About the money
-
@Horace said in About the money:
Isgur's readings of law are not always coherent. For instance, she couldn't draw any clear meaning from Roberts' footnote where he directly indicated that a POTUS could be prosecuted for bribery for an official act.
She just understood the issue that I failed to get you to confront, that absolute immunity means none of the presidents communications can be introduced as evidence rendering such a prosecution close to impossible in practice.
@jon-nyc said in About the money:
@Horace said in About the money:
Isgur's readings of law are not always coherent. For instance, she couldn't draw any clear meaning from Roberts' footnote where he directly indicated that a POTUS could be prosecuted for bribery for an official act.
She just understood the issue that I failed to get you to confront, that absolute immunity means none of the presidents communications can be introduced as evidence rendering such a prosecution close to impossible in practice.
You don’t actually acknowledge a difference between agreeing with you, and understanding something. In this case, you may agree with something Isgur thinks might be a reasonable interpretation, and you disagree with Roberts. Somewhere in that thought process, you introduce “true understanding” and assign it to whatever you believe.
-
Even Roberts acknowledges that none of the communications can be used. He just doesn’t address the practical implications.
@jon-nyc said in About the money:
Even Roberts acknowledges that none of the communications can be used. He just doesn’t think through the practical implications.
Right so you’re a better legal mind than Roberts. I get it. Suffice to say, I find your years long prancing on this board about being nuanced and thoughtful about SCOTUS decisions to be paper thin, when contested in any attempt at good faith discussion.
Roberts obviously considers the bribery aspect leading to the official act to be detachable from the official act, and prosecutable in its own right. I’m happy for you that your truth is that all evidence having to do with the bribery would be inadmissible. Your truth is worth what it takes to read and dismiss it, in light of the fact that the conservative justices you worry about, signed into a decision indicating that bribery would be prosecutable.
-
-
Before you finished your reply I had changed ‘did not think about’ to ‘did not address’.
Now read the footnote again and see that my truth is Robert’s truth too.
@jon-nyc said in About the money:
Before you finished your reply I had changed ‘did not think about’ to ‘did not address’.
Now read the footnote again and see that my truth is Robert’s truth too.
No. Use your words to tell me how Roberts actually agrees with you. Don’t make me guess. Roberts indicates a detachable and prosecutable aspect to a bribery-inspired official act. But that would not be “new law” created by this ruling, so it went into a footnote rather than the main opinion.
-
“What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself”
@jon-nyc said in About the money:
“What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself”
Thank you I’m aware he said that. It could not be more obvious that he imagines that the bribery discussions are not part of the official act itself. If your truth is that Roberts is too ill thought out to reconcile your quoted sentence with the sentences right next to them, where he describes a prosecution for bribery, then your truth is less parsimonious than mine, where Roberts is detaching the bribe from the official act. I don’t have to think I’m a better legal mind than the chief justice.
-
A bribe is just an official act with a bad motive. He made it clear the motive can’t be questioned nor can any communications about the act itself. Good luck with your bribery case.
I suspect, indeed I’m certain, that Roberts recognizes this but simply accepted it as a trade off.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
The footnote in question:
JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for
instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the
bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” Post, at 6 (opinion concurring
in part); cf. post, at 25–27 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But of course the
prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence
of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed
to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of
the act. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do,
however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his
advisers probing the official act itself.So there's even a cite for prior case law to establish that this bribery could be prosecuted. Did Sarah Isgur even look at it? She didn't mention it in her ramblings on the podcast.
So, what we have here is Roberts, and four other conservative justices, signing onto this opinion, and four other justices disagreeing in whole or in part. This part about bribery being totally immune is specifically addressed by Roberts in a footnote. So we actually have no indication that so much as a single justice would find bribery immune from prosecution.
-
A bribe is just an official act with a bad motive. He made it clear the motive can’t be questioned nor can any communications about the act itself. Good luck with your bribery case.
I suspect, indeed I’m certain, that Roberts recognizes this but simply accepted it as a trade off.
@jon-nyc said in About the money:
A bribe is just an official act with a bad motive. He made it clear the motive can’t be questioned nor can any communications about the act itself. Good luck with your bribery case.
I suspect, indeed I’m certain, that Robert’s recognizes this but simple accepted it as a trade off.
What you are or are not certain of is inconsequential. Roberts probably did not accept a direct logical contradiction in adjacent sentences as a "tradeoff". There is a parsimonious way to view the sentences as coherent. Just think of the bribe (which is directly unconstitutional) as legally not an official act. Neither you nor Sarah Isgur nor David French are capable of establishing that such an argument made before this court would fall on deaf ears. Your certainty is irrelevant.
-
@jon-nyc said in About the money:
A bribe is just an official act with a bad motive. He made it clear the motive can’t be questioned nor can any communications about the act itself. Good luck with your bribery case.
I suspect, indeed I’m certain, that Robert’s recognizes this but simple accepted it as a trade off.
What you are or are not certain of is inconsequential. Roberts probably did not accept a direct logical contradiction in adjacent sentences as a "tradeoff". There is a parsimonious way to view the sentences as coherent. Just think of the bribe (which is directly unconstitutional) as legally not an official act. Neither you nor Sarah Isgur nor David French are capable of establishing that such an argument made before this court would fall on deaf ears. Your certainty is irrelevant.
@Horace said in About the money:
Just think of the bribe (which is directly unconstitutional) as legally not an official act.
He’s also clear that just because the act would violate the law as applied to everyone else doesn’t pierce its ‘officiality’. (My word not his)
Horace - you are having trouble keeping the basic outlines of the ruling in your head from one post to the next. Like I said a month ago, you are basically arguing from a presumption of reasonableness and have not attempted to grapple with the meaning or the implications of ‘absolute immunity’. At any rate you have seriously overestimated my motivation keep explaining this to you.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
Here is what Roberts cites when he says bribery is prosecutable:
18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) is a federal bribery statute that prohibits public officials and those who are selected to be public officials from either soliciting or accepting anything of value with the intent to be influenced in the performance of an official act1. The statute also prohibits public officials from demanding, seeking, receiving, accepting, or agreeing to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act2.
Those motivated to do so, can take their idea of "immunity" and shadow box with it against all their imaginary foes, but the people responsible for adjudicating these things have been clear. Not a single justice wrote a single opinion indicating a bribery would be immune from prosecution. And yet we have "certainty" that actually it would be, from our resident legal scholar. This is a stupid conversation.
-
Horace, you don’t even know enough to realize how embarrassing your posts are. But I congratulate you for having learned between your last two posts that bribery is illegal per federal statute and not ‘unconstitutional’. Baby steps.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
@Horace said in About the money:
Just think of the bribe (which is directly unconstitutional) as legally not an official act.
He’s also clear that just because the act would violate the law as applied to everyone else doesn’t pierce its ‘officiality’. (My word not his)
Horace - you are having trouble keeping the basic outlines of the ruling in your head from one post to the next. Like I said a month ago, you are basically arguing from a presumption of reasonableness and have not attempted to grapple with the meaning or the implications of ‘absolute immunity’. At any rate you have seriously overestimated my motivation keep explaining this to you.
@jon-nyc said in About the money:
@Horace said in About the money:
Just think of the bribe (which is directly unconstitutional) as legally not an official act.
He’s also clear that just because the act would violate the law as applied to everyone else doesn’t pierce its ‘officiality’. (My word not his)
Horace - you are having trouble keeping the basic outlines of the ruling in your head from one post to the next. Like I said a month ago, you are basically arguing from a presumption of reasonableness and have not attempted to grapple with the meaning or the implications of ‘absolute immunity’. At any rate you have seriously overestimated my motivation keep explaining this to you.
Just no, Jon. I'll grant you that you believe that you're well thought out about this. Again, what you believe is of little consequence. Your truth, in this case, involves the chief justice accepting, as a "trade-off", a directly logical contradiction from one sentence to the next. Meanwhile, there is a reasonable interpretation sitting right next to you, that the bribery would be detachable from the official act. You do not allow it, because you have your truth and that is that. Not a single justice wrote a single opinion on this case indicating that they would consider bribery to be immune from prosecution. You are not capable of establishing, using words in the constitution, that bribery must be considered part of an official act. Justice Roberts, those who co-signed with his opinion, and every justice that disagreed with it, are now on record, very specifically, that bribery is prosecutable.
-
Horace, you don’t even know enough to realize how embarrassing your posts are. But I congratulate you for having learned between your last two posts that bribery is illegal per federal statute and not ‘unconstitutional’. Baby steps.
@jon-nyc said in About the money:
Horace, you don’t even know enough to realize how embarrassing your posts are. But I congratulate you for having learned between your last two posts that bribery is illegal per federal statute and not ‘unconstitutional’.
Oh, jon, you con man. Living your truths. I know convincing midwits of your intellect has always been, and will always be, your bread and butter. But you are paper thin, on as far as I can tell, all subjects.
-
You’ve been paying attention to politics for what - 36 months? It’s been kind of fun to watch. Like when your little sister goes to undergrad and comes home at Christmas mentioning Habermas and Marcuse. Keep it up, buddy. We’re proud of you.
-
You’ve been paying attention to politics for what - 36 months? It’s been kind of fun to watch. Like when your little sister goes to undergrad and comes home at Christmas mentioning Habermas and Marcuse. Keep it up, buddy. We’re proud of you.
@jon-nyc said in About the money:
You’ve been paying attention to politics for what - 36 months? It’s been kind of fun to watch. Like when your little sister goes to undergrad and comes home at Christmas mentioning Habermas and Marcuse. Keep it up, buddy. We’re proud of you.
You have like three different kinds of sneering posts to dismiss me. You keep them on rotation, because you don't have a creative bone in your body, and all you can do is project your sneering condescension when push comes to shove. Meanwhile, you face plant every time I attempt to re-engage in good faith conversation with you. You are a nothing burger when it comes to backing up your opinions, and this has not changed for much longer than 36 months.
