In the USA, No one is above the rule of law. Repeat this often in the coming days, my friends.

[FSogol]

[Homer Wells]

1. Kicked and recommend. nt

[Anon-C]

2. I wish that were true, FSogol and I pray I am wrong. Nt

[Gothmog]

3. From Prof. Tribe

Link to tweet

[BlueJac]

4. K&R 100 times

[Honeycombe8]

5. I no longer believe that's true. I have eyes & ears.

I can see that people who are rich and powerful don't have to follow the law like I do.

[FSogol]

6. We can't give up. We need to insist that the rule of law applies. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

7. Absolutely. Absolutely. It gets discouraging sometimes. Darkest before the dawn?

I hope so.

[rurallib]

8. sure looking like the current president is going to force this to be decided

and then there will be question of who the deciders are exactly.

Looks like he is going to force a decision on whether the country stands or becomes another strong man government.

[mcar]

9. No one is above the law

[KY_EnviroGuy]

10. Saw something sickening the other day......a story.

Late at night, my son fell asleep on our couch and left the TV on. Very early in the morning, as I walked through the LR to check on things, I saw Pat Robertson speaking on his 700 Club show and stopped to listen for a minute or so.

He was discussing Donald tRump and in essence said that tRump had total power over the Justice Dept. and he could do anything he pleased with any investigation, or to any Justice official. Also said that tRump should clean house and root out all the evil of the deep state and fire lots of Justice personnel. Claimed the American people elected him, so that makes him essentially omnipotent.

This is a TV PREACHER - not a constitutional lawyer or an elected politician - a self-proclaimed Christian preacher that makes millions of dollars off vulnerable viewers.

It made me so furious, it screwed up my entire morning. Later, I had to take a friend into the city for an appointment and could hardly drive. This is the sort of media bullshit that really frightens me and the public is not revolting against it.

Is this what free speech is really all about today?

........ ..........

[Cicada]

11. Putting people above law is sometimes a good idea

A person speeding to get wounded child to emergency room
Mob accountant has charges dropped in return for testimony
Prisoner framed by cops escapes to get proof he was framed
It is against the law to commit adultery in New York with a jail term of 180 days, prosecute?
A person steals a stick of gum
Terminally ill elderly woman smokes marijuana to reduce pain

A prosecutor who never put anyone above the law would be a monster. Deciding who to punish and who not to punish is an incredibly important part of law enforcement. Prosecutors should put people above the law in a very high percentage of the times laws are broken. Otherwise everybody would be in jail.

And it is important to waive prosecution when that serves a greater social good. Manafort candidate in Ukraine said the sitting Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko was a crook. He won, Yulia went to jail, Yulia’s supporters revolted, Ukraine broke in two, the elected prime minister had to flee the country, Russia was then able to take over the ports in the Crimea. Was it a good idea to jail Yulia? Even if she was a crook? Jailing leaders often kills democracy. If Hillary broke the email law would it be wise to prosecute her? Hell no. If Trump fired Comey to try to stop Mueller should we indict him for that? I really think not. It’s just not worth the risk that indicting him would do extremely serious damage to our ability to have effective government.

OBVIOUSLY we should put people above the law in many cases.

[shraby]

12. Maybe you should rethink your last paragraph.

possibly the whole thing too. Most of it was strawman arguments to support the conclusion which was terrible.

[Cicada]

14. The vast majority of crimes not being prosecuted is not made out of straw

I guess you are saying that no one really disagrees with me that the vast majority of crimes are not punished, that the vast majority of ctimes should not be punished, that a major role of a good prosecutor is to decide not to prosecute crimes. Forgive me for not understanding that you actually agree with me.

Was Yulia Tymoshenko made out of straw? Are the many real world examples of political instability following incarceration of political leaders made out of Straw?

Think about this. How will conservatives react if trump is not indicted but is voted out of office. How will conservatives react if Trump is indicted and jailed.

Think about this. If Hillary is jailed for emails, how likely are you to become far more politically active than you ever have been? If Hillary is not jailed how likely are you to become far more politically active than you have ever been?

Do you want crazy conservatives to be far more politically active than they have ever been? Do you want a gigantic red wave of voting to wipe out democrats from political office?

[shraby]

15. I stand by the premise that no one is above the law. Get that? NO ONE

if Hilary's emails rise to the level of a crime and it has a penalty, sure she should pay the price. Problem with that example is they investigated ad infinitum, desperately trying to find criminality and found no crime.

If I commit a crime, I would fully expect to be punished when caught, same as I would expect others to be, otherwise the system breaks down and is no good to anyone. It's becoming that way now. Since Reagan, many people with money have skated, no matter how much they stole.

Now we have president who is breaking the law constantly and we have a congress that won't hold him accountable. That's what not punishing crimes has garnered us.

[Cicada]

19. Lady Justice atop the courthouse has both a blindfold and a scale

The blindfold represents the value in treating everyone alike. No man is above the law. But justice also requires balancing interests. 1944 Escola v Coca Cola Bottling Company the great Roger Traynor wrote “ I believe the manufacturer’s negligence should no longer be singled out as the plaintiff’s right to recover... Even if there is no negligence public policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively reduce the hazards to life and health...” he ruled Coca Cola was beneath the law in effect because treating the manufacturer as strictly liable made good sense. Coca Cola was better able to prevent harm by taking every cost effective measure than any other arrangement. Yes equal treatment is fair. But justice requires us to look at more than fairness, it requires us to consider how law can minimize harm and maximize benefit. That too is part of justice.

[FSogol]

18. Email law? LOL. Policy isn't law. Nice strawmen. n/t

[Cha]

13. The presidency is a titanic fraud, an artifice created solely for his own profit & power

Link to tweet

[Scurrilous]

16. K&R

[Raine]

17. Not true though

Last edited Sun Jun 3, 2018, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Corporations and banksters are above the law, they're not like the "little" people they take advantage of who do something wrong and end up being heavily punished for. If they get anything it's some small fine they use pocket change to pay off. If they weren't above the law they would be shot like in China or do jail time or be so heavily fined it would really really hurt.

[Gothmog]

20. No, Trump can't pardon himself. The Constitution tells us so.

From Prof. Tribe and others https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-trump-cant-pardon-himself-the-constitution-tells-us-so/2017/07/21/f3445d74-6e49-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.a066d8b411f4

Can a president pardon himself? Four days before Richard Nixon resigned, his own Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opined no, citing “the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case.” We agree.

The Justice Department was right that guidance could be found in the enduring principles that no one can be both the judge and the defendant in the same matter, and that no one is above the law.

The Constitution specifically bars the president from using the pardon power to prevent his own impeachment and removal. It adds that any official removed through impeachment remains fully subject to criminal prosecution. That provision would make no sense if the president could pardon himself.

The pardon provision of the Constitution is there to enable the president to act essentially in the role of a judge of another person’s criminal case, and to intervene on behalf of the defendant when the president determines that would be equitable. For example, the president might believe the courts made the wrong decision about someone’s guilt or about sentencing; President Barack Obama felt this way about excessive sentences for low-level drug offenses. Or the president might be impressed by the defendant’s subsequent conduct and, using powers far exceeding those of a parole board, might issue a pardon or commutation of sentence.....

President Trump thinks he can do a lot of things just because he is president. He says that the president can act as if he has no conflicts of interest. He says that he can fire the FBI director for any reason he wants (and he admitted to the most outrageous of reasons in interviews and in discussion with the Russian ambassador). In one sense, Trump is right — he can do all of these things, although there will be legal repercussions if he does. Using official powers for corrupt purposes — such as impeding or obstructing an investigation — can constitute a crime.

But there is one thing we know that Trump cannot do — without being a first in all of human history. He cannot pardon himself.