an easy one. With the ease of world travel, disease control is global. Yet still it is an issue that a country does individually. Look at COVID everyone had their own rules. No need for a kum by ya jerkoff fest We had US employees embedded in Chinese labs and were able to identify threats before they left China. Trump pulled them out. Even if Covid had escaped China, the response of the entire world may have been different if we had more warning. China lied to us (the whole world) at every point they could. Trying to isolate ourselves failed because we are not isolated. We are integrated internationally- financially, for innovation, for manufacturing - raw materials, semi-finished and finished goods. We buy from the world and the world buys from us. That includes everything from t-shirts to energy production, movies to groceries. No industry is untouched. And of course - the biggest money suck of all - defense. If we just pulled out of all the countries we are all tangled in - there would be a void. Who will fill that void? Russia? China? And how does our status in the world change when countries have no loyalty to the US and are best friends with another big country that wants the US to lose status? Did you see Mean Girls? We could Regina George ourselves under a bus. What power will we hold if we have no international presence? How will we rank when we want something?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,619
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 7, 2024 12:21:22 GMT -5
Just How Compromised Is The GOP By The Russians?There's increasing evidence that the Russians are pulling the GOP’s puppet strings. For years, critics of Vladimir Putin have been warning that the Russians have taken over parts of the Republican Party. They raised the alarm as Republicans defended the Russian leader, parroted clear Kremlin talking points, and became mules for disinformation campaigns. In recent weeks, that criticism has shifted to include not just Republicans who have left the party, including former representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, but current GOP members. Recently, two powerful Republican chairs of the House Intelligence Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee warned openly about how Russian propaganda has seeped into their party and even made its way into speeches on the House floor. Other members are now even openly questioning whether some of their fellow officials have been compromised and are being extorted. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) suggested in a recent interview that the Russian spies may possess compromising tapes of some of his colleagues. It’s unclear where he’s getting his information or how accurate it is. And then there’s this: According to a report by Politico, a number of European politicians were recently paid by Moscow to interfere in the upcoming EU elections by Russians pretending to be a “media” outlet called “Voice of Europe.” The Kremlin-backed operation used money to influence officials to take pro-Russian stances. Authorities have conducted some money seizures and launched an investigation into which members of the European Parliament may have accepted cash bribes. This in turn raises an important question for our own politics: Are the Russians doing the same with U.S. politicians, directly or indirectly? This piece walks through the three types of compromise—disinformation, extortion, and bribery—to give a sense of what we know and what we don’t really know, and, importantly, where we should be on our guard. As this summary will show, from the 2016 election till now, there’s enough Russian smoke now to assume there is a fire, one that compromises not only the integrity of our own system of elections, but the safety and security of the free world. Rest of article here: Just How Compromised Is The GOP By The Russians?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,235
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 14:24:15 GMT -5
i listed two of them already: ICBM's and climate related matters (IE, CO2 emissions). there are literally dozens of other ones i could give you, but a few include immigration/migration, poverty and disease control, water and food scarcity, and human rights issues. Everything except the exaggeration of climate change are all non global and fairly local to the country ok. do you believe that we should abide by our constitution? edit: i disagree fervently that immigration is a "local issue". it is INHERENTLY regional/global in nature, and requires international cooperation in order to ensure that it is as tidy as possible. i am sure, given the amount of back and forth we have had on this discussion, you must agree. this is not just a "border" issue. if it were, then extradition would not be a tool in our arsenal for dealing with it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,235
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 14:25:46 GMT -5
Here is an easy one. With the ease of world travel, disease control is global. Yet still it is an issue that a country does individually. Look at COVID everyone had their own rules. No need for a kum by ya jerkoff fest you just made a strong case for better international cooperation.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,235
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 14:27:22 GMT -5
The 80s was awesome. The whole country must have thought so too look how he won his second term. The mortgage rates were 12.5% in July 1985. There is much whining now about 7. Reagan tripled the national debt while pretending to be fiscally responsible. He presided over Iran~Contra and all the criminality that entailed, including tons of cocaine. AIDS. Crack. Just an all around wonderful time. all of that, and Reagan would have to run as a Democrat, if he were to run today, given how far to the right the GOP has gone since then.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,235
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 14:28:22 GMT -5
i saw the interview. disqualifying.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,235
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 14:34:17 GMT -5
Trump does win the award for the largest, non war related death toll since the Spanish flu. But that is what he likes to call “fake news”. But at least there weren’t any large scale terrorist attacks. Yeah for us! you're being generous. i contend that if we had done a decent job of testing (we could have done that. we had the resources, and the international community offered us the test kits), masking, and isolation, we would have saved over 1M lives. i can back that up by comparing our death rates to those that did that did an A rated job. Trump is personally responsible for killing more Americans than any president in US history, including the Civil War era and the Spanish Flu. this DESPITE having huge advantages in terms of resources in technology is one of the best cases for rating Trump absolute last. if he wanted to be a dictator for a day, it should have been the day we determined that COVID was going to be a problem for us. he would probably still be president, if he had done that.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,938
|
Post by happyhoix on May 7, 2024 15:18:54 GMT -5
Just How Compromised Is The GOP By The Russians?There's increasing evidence that the Russians are pulling the GOP’s puppet strings. For years, critics of Vladimir Putin have been warning that the Russians have taken over parts of the Republican Party. They raised the alarm as Republicans defended the Russian leader, parroted clear Kremlin talking points, and became mules for disinformation campaigns. In recent weeks, that criticism has shifted to include not just Republicans who have left the party, including former representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, but current GOP members. Recently, two powerful Republican chairs of the House Intelligence Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee warned openly about how Russian propaganda has seeped into their party and even made its way into speeches on the House floor. Other members are now even openly questioning whether some of their fellow officials have been compromised and are being extorted. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) suggested in a recent interview that the Russian spies may possess compromising tapes of some of his colleagues. It’s unclear where he’s getting his information or how accurate it is. And then there’s this: According to a report by Politico, a number of European politicians were recently paid by Moscow to interfere in the upcoming EU elections by Russians pretending to be a “media” outlet called “Voice of Europe.” The Kremlin-backed operation used money to influence officials to take pro-Russian stances. Authorities have conducted some money seizures and launched an investigation into which members of the European Parliament may have accepted cash bribes. This in turn raises an important question for our own politics: Are the Russians doing the same with U.S. politicians, directly or indirectly? This piece walks through the three types of compromise—disinformation, extortion, and bribery—to give a sense of what we know and what we don’t really know, and, importantly, where we should be on our guard. As this summary will show, from the 2016 election till now, there’s enough Russian smoke now to assume there is a fire, one that compromises not only the integrity of our own system of elections, but the safety and security of the free world. Rest of article here: Just How Compromised Is The GOP By The Russians? I saw something in the last few weeks showing Trump making a speech that mirrored Russian talking points exactly. Pretty positive there is a serious Russian influence on the GOP
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,235
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 16:12:27 GMT -5
PS- you will note in #1837 i said "decent". that is to say, "average to good". an excellent job would have saved upwards of 1.2M lives. if we did as well as New Zealand, we would have saved more than 1.3M lives. but they were truly exceptional.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,235
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 16:37:07 GMT -5
i didn't realize NZ had an outbreak in 2022. they ended up getting a B+ instead of an A. i stopped paying attention in the last two years, apparently. my A list is now Australia, South Korea, and Japan. Japan is most notable since they have a large elderly and urban population (even moreso than the US) and the virus originated less than 1000 miles away from them. if we had done as well as Japan, we would have saved over 1M lives. but apparently, we are such a great nation that we ended up 24th among the 25 most populous nations (Greece beat us out by a whisker). MAGA!!!
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,619
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 7, 2024 18:06:51 GMT -5
i didn't realize NZ had an outbreak in 2022. they ended up getting a B+ instead of an A. i stopped paying attention in the last two years, apparently. my A list is now Australia, South Korea, and Japan. Japan is most notable since they have a large elderly and urban population (even moreso than the US) and the virus originated less than 1000 miles away from them. if we had done as well as Japan, we would have saved over 1M lives. but apparently, we are such a great nation that we ended up 24th among the 25 most populous nations (Greece beat us out by a whisker). MAGA!!! If only we as a nation had each self-injected a gallon of , the U.S. death toll would have been less than fifty.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,938
|
Post by happyhoix on May 8, 2024 9:27:28 GMT -5
Haley got 22% of the Indiana vote. Wonder who those guys will vote for in November?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,235
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2024 11:23:20 GMT -5
well, most of them will NOT vote for Biden. but most of them will ALSO not vote for Trump. i would guess Kennedy, if i were to guess.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,619
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 8, 2024 11:26:34 GMT -5
RFK Jr. says parasite ate part of his brainRobert F. Kennedy Jr. said doctors told him a parasite ate part of his brain, after experiencing memory loss and brain fog in 2010. The New York Times reviewed a deposition of Kennedy from 2012 that detailed his experience with his symptoms and the dead parasite. The Times reported that Kennedy started dealing with memory loss and mental fogginess in 2010, prompting concerns from a friend that the now-presidential candidate may have had a tumor. Kennedy gave the 2012 deposition during divorce proceedings from his second wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy. Kennedy discussed his symptoms in the deposition because he argued his cognitive struggles in relation to the situation had diminished his earning power, according to The Times report. Several doctors who had first concluded Kennedy had a tumor found a dark spot on his brain scans, The Times reported. However, just as he was packing up to have surgery and remove the tumor, he said in the deposition that another doctor called him and told him he believed Kennedy instead had a dead parasite in his brain. The doctor told him he believed the spot on the brain scan “was caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died,” Kennedy reportedly said in the deposition. Rest of article here: RFK Jr. says parasite ate part of his brain
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on May 8, 2024 11:36:28 GMT -5
RFK Jr. says parasite ate part of his brainRobert F. Kennedy Jr. said doctors told him a parasite ate part of his brain, after experiencing memory loss and brain fog in 2010. The New York Times reviewed a deposition of Kennedy from 2012 that detailed his experience with his symptoms and the dead parasite. The Times reported that Kennedy started dealing with memory loss and mental fogginess in 2010, prompting concerns from a friend that the now-presidential candidate may have had a tumor. Kennedy gave the 2012 deposition during divorce proceedings from his second wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy. Kennedy discussed his symptoms in the deposition because he argued his cognitive struggles in relation to the situation had diminished his earning power, according to The Times report. Several doctors who had first concluded Kennedy had a tumor found a dark spot on his brain scans, The Times reported. However, just as he was packing up to have surgery and remove the tumor, he said in the deposition that another doctor called him and told him he believed Kennedy instead had a dead parasite in his brain. The doctor told him he believed the spot on the brain scan “was caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died,” Kennedy reportedly said in the deposition. Rest of article here: RFK Jr. says parasite ate part of his brain So that does raise a question, I guess.... "Exactly how much of one's brain being eaten by a worm should be disqualifying for a presidential candidate?" Now obviously the answer will be different for Democrats and Republicans, considering who Republicans have nominated for both this election and various offices in the past, but what about for someone who is essentially neither?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,334
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 8, 2024 12:49:46 GMT -5
RFK Jr. says parasite ate part of his brainThe New York Times reviewed a deposition of Kennedy from 2012 that detailed his experience with his symptoms and the dead parasite. The Times reported that Kennedy started dealing with memory loss and mental fogginess in 2010, prompting concerns from a friend that the now-presidential candidate may have had a tumor. Kennedy gave the 2012 deposition during divorce proceedings from his second wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy. Kennedy discussed his symptoms in the deposition because he argued his cognitive struggles in relation to the situation had diminished his earning power, according to The Times report. Several doctors who had first concluded Kennedy had a tumor found a dark spot on his brain scans, The Times reported. However, just as he was packing up to have surgery and remove the tumor, he said in the deposition that another doctor called him and told him he believed Kennedy instead had a dead parasite in his brain. The doctor told him he believed the spot on the brain scan “was caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died,” Kennedy reportedly said in the deposition. Rest of article here: RFK Jr. says parasite ate part of his brain Well that explains A LOT.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,619
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 8, 2024 14:40:38 GMT -5
RFK Jr. says parasite ate part of his brainThe New York Times reviewed a deposition of Kennedy from 2012 that detailed his experience with his symptoms and the dead parasite. The Times reported that Kennedy started dealing with memory loss and mental fogginess in 2010, prompting concerns from a friend that the now-presidential candidate may have had a tumor. Kennedy gave the 2012 deposition during divorce proceedings from his second wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy. Kennedy discussed his symptoms in the deposition because he argued his cognitive struggles in relation to the situation had diminished his earning power, according to The Times report. Several doctors who had first concluded Kennedy had a tumor found a dark spot on his brain scans, The Times reported. However, just as he was packing up to have surgery and remove the tumor, he said in the deposition that another doctor called him and told him he believed Kennedy instead had a dead parasite in his brain. The doctor told him he believed the spot on the brain scan “was caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died,” Kennedy reportedly said in the deposition. Rest of article here: RFK Jr. says parasite ate part of his brain Well that explains A LOT. I wouldn't vote for him anyway, parasite or not.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,235
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2024 15:27:10 GMT -5
RFK Jr. says parasite ate part of his brainRobert F. Kennedy Jr. said doctors told him a parasite ate part of his brain, after experiencing memory loss and brain fog in 2010. The New York Times reviewed a deposition of Kennedy from 2012 that detailed his experience with his symptoms and the dead parasite. The Times reported that Kennedy started dealing with memory loss and mental fogginess in 2010, prompting concerns from a friend that the now-presidential candidate may have had a tumor. Kennedy gave the 2012 deposition during divorce proceedings from his second wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy. Kennedy discussed his symptoms in the deposition because he argued his cognitive struggles in relation to the situation had diminished his earning power, according to The Times report. Several doctors who had first concluded Kennedy had a tumor found a dark spot on his brain scans, The Times reported. However, just as he was packing up to have surgery and remove the tumor, he said in the deposition that another doctor called him and told him he believed Kennedy instead had a dead parasite in his brain. The doctor told him he believed the spot on the brain scan “was caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died,” Kennedy reportedly said in the deposition. Rest of article here: RFK Jr. says parasite ate part of his brain So that does raise a question, I guess.... "Exactly how much of one's brain being eaten by a worm should be disqualifying for a presidential candidate?" Now obviously the answer will be different for Democrats and Republicans, considering who Republicans have nominated for both this election and various offices in the past, but what about for someone who is essentially neither? "none" works for me.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on May 8, 2024 15:31:19 GMT -5
So that does raise a question, I guess.... "Exactly how much of one's brain being eaten by a worm should be disqualifying for a presidential candidate?" Now obviously the answer will be different for Democrats and Republicans, considering who Republicans have nominated for both this election and various offices in the past, but what about for someone who is essentially neither? "none" works for me. I guess you can kill any idea of ever going back to the Republican Party, can't you?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,235
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2024 15:35:35 GMT -5
Yet still it is an issue that a country does individually. Look at COVID everyone had their own rules. No need for a kum by ya jerkoff fest We had US employees embedded in Chinese labs and were able to identify threats before they left China. Trump pulled them out. Even if Covid had escaped China, the response of the entire world may have been different if we had more warning. China lied to us (the whole world) at every point they could. Trying to isolate ourselves failed because we are not isolated. We are integrated internationally- financially, for innovation, for manufacturing - raw materials, semi-finished and finished goods. We buy from the world and the world buys from us. That includes everything from t-shirts to energy production, movies to groceries. No industry is untouched. And of course - the biggest money suck of all - defense. If we just pulled out of all the countries we are all tangled in - there would be a void. Who will fill that void? Russia? China? And how does our status in the world change when countries have no loyalty to the US and are best friends with another big country that wants the US to lose status? Did you see Mean Girls? We could Regina George ourselves under a bus. What power will we hold if we have no international presence? How will we rank when we want something? how about nobody? we were never invited most of these places, we are unwelcome there, and they would cheer our leaving.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,235
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2024 15:36:43 GMT -5
I guess you can kill any idea of ever going back to the Republican Party, can't you? at this point, i can't even imagine why one would vote in that party. i mean, seriously. the GOP is no longer interested in politics. that has been clear for at least a decade. i am. ergo.....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,235
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2024 15:40:50 GMT -5
The familiar irony at the bottom of Trump’s selective prosecution argument
In a new motion filed Thursday, Trump’s lawyers argue that a Chinese immigrant’s case provides the precedent for throwing out the charges in Florida. It’s hard to think of a famous Supreme Court plaintiff with whom former President Donald Trump has less in common than Lee Yick, a Chinese immigrant who was convicted of operating an unlicensed laundry in late-19th-century San Francisco. Yick sued, arguing that San Francisco’s pattern of denying permits to virtually every Chinese applicant while granting them to virtually every white applicant violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in his case, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, still stands today. It says that the application of a race-neutral law, such as San Francisco’s laundry-permitting scheme, can be so obviously discriminatory that it demonstrates an intentional (and actionable) violation of the Constitution. Donald Trump is no Lee Yick. And yet, in a motion filed Thursday in Florida, his lawyers argue that Yick’s case provides a precedent for throwing out the charges in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents prosecution. They say federal prosecutors are engaged in unconstitutional “selective prosecution” of Trump. There are two different, but equally fatal, problems with Trump’s argument. First, for better or worse, the Supreme Court has made selective prosecution claims notoriously difficult to prove. Second, Trump is just about the worst possible person to bring a selective prosecution claim — since so much of his allegedly unlawful conduct in the Mar-a-Lago case is unprecedented. A claim for selective prosecution is, in essence, a claim that the government chose to prosecute a defendant for the exact same conduct for which it chose not to prosecute a different individual. The claim includes the argument that there was no good reason (and, indeed, a nefarious one, like race or political views) for treating the two cases differently. The argument is not that the defendant is innocent; it’s that the government’s misconduct in singling out the defendant ought to be punished — by barring the prosecution of even a guilty defendant. Perhaps because the stakes are so high, the Supreme Court in recent decades has made selective prosecution claims much more difficult to prove. Under a series of cases in the late 1990s, for instance, the justices regularly held that to establish a selective prosecution claim, the burden is on the defendant to identify materially similar cases that the government did not prosecute. And even then the selective prosecution claim would fail if the government had a good reason for not having brought the other case: Say, a suspect in that case cooperated with law enforcement or there were evidentiary issues. Only if the defendant could prove that the government had deliberately and intentionally singled him out from other similarly situated suspects without any good reason would such a claim succeed. This is why, for instance, it is exceedingly difficult to prove racial profiling claims. To establish that a police officer only gives speeding tickets to Black motorists, for example, a plaintiff would have to provide evidence of the officer not pulling over other non-Black motorists engaged in the same behavior. The plaintiff would have to prove a negative. Rest of article here: The familiar irony at the bottom of Trump’s selective prosecution argument I saw this article the other day and got somewhat confused. Is Trump claiming selective prosecution because Biden and Clinton and Obama (according to Trump) all ‘got away’ with having classified documents in their homes/private offices (In Clinton’s case, in his sock drawer) and they didn’t get prosecuted, but poor Trump, who has done nothing worse than other presidents did before him, is getting the book thrown at him (according to Trump)? He keeps whining about that, but the cases are not the same at all. Especially the Clinton ‘sock’ case- what Clinton had in his sock drawer were some tapes of interviews someone had done with him - not government documents. Yet somehow Trump has fixated on that. the issue was never having the documents. the issue was KNOWINGLY having them and then REFUSING TO RETURN THEM. that combination is what Trump is in trouble for. this is a very clearcut case. it would not take two weeks to prosecute it, if Cannon would simply bring it to court.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,418
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 8, 2024 15:48:19 GMT -5
She knows that, that is why she is trying her best for it to not see the light of day. Or, she truly is an idiot and doesn’t understand the law. The second is more likely, I guess
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,938
|
Post by happyhoix on May 8, 2024 19:53:36 GMT -5
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,423
|
Post by NastyWoman on May 8, 2024 20:26:37 GMT -5
RFK Jr. says parasite ate part of his brainRobert F. Kennedy Jr. said doctors told him a parasite ate part of his brain, after experiencing memory loss and brain fog in 2010. The New York Times reviewed a deposition of Kennedy from 2012 that detailed his experience with his symptoms and the dead parasite. The Times reported that Kennedy started dealing with memory loss and mental fogginess in 2010, prompting concerns from a friend that the now-presidential candidate may have had a tumor. Kennedy gave the 2012 deposition during divorce proceedings from his second wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy. Kennedy discussed his symptoms in the deposition because he argued his cognitive struggles in relation to the situation had diminished his earning power, according to The Times report. Several doctors who had first concluded Kennedy had a tumor found a dark spot on his brain scans, The Times reported. However, just as he was packing up to have surgery and remove the tumor, he said in the deposition that another doctor called him and told him he believed Kennedy instead had a dead parasite in his brain. The doctor told him he believed the spot on the brain scan “was caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died,” Kennedy reportedly said in the deposition. Rest of article here: RFK Jr. says parasite ate part of his brain So that does raise a question, I guess.... "Exactly how much of one's brain being eaten by a worm should be disqualifying for a presidential candidate?" Now obviously the answer will be different for Democrats and Republicans, considering who Republicans have nominated for both this election and various offices in the past, but what about for someone who is essentially neither? You mean to say having brains is a qualifying requirement? How about for eligibility to vote? Or being a Representative? What of those "poor" people who must have been attacked during an alien invasion (looking at MTG, Bobert, and their ilk) assuming they ever had the brains to be eaten to begin with?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on May 8, 2024 20:57:41 GMT -5
So that does raise a question, I guess.... "Exactly how much of one's brain being eaten by a worm should be disqualifying for a presidential candidate?" Now obviously the answer will be different for Democrats and Republicans, considering who Republicans have nominated for both this election and various offices in the past, but what about for someone who is essentially neither? You mean to say having brains is a qualifying requirement? How about for eligibility to vote? Or being a Representative? What of those "poor" people who must have been attacked during an alien invasion (looking at MTG, Bobert, and their ilk) assuming they ever had the brains to be eaten to begin with? To be precise, I am saying that not having a brain should be a disqualifying event. Obviously that is not the case for Republicans or Republican voters, who have shown that they will vote for anybody either with brains or not. Some in fact seem to think that not having a working brain is a badge of honor and makes one even more worthy. It is the case for Democrats, generally. It is the case for liberals, absolutely.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,334
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 9, 2024 9:47:06 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,235
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 9, 2024 12:41:36 GMT -5
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,334
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 9, 2024 13:52:20 GMT -5
That movie makes me pee my pants laughing no matter how many times I watch it.
|
|