This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
He is being charged with a state crime, not a federal one. The federal crime is re campaign donations .
Nice try to deflect. He is being tried with a state felony that rests on him committing the federal crime. The state needs to prove as a predicate the federal crime so in effect the state needs to prove the federal crime in order to get the state felony conviction.
There appears to be no requirement that they prove he actually committed another crime, but only that he intended to commit another crime.
You're just kicking the can down the road. They still have to prove that what they claim he intended was in fact a crime, when the relevant authority already said it isn't.
No, the relevant authorities simply declined to prosecute.
Only courts, not prosecutors, can definitively say whether something constitutes a crime. It is a separation of powers issue. Prosecutors' opinions are not binding on anyone.
Regardless, OP is incorrect to say that the state is charging him with a federal crime. Even if the DA has to prove that he committed the federal crime, he is not charged with that crime. If he is convicted, judgment will be entered on the state crime alone, not the federal crime, and the punishment will be that imposed for the state crime. It is no different than when a person convicted of child molestation in TX moves to CA and is charged with frequenting playgrounds. The DA must prove that he committed the TX crime, but the DA is trying him for violation of a CA law, not a TX law.
No one is fucking saying he would be booked under federal law and yes it is entirely different from your example. It would be as if CA decided that someone who moved from Texas can be charged with frequenting playgrounds because CA thinks he violated a Texas law despite Texas never actually trying him.
There are numerous legal commentators suggesting this is novel (including the NYT). No one is even saying this novelty is dispositive but it goes to the prudential matter of “should you prosecute.” Your schtick here grows tiresome.
Dude, that is exactly what OP said: "It's not a big stretch for a state prosecutor to charge an individual with a federal crime?"
Again, that is exactly what OP said. OP claimed that this is "a state prosecutor ... charg[ing] an individual with a federal crime", which would in fact be dispositive, because a state court does not have jurisdiction to try a federal crime. But that is not what is happening.
Which is exactly my point: The CA prosecutor would have to prove the conviction took place, but the prosecutor would not thereby be "charg[ing] an individual with a [Texas] crime", as OP claimed. As @MadMonzer noted, this is completely normal, and it does not transform the prosecution of a CA crime into the prosecution of a TX crime.
The whole substance of the underlying indictment argument is that Trump intended to commit a federal crime and by dint of that crime NYS can charge a separate crime. Of course, no federal prosecutor has attempted to bring that crime.
What that means is that NYS is effectively trying to enforce federal law in substance if not in name. That is what OP was saying.
Once again, this is entirely different from your California example. It would be akin to California saying “We think defendant violated Texas law; despite Texas never charging him or finding him guilty we are going to say it was a violation of Texas law and because we say it is a violation of Texas law we can now bring this separate California charge.”
That is not normal. Not even close.
It raises many questions. For example, if there are questions as to what is in fact Texas law (the defendant could say the law is Y, California could say X — does California court get to determine what is Texas law; what if there are constitutional issues with the Texas law — does a California court get to decide those matters). Once again, this is entirely different from a situation where another forum has adjudicated a matter under that forum’s law.
No, OP was saying that the state was charging a violation of Federal law, which of course WOULD BE illegitimate were that the case. But it isn't.
Yes. But a CA court's decision re TX law is not binding on TX courts, while a TX court's decision re TX law is binding on CA courts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link