Hitler never broke any laws either, so appealing to law is a grave stupidity. — NOS4A2

No doubt it was more "lawful power to defraud the country" that landed H in the clink.

I'm unsure this is the time to enact Godwin's Law — AmadeusD

I disagree, it's the perfect time, being that Hitler was incarcerated for a failed coup.

The Dems were not (which is the comparison).

It's perfect in my opinion because Hilter did indeed break the law and was convicted, for a failed coup attempt no less, and this demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that enacting Godwin's Law can be a grave stupidity.

LOL, Oh, i see. As you were..

Clearly I was speaking about his crimes against humanity, which were not crimes. That their actions weren’t illegal or that they were just following orders was the same argument the Nazis used to avoid responsibility at the Nuremberg trials. It was also legal to own slaves, to beat your wife, if you’d prefer.

Clearly I was speaking about his crimes against humanity, which were not crimes. — NOS4A2

It demonstrates more grave stupidity to confuse international criminal laws with domestic laws.

It was also legal to own slaves — NOS4A2

It demonstrates yet more grave stupidity to confuse centuries-old laws with current laws.

It demonstrates more grave stupidity to confuse international criminal laws with domestic laws.

They invented the law after the fact in order to prosecute the Nazis for a crime. They were violating no law. Therefor what they did was fine, correct?

It demonstrates yet more grave stupidity to confuse centuries-old laws with current laws.

There is nothing to confuse. They broke no law, therefor what they did was fine. Isn’t that so?

They invented the law after the fact in order to prosecute the Nazis for a crime. There were violating no law. Therefor what they did was fine, correct? — NOS4A2

Sorry, google say the Armenian genocide is a precedent to the Nüremberg and Tokyo trials. Try again?

There is nothing to confuse. They broke no law, therefor what they did was fine. Isn’t that so? — NOS4A2

You're asking me if I think slavery is fine. Clearly you are confused.

Sorry, google say the Armenian genocide is a precedent to the Nüremberg and Tokyo trials. Try again?

Here I thought we were talking about law. Sorry, but the declarations of the UK, France, and Russia do not represent “international law”. I suppose you should google again.

You're asking me if I think slavery is fine. Clearly you are confused.

You’re the one who appealed to law, I’m afraid. Or can you think of any other reason why slavery is wrong without appealing to law?

Here I thought we were talking about law. Sorry, but the declarations of the UK, France, and Russia do not represent “international law”. I suppose you should google again. — NOS4A2

You're the one who brought up "crimes against humanity," not me. What did you mean if it didn't involve other nations?

I was just trying to make the point that appealing to law is fallacious. You made an effort to point out to me that laws were broken by rioters, and no laws were broken by those involved in the coup. So what?

no laws were broken by those involved in the coup. So what? — NOS4A2

Soooooooo, a coup is a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government.

The years-long investigations that you referred to were neither sudden nor violent, by your own admission they were lawful, and they were not designed to seize power from the government.

@praxis I'll rephrase his point that might take this discussion somewhere. NOS4A2 believes various acts were committed that, while lawful, constitute an immoral usurption of power morally equivalent to an actual coup.

It could be a fair point and worthwhile to investigate if it weren't for the fact he keeps denying the actual election interference (both unethical and unlawful) that Trump pursued. In other words, the whole point is a red herring vis-a-vis this thread.

I was refuting the claim that Trump brought it all on himself, which is absurd because one can never bring charges on himself. Prosecutors bring charges. The prosecutor’s motivations along with the frivolousness and novelty of the charges reveal the political motives. — NOS4A2

When you commit crimes and act recklessly, you suffer the consequences -- you bring it all on yourself. Blaming the prosecutors or investigators or the police is what criminals do. Instead of it being about your behavior and the choices you made, it is "they're out to get me." To me, what is relevant is whether there is any evidence of a crime or not -- that's much more relevant than speculating on the political motives of those bringing the indictments. By contrast, look at the GOP members of Congress. Obviously, they are highly motivated to impeach Joe Biden. They would love to do it. But do they have enough evidence to prove that Biden did an impeachable offense? At the end of the day, that is what matters, not their motivation.

Everytime I see a mention of Trump, I am reminded of several Buddhists who are his avid fans.
— baker

Now that is interesting. Do you have any theories why he appeals to them? — Tom Storm

Come to think of it, the mantra "Everyone is solely responsible for themselves" is what they both have in common (and the implications of this stance).

Seeing Buddhist Trumpistas and being overwhelmed by the phenomenon is actually a big reason why I distanced myself from Buddhism and why I took some interest in politics.

Come to think of it, the mantra "Everyone is solely responsible for themselves" is what they both have in common (and the implications of this stance). — baker

Doesn't jibe well with the Buddhist concept of interdependence and no-self. The simple answer is that they're conservatives.

Doesn't jibe well with the Buddhist concept of interdependence and no-self. — praxis

And yet there's "Be an island unto yourself / Be a lamp unto yourself".
Anyway, this probably deserves a discussion of its own.

The indictments are a consequence of a two-tiered justice system and politically-motivated prosecutors. There is no evidence of any crime; there are no victims; and the indictments read like deep-state dinner-theater. In my mind one should care a little bit about an unjust justice system.

According to a recent amicus brief Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed. He was a private citizen who now has more power than any of the other US attorneys in the DOJ. Unlike the other attorneys he was neither appointed by any president nor approved by the senate. I wonder why that is?

And yet there's "Be an island unto yourself / Be a lamp unto yourself". — baker

Doesn't jibe well with MAGA which demands fealty to Trump and his narratives.

Funny I hadn't realized till this discussion how close J6 is to a coup. It was sudden, violent, and unlawful. The only question is whether the intent was to seize power. That's hard to answer because the perpetrators were a bunch of knuckle-headed Trump supporters and who knows what they were thinking.

Funnier still is NOS's claim that J6 was a Reichstag moment for the DNC, FBI, CIA, and media Nazis, when Trump's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who he appointed, said it was such a moment for Trump and his Big Lie. Projection?

According to 28 U.S. Code § 533 – "The Attorney General may appoint officials— (1) to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States" so I think the appointment by Merrick Garland of Jack Smith is covered by that.

If we're going to rule out politically motivated prosecutors then how do we determine where the line is, and where does it stop? As I stated, many of the GOP members of Congress certainly seem politically motivated to want to impeach Joe Biden. If they do find evidence, should it be ignored because they are politically motivated?

The intended victims of the insurrection, or the attempted coup if you want to call it that, were pretty much everyone who voted for Biden. I am one of the intended victims. They wanted to pressure Congress to de-certify the electors from Pennsylvania and other swing states and replace them with fake (or as they called them, alternate) electors. They wanted Pence to grandstand and do this, even though he wasn't constitutionally empowered to do this. If Pence had a weak stomach and wouldn't show up that day, Grassley was ready to step into that role. If you're focusing on what is unconstitutional, maybe you should focus on that. Trump tried to pressure his Department of Justice to just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to him and his Republican allies in Congress. If you're focusing on attempts to politicize the justice system, maybe you should focus on that. Trump and his co-conspirators don't magically become innocent just because they failed.

More to the point, this argument in the amicus brief:

Even without such a presumption, ordinary statutory interpretation demonstrates that the Attorney General received no power to appoint Special Counsels as inferior officers. None of the statutes canvassed in the previous section contains any such authorization. — Docket 23-624

does not address Part 600:

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United
States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to ap-
point an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

From 600.3

The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel
shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.

From 600.4
(a) Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted. — Federal Regulations

If there are grounds for striking down Part 600 itself on constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court will have to send the whole matter back to Congress to fix.

As far as political interference goes, none of the brief writers were complaining when Barr set up John Durham as Special Prosecutor. Always check bathwater for babies.

Something I read on Reddit by the poster gravygrowinggreen, which I think is worth repeating here:

"It is almost like according to the legal scholars defending Trump, that there is no appropriate way to conduct any criminal proceedings against him: if the investigator is part of the government, they're biased. If they're independent, they're unconstitutional."

Bullseye!

Trump acts as if he's convinced he's above the law, and Trump supporters likewise view him as above the law, or as BEING the law. Hence his constant denigration of his prosecutors as 'perverts' and 'communists' and the cases being 'conspiracies' and 'hoaxes'. And millions believe him. Another of the enormous disservices he's doing to American civil society.

$83M awarded to Carroll in her defamation lawsuit against Trump. The amount he was ordered to pay in the first trial clearly wasn't enough to shut him up, but this time I think it's going to. Not a word about Carroll in his post-verdict angry tweets; just the crazy claim that it's all BIden's fault.

It's going to take a lot of mug-shot t-shirt sales to cover that one.

Trump acts as if he's convinced he's above the law, and Trump supporters likewise view him as above the law, or as BEING the law. — Wayfarer

It’s gaslighting (it’s not that bad, nothing worse than X) and cult of personality behavior (how dare you prosecute the dear leader) behind the support, mixed with possibly religious ends justify the means notions for evangelicals. He’s the flawed orange messiah.

The day of reckoning cometh.

The persecution is wild on this one. Democrat Anti-Trump law-makers invented a law with her in mind. Gave her a year-long window to sue. No evidence of any crime. No guilty verdict or criminal trial. Cannot remember the year or date so cannot give alibi. Won’t allow DNA test of alleged dress she wore. Anti-Trump judge. Lawyers funded by Reid Hoffman and other dark money. Defence not allowed to defend. Arbitrary punitive damages. Law disappears. Bring back statute of limitations. Trump calls the psycho a liar. Sue again.

New York is a shit-hole.