Clearly I was speaking about his crimes against humanity, which were not crimes. — NOS4A2
It was also legal to own slaves — NOS4A2
It demonstrates more grave stupidity to confuse international criminal laws with domestic laws.
It demonstrates yet more grave stupidity to confuse centuries-old laws with current laws.
They invented the law after the fact in order to prosecute the Nazis for a crime. There were violating no law. Therefor what they did was fine, correct? — NOS4A2
There is nothing to confuse. They broke no law, therefor what they did was fine. Isn’t that so? — NOS4A2
Sorry, google say the Armenian genocide is a precedent to the Nüremberg and Tokyo trials. Try again?
You're asking me if I think slavery is fine. Clearly you are confused.
Here I thought we were talking about law. Sorry, but the declarations of the UK, France, and Russia do not represent “international law”. I suppose you should google again. — NOS4A2
no laws were broken by those involved in the coup. So what? — NOS4A2
I was refuting the claim that Trump brought it all on himself, which is absurd because one can never bring charges on himself. Prosecutors bring charges. The prosecutor’s motivations along with the frivolousness and novelty of the charges reveal the political motives. — NOS4A2
Come to think of it, the mantra "Everyone is solely responsible for themselves" is what they both have in common (and the implications of this stance).Everytime I see a mention of Trump, I am reminded of several Buddhists who are his avid fans.
— baker
Now that is interesting. Do you have any theories why he appeals to them? — Tom Storm
Even without such a presumption, ordinary statutory interpretation demonstrates that the Attorney General received no power to appoint Special Counsels as inferior officers. None of the statutes canvassed in the previous section contains any such authorization. — Docket 23-624
§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United
States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to ap-
point an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
From 600.3
The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel
shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.
From 600.4
(a) Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted. — Federal Regulations
Trump acts as if he's convinced he's above the law, and Trump supporters likewise view him as above the law, or as BEING the law. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.