WTH makes folks cotton to the politicization of the law and the rule of law?

[Xelor]

I just heard someone on the news remark that many Republicans, Trump supporters in particular, don't think that what someone (I don't really know who because I wasn't paying that much attention to who was the topic of discussion) did was a crime.

WTH?

Since when did what actions constitute criminally culpable behavior become a matter of what anyone, other than a judge, jurors, prosecutors and the accused, thinks? Our system of law doesn't work that way, nor was it ever meant or designed to.

• Judges, not presidents, governors or members of legislatures/general public get to say what a given provision in the code means and doesn't mean, when it's applicable and when it's not, etc.
• Jurors, not presidents, governors or members of legislatures/the general public get to say whether an accused person is guilty or not guilty. (In some instances, judges get to do this too.) Also accused persons/organizations get to declare that their behavior is criminal.
• Prosecutors, not presidents, governors or members of legislatures/general public get to say whether a given body of evidence merits charging an individual/organization with one or more crimes and they get to try showing that to be so by presenting the information they've gathered.

There isn't anything political in that process, yet increasingly, people, most notably the current POTUS and his allies, seem to think they can bend the law, its application and outcomes by using not jurisprudential means, but by political means. That's what despots and dictators, not American presidents or Americans in general, do, yet we seem to be drawing closer to a state that our POTUS had rather governmental institutions, most notably LEO and the judiciary, comport themselves as though they are organs of a monarch, and a summary one at that.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I just heard someone on the news remark that many Republicans, Trump supporters in particular, don't think that what someone (I don't really know who because I wasn't paying that much attention to who was the topic of discussion) did was a crime.

WTH?

Since when did what actions constitute criminally culpable behavior become a matter of what anyone, other than a judge, jurors, prosecutors and the accused, thinks? Our system of law doesn't work that way, nor was it ever meant or designed to.

• Judges, not presidents, governors or members of legislatures/general public get to say what a given provision in the code means and doesn't mean, when it's applicable and when it's not, etc.
• Jurors, not presidents, governors or members of legislatures/the general public get to say whether an accused person is guilty or not guilty. (In some instances, judges get to do this too.) Also accused persons/organizations get to declare that their behavior is criminal.
• Prosecutors, not presidents, governors or members of legislatures/general public get to say whether a given body of evidence merits charging an individual/organization with one or more crimes and they get to try showing that to be so by presenting the information they've gathered.

There isn't anything political in that process, yet increasingly, people, most notably the current POTUS and his allies, seem to think they can bend the law, its application and outcomes by using not jurisprudential means, but by political means. That's what despots and dictators, not American presidents or Americans in general, do, yet we seem to be drawing closer to a state that our POTUS had rather governmental institutions, most notably LEO and the judiciary, comport themselves as though they are organs of a monarch, and a summary one at that.

For far too many now justice is not the goal..... Hell far too many dont even know what justice is, they are not that educated....pursuing far more trivial agenda's is the goal, and the law is a means to be twisted into accomplishing those rather trivial goals.

Justice can not be had in societies as ignorant and corrupt as ours is now.

That however does not excuse not trying for justice.

 

[apdst]

I just heard someone on the news remark that many Republicans, Trump supporters in particular, don't think that what someone (I don't really know who because I wasn't paying that much attention to who was the topic of discussion) did was a crime.

WTH?

Since when did what actions constitute criminally culpable behavior become a matter of what anyone, other than a judge, jurors, prosecutors and the accused, thinks? Our system of law doesn't work that way, nor was it ever meant or designed to.

• Judges, not presidents, governors or members of legislatures/general public get to say what a given provision in the code means and doesn't mean, when it's applicable and when it's not, etc.
• Jurors, not presidents, governors or members of legislatures/the general public get to say whether an accused person is guilty or not guilty. (In some instances, judges get to do this too.) Also accused persons/organizations get to declare that their behavior is criminal.
• Prosecutors, not presidents, governors or members of legislatures/general public get to say whether a given body of evidence merits charging an individual/organization with one or more crimes and they get to try showing that to be so by presenting the information they've gathered.

There isn't anything political in that process, yet increasingly, people, most notably the current POTUS and his allies, seem to think they can bend the law, its application and outcomes by using not jurisprudential means, but by political means. That's what despots and dictators, not American presidents or Americans in general, do, yet we seem to be drawing closer to a state that our POTUS had rather governmental institutions, most notably LEO and the judiciary, comport themselves as though they are organs of a monarch, and a summary one at that.

You think President Trump committed a crime. Hypocrisy much?

 

[DaveFagan]

Let us discuss relativity and Trump. He hasn't lied us into another Iraq. He might approve torture, but hasn't had the opportunity to use it. Lies and deceit have been his modus operandi, but that is still better than lies to killing of the past. I don't approve of Trump, but am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on many matters. He's been snookered by the Intelligence Agencies. He's been infilitrated by the NeoCons. He may be sabotaged by the Deep State. He's been conned by the MSM. Do the homework on the missile attacks in Syria. The CIA has been a big ally of Saudi Arabia for a long time and Trump has had his ego massaged to become their toady. He's narcissistic, rude, crude, not truthful, philanderer, and those may be his least troubling faults, but they are a sound basis to work him psychologically by foreign leaders and Nations. His lack of virtue and character faults are easy targets. I suspect Trump believed his tariffs and the Trade War would work. What a maroon? We do negotiate with N. Korea now so the potential for progress is there, but I sure as hell wouldn't send Pompeo to talk with them. For Trump, justice is simple. You get what you pay for. He's paid for plenty. That's the real world.
/

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Yep. And we have also heard some talking heads saying that what Cohen did wasn’t illegal...AFTER he was convicted. Yes, you can get wrongly convicted for a crime you didn’t commit. But there is no mechanism but which you can be convicted for something that isn’t a crime in the first place.

 

[Mr Person]

Yep. And we have also heard some talking heads saying that what Cohen did wasn’t illegal...AFTER he was convicted. Yes, you can get wrongly convicted for a crime you didn’t commit. But there is no mechanism but which you can be convicted for something that isn’t a crime in the first place.

Weeeeeeel, you kind of can, if the judge gives incorrect instructions to the jury





I seriously doubt that happened here.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Weeeeeeel, you kind of can, if the judge gives incorrect instructions to the jury





I seriously doubt that happened here.

But how can you even CHARGE someone with a crime that doesn’t exist?

 

[Xelor]

Let us discuss relativity and Trump. He hasn't lied us into another Iraq. He might approve torture, but hasn't had the opportunity to use it. Lies and deceit have been his modus operandi, but that is still better than lies to killing of the past. I don't approve of Trump, but am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on many matters. He's been snookered by the Intelligence Agencies. He's been infilitrated by the NeoCons. He may be sabotaged by the Deep State. He's been conned by the MSM. Do the homework on the missile attacks in Syria. The CIA has been a big ally of Saudi Arabia for a long time and Trump has had his ego massaged to become their toady. He's narcissistic, rude, crude, not truthful, philanderer, and those may be his least troubling faults, but they are a sound basis to work him psychologically by foreign leaders and Nations. His lack of virtue and character faults are easy targets. I suspect Trump believed his tariffs and the Trade War would work. What a maroon? We do negotiate with N. Korea now so the potential for progress is there, but I sure as hell wouldn't send Pompeo to talk with them. For Trump, justice is simple. You get what you pay for. He's paid for plenty. That's the real world.
/

Red:
No, let's not discuss the topic with specific reference, be it exculpatory or not, to Trump.

I'm going to abstain from responding directly to your remarks because this isn't really meant to be a thread that discusses Trump's misgivings, idiocy, naivete, reprehensibility, etc. Yes, Trump's the biggest "megaphone," a huge catalyst and instigator, for the notion that it's fitting to politicize the application of the rule of law, but the thread isn't really about him.

Sure, one can illustrate the phenomenon by referencing Trump's words/deeds, but that's all, for this thread, he's good for. The real problem, vis-a-vis the thread topic, is the polity's willingness to let the politicization happen.

 

[Mr Person]

But how can you even CHARGE someone with a crime that doesn’t exist?

An even worse judge.

But that wasn't my point.... it was a nitpick. If the judge gives instructions that are sufficiently incorrect in certain ways, someone most certainly can be convicted of something that isn't a crime.

You did say "but which you can be convicted for something that isn’t a crime in the first place."....

 

[Xelor]

An even worse judge.

But that wasn't my point.... it was a nitpick. If the judge gives instructions that are sufficiently incorrect in certain ways, someone most certainly can be convicted of something that isn't a crime.

You did say "but which you can be convicted for something that isn’t a crime in the first place."....

Perhaps I'm missing something, or perhaps you're not saying what you mean...I really don't know....


Red:
The scenario you've described enables the possibility that a defendant be convicted for his/her behavior for which s/he isn't duly criminally culpable. That's "wrongfully convicted," not "convicted for something that isn't a crime."

Such a defendant will, if jurors return a guilty verdict, indeed be convicted of a violating a provision of the "code" (federal, state, or local).

• One can only be convicted of failure to comply with one or more "thou shalts" or "thou shalt nots" in the code.
  • E.g.:
    • The code doesn't say "thou shalt breathe;" therefore one cannot be convicted for not breathing because not breathing isn't stipulated in the code as a crime/criminal behavior.

 

[DaveFagan]

Red:
No, let's not discuss the topic with specific reference, be it exculpatory or not, to Trump.

I'm going to abstain from responding directly to your remarks because this isn't really meant to be a thread that discusses Trump's misgivings, idiocy, naivete, reprehensibility, etc. Yes, Trump's the biggest "megaphone," a huge catalyst and instigator, for the notion that it's fitting to politicize the application of the rule of law, but the thread isn't really about him.

Sure, one can illustrate the phenomenon by referencing Trump's words/deeds, but that's all, for this thread, he's good for. The real problem, vis-a-vis the thread topic, is the polity's willingness to let the politicization happen.

"Trump, justice is simple. You get what you pay for. He's paid for plenty. That's the real world".
Politicization of the election begins with character assassination, distorted analogies, colorful symbolism, three word platforms from the linguistic perspective, all magnified and lubricated with MONEY.
Politicization of Justice begins and ends with MONEY. As I stated, "you get what you pay for." Alternative power structures can afford more justice.
/

 

[jnug]

WTH makes folks cotton to the politicization of the law and the rule of law?

Unscrupulous, immoral and un-American goals that basically require the elimination of Norms and the Rule of Law to accomplish. Not more complicated than that.