So much for that stolen election idea now that lawyer Sidney Powell has confessed to election interference in an attempt to steal the election for Trump. She will be testifying against her x-boss now.

Nice.  Hope this is resolved quick so the GOP can pick a real candidate.

Won't happen.   Just a baseless conspiracy.

welcome back Jean.

So she wanted the Dominion machines examined by  forensic professionals and that's against the law cause an offiicial government request wasn't made to do so.  She hired them and sent them to the county. I wonder who has access to show them were the machines are and opened the door to the machines.

She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges instead of criminal ones.  Which means zero jail time, just probation and pay a $9K fine.

I'll bet she foresaw that she would be bankrupt by the honest DOJ and they would also look for something else if she beat this charge.  Smart to plead down to a misdemeanor with zero jail time.

So she wanted the Dominion machines examined by  forensic professionals and that's against the law cause an offiicial government request wasn't made to do so.  She hired them and sent them to the county. I wonder who has access to show them were the machines are and opened the door to the machines.

She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges instead of criminal ones.  Which means zero jail time, just probation and pay a $9K fine.

I'll bet she foresaw that she would be bankrupt by the honest DOJ and they would also look for something else if she beat this charge.  Smart to plead down to a misdemeanor with zero jail time.

That's the crux of it.  Not everyone has Trump's resources to sustain a protracted legal battle against BS charges. 

Gen Flynn plead guilty even though he was innocent, for the most part because he was already going broke defending himself.

The gov't has unlimited money (debt).

DOJ drops case against Michael Flynn, in wake of internal memo release
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/drops-doj-case-against-michael-flynn-in-wake-of-internal-memo-release

Not everyone is excited about martyrdom

So she wanted the Dominion machines examined by  forensic professionals and that's against the law cause an offiicial government request wasn't made to do so.  She hired them and sent them to the county. I wonder who has access to show them were the machines are and opened the door to the machines.

She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges instead of criminal ones.  Which means zero jail time, just probation and pay a $9K fine.

I'll bet she foresaw that she would be bankrupt by the honest DOJ and they would also look for something else if she beat this charge.  Smart to plead down to a misdemeanor with zero jail time.

Did you mean “misdemeanor charges instead of felony ones?  Because misdemeanors ARE crimes.

Did you mean “misdemeanor charges instead of felony ones?  Because misdemeanors ARE crimes.

Apparently not in places like California and Chicago.  Just go to the store and get what you want without paying.  Misdemeanor, but not a crime under a certain amount ($1k?).

Apparently not in places like California and Chicago.  Just go to the store and get what you want without paying.  Misdemeanor, but not a crime under a certain amount ($1k?).

Still a crime, but punishment optional… Craziness.  All misdemeanors are crimes, but not all crimes are misdemeanors, and not all jurisdictions are created equal.

Still a crime, but punishment optional… Craziness.  All misdemeanors are crimes, but not all crimes are misdemeanors, and not all jurisdictions are created equal.

Logically, is it a crime if the statute is not enforced?    My computer brain says it's not.  Without enforcement, there are no consequences, and without consequences there is effectively no criminal act.

it might be unethical to commit the act depending on the law as written, but many laws are symbolic, and many of those were never intended to be enforced.

Example:  you take a quarter you find on the floor next to the check-out in a store and put it in your pocket.  Technically, that is not your quarter, and you should hand it to the cashier.  Was that a 25 cent crime?  Any possibility you'll be arrested? Convicted?  Penalized?  Just because the law is on the books doesn't mean everyone who doesn't comply is actually breaking the law within the context of what happened.  That's why courts are so busy.  Instead of trying to do what's right, people are conditioned to only do what's lawful.  Since the laws are poorly written in most cases and hard to interpret, knowing what's lawful is often left to a judge or jury to decide.

Still others are enforced based on discretion, like 2 miles over the speed limit versus 20 over.  Both are crimes, but  not worth taking up the courts time to have you fight something that is within the margin of error for speed detection equipment.

Innocent until proven guilty = no crime unless convicted.   

Logically, is it a crime if the statute is not enforced?    My computer brain says it's not.  Without enforcement, there are no consequences, and without consequences there is effectively no criminal act.

it might be unethical to commit the act depending on the law as written, but many laws are symbolic, and many of those were never intended to be enforced.

Example:  you take a quarter you find on the floor next to the check-out in a store and put it in your pocket.  Technically, that is not your quarter, and you should hand it to the cashier.  Was that a 25 cent crime?  Any possibility you'll be arrested? Convicted?  Penalized?  Just because the law is on the books doesn't mean everyone who doesn't comply is actually breaking the law within the context of what happened.  That's why courts are so busy.  Instead of trying to do what's right, people are conditioned to only do what's lawful.  Since the laws are poorly written in most cases and hard to interpret, knowing what's lawful is often left to a judge or jury to decide.

Still others are enforced based on discretion, like 2 miles over the speed limit versus 20 over.  Both are crimes, but  not worth taking up the courts time to have you fight something that is within the margin of error for speed detection equipment.

Innocent until proven guilty = no crime unless convicted.   

So it seems we’re now trying to define “crime.”  My Dictionary.com app lists the first definition as:

An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

If you accept that definition, no punishment (or even conviction) is required; any action or any instance of negligence that is 1) injurious to public welfare, morals, or interests of the state, AND 2) prohibited by law, is by definition a crime.  The first condition has some subjectivity, but the second one is pretty objective (see malum in se vs. malum prohibitum).  In my opinion (yours may vary), interfering in an election would be injurious to both the public welfare and to the interests of the state, and is (I believe) objectively prohibited by law.

“Innocent until proven guilty” can be a useful simplification of how our system of criminal justice  works, but it lacks nuance.  I think it’s more accurate (but less of an appealing sound bite) to say “the state may not sanction you for a criminal offense unless and until you have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.”

So by your logic, if you kill someone without legal justification, that act is not really a crime unless you get prosecuted and convicted?  I think it is possible to both 1) commit a crime and never be convicted or punished (paging OJ Simpson), and 2) be convicted and punished without ever committing a crime.

So it seems we’re now trying to define “crime.”  My Dictionary.com app lists the first definition as:

If you accept that definition, no punishment (or even conviction) is required; any action or any instance of negligence that is 1) injurious to public welfare, morals, or interests of the state, AND 2) prohibited by law, is by definition a crime.  The first condition has some subjectivity, but the second one is pretty objective (see malum in se vs. malum prohibitum).  In my opinion (yours may vary), interfering in an election would be injurious to both the public welfare and to the interests of the state, and is (I believe) objectively prohibited by law.

“Innocent until proven guilty” can be a useful simplification of how our system of criminal justice  works, but it lacks nuance.  I think it’s more accurate (but less of an appealing sound bite) to say “the state may not sanction you for a criminal offense unless and until you have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.”

So by your logic, if you kill someone without legal justification, that act is not really a crime unless you get prosecuted and convicted?  I think it is possible to both 1) commit a crime and never be convicted or punished (paging OJ Simpson), and 2) be convicted and punished without ever committing a crime.

According to the "Hillary Defense," as long as you don't intend to break the law, you have not committed a crime -- even after the FBI director spends 20 minutes listing most of the crimes she was guilty of.

No matter what the dictionary says, that's the "book answer."  Reality doesn't know how to read.

Nice.  Hope this is resolved quick so the GOP can pick a real candidate.

If the GOP tries to disqualify Trump from running without a solid reason to do so it is really going to hurt them so I think they are waiting for the cases to build a little more. Indictments are decent but when it comes to disqualifying a candidate I would want something stronger to justify removing him. One conviction at least or something a bit more evidence wise.

The Swamp wasn't getting their cut.......

If the GOP tries to disqualify Trump from running without a solid reason to do so it is really going to hurt them so I think they are waiting for the cases to build a little more. Indictments are decent but when it comes to disqualifying a candidate I would want something stronger to justify removing him. One conviction at least or something a bit more evidence wise.

So the GOP can determine who is allowed to run?

I thought anyone can as long as the requirements that apply the same to both sides are followed.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

So the GOP can determine who is allowed to run?

I thought anyone can as long as the requirements that apply the same to both sides are followed.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Yes, through the nomination process governed by the rules of the RNC (which I believe is a not-for-profit corporation).  Party rules determine whether a state’s delegates have to vote for whomever their state primary system selected as a nominee, so I think it’s possible for someone to win a majority of state primaries, but not get chosen as the Republican candidate at the convention. That, of course, would cause an even bigger kerfuffle in the party than what the House of Representatives is currently doing, so probably unlikely to happen.

I don’t think party rules allow the committee to disqualify an otherwise constitutionally qualified candidate because they don’t like him or her.

So the RNC, if they want to, can block a candidate from becoming the party's nominee?

Is this similar to when Bernie Sanders was passed up for Hillary Clinton?

It isn't the GOP/RNC and their nomination process we should be concerned about.  It's the individual states.

There are petitions and lawsuits in almost all the swing states trying to keep Trump's name off the ballot.  If that happens, there's still the possibility of a write-in campaign, but the write-in candidate still has to satisfy whatever qualification rules a state's law have.

The Democrats are gaming the system in all areas. It's all about winning at any cost.  They demonstrated that beautifully in the 2 failed impeachment trials that were based on BS political accusations.  The Russian collusion hoax is another.  All they did was keep Trump's people busy producing millions of pages of documentation and hundreds of hours in hearings and investigative meetings just to slow his administration's roll.  A speed bump against them doing their jobs.

Anyway, Trump is the front runner for the nomination by a lot.  And he didn't even participate in the debates.  I think the Dems are very worried he'll win again if he's allowed to run.  can't beat him at the ballot box, so make sure he never gets there.

So the RNC, if they want to, can block a candidate from becoming the party's nominee?

Is this similar to when Bernie Sanders was passed up for Hillary Clinton?

That was different.  The Dems had "Super Delegates" that pretty much overrode the votes of the rest.  So, a minority of states could decide on the nominee over the wishes of the majority.

The DNC uses a process of pledged and unpledged delegates as well as multiple ballots depending on whether a candidate gets the majority right away or not.

Let's say there are 12 candidates on the primary ballot.  It's not often one will get a majority of votes since the delegates will be split among more than a couple of candidates.  The new rules now make the super delegates sit out the first ballot, giving a front runner a better chance of reaching that majority needed.  After the first ballot, the super delegates get to vote. 

There are all kinds of rules invloved, but the old way basically gave Hillary the nomination even though Bernie probably had more delegates wanting him to win.

The change stems from a tumultuous 2016 primary campaign, in which Sanders’
supporters accused the superdelegates of having too much influence over the outcome.
The overwhelming majority of them supported Clinton.

This article has a section called "How to win the Democratic nomination for president" if you're still curious:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-superdelegates-voting-changes/index.html

It can get complicated, especially since each state can have a variety of small differences in the voting process.