The equal protection clause, or at the least the general principle underlying it, does give certain power to the tu quoque argument. The requirement is that you treat similarly situated people similarly, and it would be problematic to basic notions of fairness if it could be shown that a Democratic leaning DOJ was prosecuting only Republicans but allowing Democrats to do as they wish for similar conduct. One's political affiliation shouldn't dictate how they're treated. — Hanover

I don't know about the US but this argument doesn't fly in the Netherlands. Mostly because what appears similar usually isn't, when taking into consideration time and effort necessary for law enforcement and the prosecution to make a good case. As a result the public prosecution has wide ranging discretion to decide who to prosecute. The only option is for victims to petition the court to demand the prosecution does prosecute.

Are you the same GRWelsh from the Reasonable Faith Forum? If so, you may remember me as Fred.

Hi Fred. Yes, I am the same GRWelsh. It's good to see you here! I saw wonderer here as well... It looks like we're migrating.

↪NOS4A2
So if I'm following you correctly, Trump (if he so choose to do so) could have

1) Rquested the blueprints for building an H-Bomb (or the nuclear codes or a list of all foreign secret assets or etc),
2) Declared them to be his personal property,
3) Taken them with him when he left office (since they're now his personal property)
4) And then sell them to the highest bidder (or put them on Truth Social)

And all this would be perfectly legal. Am I getting this correct? — EricH

I asked him the same question in the other thread, although I much prefer the way you asked it. Looking forward to his answer.

Welcome! I'll keep an eye out for Wonderer. Would be great if Johan, Harvey and Sanoy were to join - then it would be like old times.

Trump could roll a blunt with those documents for all I care. Neither the DOJ nor NARA have the power to designate documents presidential or personal records. That discretion lies solely with the executive. — NOS4A2

This overlooks the very reason the Presidential Records Act was passed: it was in response to Nixon's treating Presidential Records (including recordings) as his private property. Your interpretation would render the act meaningless.

Andrew McCarthy (a conservative contributor to the Conservative "National Review", who's also a former federal prosecutor) lays it all out in this article: Frivolous Trump Argument No. 1: Classified Intelligence Reports Compiled by Government Agencies Are ‘Personal Records’ under the Presidential Records Act

Of course, Trump's attorney's may challenge the Constitutionality of the PRA, but that seems to me quite a longshot.

The SEOW is everywhere.
:wink:

Jabberwock has been busy in the Ukraine thread.

High Five! Welcome aboard!

:sweat:

[Trump's] scared shitless. This is the way he compensates for that. He gives people the appearance he doesn’t care by doing this...For the first time in his life, it looks like he’s being held accountable...Up until this point in his life, it’s like, ‘I’m not going to pay you. Take me to court.’ He’s never been held accountable before. — John Kelly, retired US Marine General and fmr WH Chief of Staff (R)

https://twitter.com/ReallyAmerican1/status/1669008051959889920

Crappy Birthday, Traitor-1.

Trump rejected lawyers’ efforts to avoid classified documents indictment

Trump time and again rejected the advice from lawyers and advisers who urged him to cooperate and instead took the advice of Tom Fitton, the head of the conservative group Judicial Watch, and a range of others who told him he could legally keep the documents and should fight the Justice Department, advisers said. Trump would often cite Fitton to others, and Fitton told some of Trump’s lawyers that Trump could keep the documents, even as they disagreed, the advisers said.

...

Trump’s chances to avoid charges began in early 2021, according to current and former advisers. After Gary Stern, counsel at the National Archives, asked Trump’s team for the return of documents, some of his lawyers and advisers began advising him to return them. National Archives officials were privately baffled at what they viewed as inexplicably recalcitrant behavior and kept asking for answers to no avail.

In the fall of 2021, Alex Cannon, then a Trump attorney, urged the former president to return documents to the National Archives, repeatedly telling him that he was required to give them back, according to people familiar with the matter.

After months of talking to Trump and his staff, Cannon — referred to in the indictment as a “Trump Representative” — told Trump that the National Archives was threatening to go to Congress or to the Department of Justice if he did not return the documents, the people said.

...

Meanwhile, Trump grew angry with his lawyers and chose new lawyers, bringing in Evan Corcoran to handle the matter at the recommendation of adviser Boris Epshteyn.

Shortly after the subpoena arrived, the indictment says, Corcoran and another lawyer met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago and told him he needed to comply.

Such a moron. His own lawyers tell him that he needs to give them back and he just ignores them.

Such a moron. — Michael

I agree, but I think trump would have to study intensely for at least 10 years, to reach the intellect level of a moron, But, what does that say about the people who made him president of the most powerful nation on Earth?
Why I am not hearing about the democrats trying to rush through legislation, to prevent anyone found guilty of a criminal act being barred from standing for president?
Why was this gaping hole in USA legislation not corrected, years ago?

Why I am not hearing about the democrats trying to rush through legislation, to prevent anyone found guilty of a criminal act being barred from standing for president?
Why was this gaping hole in USA legislation not corrected, years ago? — universeness

Because that might be unconstitutional.

Article II states "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

Although it doesn't explicitly say that "Any person except...", it could probably be argued that this was meant to be an exhaustive requirement (although I don't know if one could both argue this and claim to be an originalist, as some Justices claim to be).

I was at a small family gathering yesterday, to celebrate my 59th birthday, when I found out who has the same birthday and month as me. :cry: :rofl: :cry: :lol: :scream: :vomit: :yikes:

I've always been completely sceptical of astrology – until now. :joke:

Why I am not hearing about the democrats trying to rush through legislation, to prevent anyone found guilty of a criminal act being barred from standing for president?
Why was this gaping hole in USA legislation not corrected, years ago?
— universeness

Because that might be unconstitutional. — Michael

And it would encourage the (ab)use of the law to bar candidates. I imagine the thinking is that if 'the people' would ever elect a convicted criminal as president, that would constitute proof that the law itself is at fault and at odds with the will of the people.

:sweat: :up: Belated Happy 59th!

I've always been completely sceptical of astrology – until now. — unenlightened

Especially when his year of birth is 46 and mine is 64. On a more positive note, that makes me 'the reverse' of Trump. But I don't know if that's as good or equivalent to 'the opposite' of Trump.

Could be worse! I had a friend (not seen him for about 20 years) who was called George O'Donnel and his initials were G O'D. He was born on 6th June 1966. 6/6/66! (pretty close to 'The Beast.') Not bad for someone who also identified as atheist! :lol:


Thanks! I had some brand of Bacardi at one point (just a small shot), that tasted like it was about 180 proof!

Is there something about the American constitution I don't understand? Is it unamendable by any sitting government? Is a national referendum required to alter the constitution?

Is there something about the American constitution I don't understand? Is it unamendable by any sitting government? Is a national referendum required to alter the constitution? — universeness

Requires two-thirds of the Senate and the House of Representatives and three-fourths of the States to agree to it.

Ok thanks for the info!

:party: :yum:

I asked the same question again and got no response. He (she?) has been studiously avoiding this whole topic. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they need to think it through first before responding.