• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
Suddenly said:
Every conviction of someone lying to the feds with no convictions w/r/t the original crime falls into this. Martha Stewart is a famous one.
....
Click to expand...

That might be a famous case, but I suspect it characterizes a tiny percentage of federal prosecutions. More important, lying to any LEO anywhere is always a crime. It impedes investigations and obstructs justice. Everybody knows you don't have to say anything to cops, let alone admit a crime. If you lie, it's a choice you made. Ms. Stewart was initially prosecuted for insider trading as well as lying. The trading charges were dismissed based on questions about what she actually knew and when, but that doesn't mean she didn't lie, and that's what she was convicted of.
 
Emily's Cat said:
This might end up being the first time in history that a group of female citizens have decided to stage a coup.

Just joking, of course, but I am completely livid right now.
Click to expand...

Edited by xjx388: 
<SNIP>
Edited for Rule 12

IMHO this is going to result in the most widespreac resistence and popular contempt to a set of laws since Prohibition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some of those "process crimes" come down to lying to avoid having to disclose a different crime.
 
Last edited:
Suddenly said:
Every conviction of someone lying to the feds with no convictions w/r/t the original crime falls into this. Martha Stewart is a famous one.
Click to expand...

Or trying to railroad Trump on the obstruction of justice BS. If the only thing they are charged with is obstruction of Justice clearly that is a manufactured crime.
 
Bob001 said:
That might be a famous case, but I suspect it characterizes a tiny percentage of federal prosecutions. More important, lying to any LEO anywhere is always a crime. It impedes investigations and obstructs justice. Everybody knows you don't have to say anything to cops, let alone admit a crime. If you lie, it's a choice you made. Ms. Stewart was initially prosecuted for insider trading as well as lying. The trading charges were dismissed based on questions about what she actually knew and when, but that doesn't mean she didn't lie, and that's what she was convicted of.
Click to expand...

You seem to be assuming that this is a claim that these people are blameless.

It is a good example of their prosecuting a crime that wouldn't have happened without their involvement and why that's dangerous. Ever since Capone was busted for tax evasion it's been SOP because these things are way easier to prove than is actual criminal misconduct. Most jurisdictions don't have the level of penalties the feds have for this sort of thing.

This is why while talking to the police without a lawyer is inadvisable, talking to the FBI without one is bonkers insane.
 
Suddenly said:
You seem to be assuming that this is a claim that these people are blameless.

It is a good example of their prosecuting a crime that wouldn't have happened without their involvement and why that's dangerous. Ever since Capone was busted for tax evasion it's been SOP because these things are way easier to prove than is actual criminal misconduct. Most jurisdictions don't have the level of penalties the feds have for this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Hence why they tried to do up Nixon on it.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Or trying to railroad Trump on the obstruction of justice BS. If the only thing they are charged with is obstruction of Justice clearly that is a manufactured crime.
Click to expand...

The claim is not that since the FBI is a causal chain in a crime that these crimes are BS or those that commit them are blameless. Just that it should invite scrutiny.
 
you know what? Nah, I'm not going to make this joke
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Hence why they tried to do up Nixon on it.
Click to expand...

Well, sure. In some cases these charges reflect that the actor went to great lengths to destroy evidence and otherwise make an investigation impossible.

In others the FBI does their investigation of a crime and then gets the person into an interview with the intention of trying to get them to lie about the facts because that's the easier case for them to make.

The latter are more of a problem.
 
erlando said:
Supreme Court Confirms Leak; Says Roe Draft Is Not Final
Click to expand...

I'd hope not. The reasoning was total garbage. It would be one thing to sail that out there and ignore criticism, but floating that garbage out there after being made aware it is garbage might be a little too embarrassing even for them.

If nothing else this illustrates why the Court being all mysterious is such nonsense. All it does is let them avoid scrutiny until it is too late. All of this crap needs to be out in the open, and if the justices can't handle a bit of public scrutiny, well, I'll go out on a limb and say they probably can find other jobs.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Don't you pay attention to the officials running for election in your own state, they are targeting Griswold

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2022/02/21/michigan-gop-ag-candidates-criticize-1965-ruling-against-contraceptive-ban/6879175001/

""Each of the radical Republicans running for Michigan AG want to overturn the right for married couples to use contraception without being prosecuted," Nessel tweeted."
Click to expand...
I notice all the nitwits yelling "states rights" haven't noticed individual citizens have the right not to be told what to do by the oppressive minority. That was the whole basis of the civil rights laws only in that case it was the oppressive majority.
 
Emily's Cat said:
JFC, I detest politicians right now.
Click to expand...

“It is a shame that it happens, but there’s an opportunity for that woman – no matter how young or old she is ― to make a determination about what she’s going to do to help that life be a productive human being."
Well, no. Your proposed law removes "determination" and mandates a specific outcome.

"Determination" is a word chosen so as to avoid using the word "choice." Which this bill does not allow a woman to make.
 
gnome said:
Some of those "process crimes" come down to lying to avoid having to disclose a different crime.
Click to expand...
Or a whistleblower trying not to get fired. Or a POTUS trying to avoid something politically damaging, and to keep something from his wife. :rolleyes:
 
Ziggurat said:
I find it strange to label "not killing babies" as a sexual proclivity. That would mean "killing babies" is also a sexual proclivity.

Maybe you're right.
Click to expand...

It's easy enough to find articles referring to Islamic extremists as grooming children. I think you are just choosing a conveniently narrow definition for grooming because you don't have answer to the point being made, so I'm going to stick with my chosen definition.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
“It is a shame that it happens, but there’s an opportunity for that woman – no matter how young or old she is ― to make a determination about what she’s going to do to help that life be a productive human being."
Well, no. Your proposed law removes "determination" and mandates a specific outcome.

"Determination" is a word chosen so as to avoid using the word "choice." Which this bill does not allow a woman to make.
Click to expand...

It allows a lifetime of choices.....just not the ones many people think they should be able to make

And I guess, technically speaking, you can still make that one choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom