New York seeks authority to prosecute despite presidential pardons

[apdst]

OJ Simpson was tried in the State court and won...but lost in the civil court...for the same offense.

Are you honestly saying that you don't understand the difference between criminal court and civil court? No ****? :lamo

 

[Moot]

Are you honestly saying that you don't understand the difference between criminal court and civil court? No ****? :lamo

Like you not understanding the difference between state and federal court.

 

[upsideguy]

The only reason they want to change the law is to undermine President Trump. Why do you think they want to change it NOW?

...or, from another perspective, to ensure that Trump does not escape justice because the President is not above the law.

 

[apdst]

Like you not understanding the difference between state and federal court.

From here on out, you should never try to insult anyone's intelligence, ever again. :lamo

 

[apdst]

...or, from another perspective, to ensure that Trump does not escape justice because the President is not above the law.

Sounds like an appelate lawyer's dream. :lamo

 

[Athanasius68]

Pardons are always unjust. We have a judicial system for a reason. If you are found guilty in court you should not get off because a president likes you.

Checks and balances.

 

[Athanasius68]

...or, from another perspective, to ensure that Trump does not escape justice because the President is not above the law.

He would not have escaped. Justice is the process, not the result.

 

[upsideguy]

He would not have escaped. Justice is the process, not the result.

Explain.....

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

HOw is this about Trump?


For ONCE we have a thread that is serious, debatable, interesting and FREE of Trump poison and you have to pop off about him. MY God, can we have ONE DISCUSSION that isn't designed to forward the meme of 'poor, poor mr Trump, they won't let him do his job."

Next he'll be a theme in scoreboards too "The fans must really hate the bombers, mel, they're treating them like Trump"

Look at THIS exchange:

Kim is playing tRump for the political "novice" and negotiating idiot that he is. These are exactly the types of stupid moves that caused tRump to lose ALL of the inheritance that daddy left him.

The minute that tRump walks into a room with Kim, Kim wins!, regardless of what happens next. tRump will be giving Kim the status that he so badly wants.
If Trump walks, Kim looks like the stronger leader. Period.

And the response:

Are you seriously cheering against the US? Really?

Unbelievable! Anyone who criticizes the President is now branded automatically as an America hater?
Knee jerk reactionary dogma writ large!

It reminds me of the Sixties when conservatives would snarl and say "My country, right or wrong!"
They didn't know that there was a second part!

"My country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, and when wrong, to be made right."

Not that it would have mattered to them. If the internet had existed back then, their reaction to the second part would have been:

"FAKE NEWS!!!"

 

[Fearandloathing]

Look at THIS exchange:



And the response:



Unbelievable! Anyone who criticizes the President is now branded automatically as an America hater?
Knee jerk reactionary dogma writ large!

It reminds me of the Sixties when conservatives would snarl and say "My country, right or wrong!"
They didn't know that there was a second part!

"My country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, and when wrong, to be made right."

Not that it would have mattered to them. If the internet had existed back then, their reaction to the second part would have been:

"FAKE NEWS!!!"

Odd, I was reflecting the other day how so much of the 60's has returned. I had a Canadian flag, newly minted as official in 1967 sewn to my back pack which rode high on the tail of my bike. People would ask me "why do you hate America"?

We go from flying another country's flag, a next door neighbor to 'hate' in one leap is kind of, well, mentally ill.

Nixon had a similar thing going, as at the time there was this "America: Love it or leave it:" I saw that sewn into a jacket touch off a rage at one point. One of the last things I did in high school was serve two weeks detention for instead of writing in the theme of 'better dead than red"; I figured in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson I'd take an opposing view. The item sucked. I should have been given three weeks detention for how badly written it was, not the content.

It's an extreme either way, the more in one direction you get the more they DO NOT want to allow freedom of speech.

Here, have a look at how we do it. This is what happens at the beginning of every day parliament sits.

Question Period: September 22, 2017 | CPAC

How long do you think the best American politicians would last being called out like this?

 

[Visbek]

can you name me the cases where a person with a federal pardon has been tried in a state case?

Are you willing to pay me to do your legal research for you?

I haven't looked into it much -- in fact, I was surprised to find that it wasn't unconstitutional. It's extremely rare, because usually what happens is the state files charges, the feds get involved, so the state drops its charges.

That said, I believe the relevant cases establishing dual sovereignty in respect to double jeopardy are Bartkus v.llinois and Abbate v. United States. Bartkus was decided in 1959, where the defendant was tried in both federal and Illinois courts for the same exact crime.

just because you "can" do something doesnt mean you should

True. However, if the President abuses his authority to cover his own ass and/or his omerta buddies, then I have no problem with a state prosecutor stepping in -- as long as the steps taken are Constitutionally valid.

i wouldnt have categorized myself as a rabid partisan....but i do care about precedents.... and this one would be a bad one....

Well, you seem to imagine I'm one, since you're suggesting that I would somehow regret it if a pardon of an obvious felon was countermanded by a state prosecutor.

And again, this isn't really precedent. The rulings are nearly 60 years old.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Here, have a look at how we do it. This is what happens at the beginning of every day parliament sits.

Question Period: September 22, 2017 | CPAC

How long do you think the best American politicians would last being called out like this?

Good healthy parliamentary procedure, I love it.

 

[The Mark]

Imo there is already a remedy in place, it's called impeachment. They can't stop a president from issuing a pardon but they can stop him from being the president if they feel he has abused his authority.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

I don't know that they'd impeach him for that.

Too much partisan, too many politicians who would do the same or worse if president (just maybe hide it better).

 

[upsideguy]

Sounds like an appelate lawyer's dream. :lamo

Makes me want to hum a tune...;

 

[Mason66]

There's no way that's constitutional. The 5th Amendment says "same offense" not "same statute".

Haven't we seen the feds pick up a case and prosecute it after the state fails to make the case?

 

[trouble13]

I don't know that they'd impeach him for that.

Too much partisan, too many politicians who would do the same or worse if president (just maybe hide it better).

I wasn't suggesting he should be impeached for using his power to pardon, just that he could be impeached.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[ajn678]

No one is interested in 'taking him down' if he didn't do anything illegal. But, if he is a threat to national security, derelict in this duty to uphold the constitution, things of this nature, all bets are off.

If the president is a crook, of corrupt intent ( his pardons could have a conflict of interest dynamic. Pardoning Cohen, his lawyer, for example ) and a threat to national security, he must be removed, it's really quite simple.

Sorry, that's entirely bull****.

 

[ajn678]

HOw is this about Trump?


For ONCE we have a thread that is serious, debatable, interesting and FREE of Trump poison and you have to pop off about him. MY God, can we have ONE DISCUSSION that isn't designed to forward the meme of 'poor, poor mr Trump, they won't let him do his job."

Next he'll be a theme in scoreboards too "The fans must really hate the bombers, mel, they're treating them like Trump"

Uh, cause the only reason they are trying to do this is to make it so that if Trump "gets" away at a federal level New York can charge him or his associates with crimes. You can't honestly be this blind.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Uh, cause the only reason they are trying to do this is to make it so that if Trump "gets" away at a federal level New York can charge him or his associates with crimes. You can't honestly be this blind.

And who are you again?

One,the first dozen words you employ are OPINION, not fact, and not one substantiated by anything, well anything at all really, just more right wing venom and hate.

Which leads me to your last five words, and no thank you. You have given me absolutely no reason to ever want to ever read another of your posts.

Good bye.

 

[ajn678]

OJ Simpson was tried in the State court and won...but lost in the civil court...for the same offense.

Not a surprise you don't know the difference between a criminal court and a civil court.... :lamo

 

[ajn678]

And who are you again?

One,the first dozen words you employ are OPINION, not fact, and not one substantiated by anything, well anything at all really, just more right wing venom and hate.

Which leads me to your last five words, and no thank you. You have given me absolutely no reason to ever want to ever read another of your posts.

Good bye.

I assume you meant six words. Nice job with the counting. Almost as poor as your ability to form an argument. But I understand. Another person that can't form a coherent argument so they run away.

 

[Moot]

Not a surprise you don't know the difference between a criminal court and a civil court.... :lamo

He was tried twice for the same crime...which is the premise of the OP. Not surprised you didn't read it.

 

[ajn678]

He was tried twice for the same crime...which is the premise of the OP. Not surprised you didn't read it.

There are no crimes in a civil court. How can you not understand simple concepts.

 

[Moot]

There are no crimes in a civil court. How can you not understand simple concepts.

A better question is why can't you?

"...Although criminal and civil cases are treated very differently, many people often fail to recognize that the same conduct can result in both criminal and civil liability. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this is the OJ Simpson trial. The same conduct led to a murder trial (criminal) and a wrongful death trial (civil). In part because of the different standards of proof, there was not enough evidence for a jury to decide that OJ Simpson was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the criminal murder case. In the civil trial, however, the jury found enough evidence to conclude that OJ Simpson wrongfully caused his wife's death by a "preponderance of the evidence"...."

https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimin...between-a-criminal-case-and-a-civil-case.html​

 

[Moot]

From here on out, you should never try to insult anyone's intelligence, ever again. :lamo

Thats good, because you certainly don't need my help to insult your intelligence.