There are jurisdictional concerns, such as whether a rando can sue to enforce (probably not), and whether there has been any injury yet (has he sought to be on the Florida primary ballot yet?).
The birther wars will provide some guidance.
There are jurisdictional concerns, such as whether a rando can sue to enforce (probably not), and whether there has been any injury yet (has he sought to be on the Florida primary ballot yet?).
Only because the Secret service wouldn't drive him, and the guy cant walk a city block without a golf cart.
Well, we can't really convict him of wishing he could have participated. The Secret Service did him a big favor.
POTUS is the chief law enforcement officer in the US, and Zee Orange Furher did nothing to stop it, it think that qualifies under "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"Foggy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 1:29 pm I'm against the approach anyway. He didn't lead the insurrection. He didn't participate.
He played it cute, and the worst I can legitimately say is, he inspired the insurrection. And then he turned to go watch on the Tee Vee.
Which is weak sauce, and doomed to ultimate failure.
And it will give him an excuse to whine even more.
Let's stomp the shit out of him at the ballot box instead.
Read the whole sentence, the "enemies thereof" means "enemies of the Constitution". But the people who stormed the Capitol were not enemies of the Constitution, not really.Frater I*I wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:07 pm ... that qualifies under "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"
It costs him money, legal talent and peace of mind, all things he's short of and needs to preserve. I am therefore a big supporter even if it's doomed to fail. Some things are worth the effort.Foggy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 1:29 pm I'm against the approach anyway. He didn't lead the insurrection. He didn't participate.
He played it cute, and the worst I can legitimately say is, he inspired the insurrection. And then he turned to go watch on the Tee Vee.
Which is weak sauce, and doomed to ultimate failure.
And it will give him an excuse to whine even more.
Let's stomp the shit out of him at the ballot box instead.
The difference between being attacked by a single horse-sized duck or many duck-sized horses.
There are ways around that.
Except I hired him/her/them because they would advise me to commit the crime I wanted to.bob wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:58 amThere are ways around that.
Many crimes require a specific intent. And some crimes have an intent so specific that, essentially, it would be impossible to commit the crime of you didn't know of the law's existence.
And there will an attempt to argue advice of counsel, which basically says I did what attorney told me to do, and my attorney would never knowingly advise me to commit a crime.
Then it becomes an exercise in abusive lawfare for the sake of point scoring and harassment.... now who do we know does this sort of behaviour..? Birfoons......Q-diots .... election deniers .... Tiny hands ......Foggy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:47 am Y'know, I was feeling terribly superior there for a whole actual one minute. I was thinking "Whoa, Mr brolin agrees with me! You know that doesn't happen every day, or maybe even every month!"
But Gregg has a definite point in opposition, which actually does make a lot of sense. If'n the OSG has a number of these filed against him, he has to worry that one might take root, or that he can't afford to defend them all.
I gotta think some moar. Where's my covfefe?
Exactly; hiring a criminal attorney just means you entered into a criminal conspiracy with your attorney. (You should have hired a criminal-defense attorney, who would have advised you not to break the law.)pipistrelle wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 11:19 amExcept I hired him/her/them because they would advise me to commit the crime I wanted to.
For the most part, I think the disqualification litigation will be birther-esque.
Except for maths. We can never convert ourselves to "maths." It's fish, fruit and math. Not fishes, fruits and mathsFoggy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:28 pm You know more than I, and for you American types, that's not a typographical error. In the UK, that's how you spell the word offence, as much as it looks wrong to you, as much as it is jarring to see the British spelling. But when I think about it, we oughta convert ourselves.