Quote (Goomshill @ Mar 16 2020 09:27pm)
so back to back posts you're dismissing something as fake news to be rejected for bias of the source, while acknowledging you don't know enough about it to form an opinion- and saying Trump only appeals to a cult of true believers
The legal theory in the mueller cast isn't that complicated
18 U.S.C. § 371 lets them charge someone with 'conspiracy to defraud the government', interpreted in Haas v. Henkel as "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government.”, and laid out in United States v. Klein that the conspiracy charge could stick even if the underlying conduct wasn't proven to be illegal. In effect, they can charge you for any nebulously defined conspiracy to in any way impair government function, even if the actions you take are all legal, as long as they can establish it was concealed somehow. Mueller's team applied this by saying that even if the conduct of the Russians wasn't itself illegal- making fake accounts on social media, setting up facebook pages, buying ads, renting a server- the fact that they used deceit to hide their activities meant the FEC couldn't regulate them, therefore they impeded the FEC's function, constituting a conspiracy to defraud the government. Mueller's team argued that the FEC should be able to view any political speech on social media and know who's making it, even if there's no direct regulation on it. So even though had their actions been public and reported then they would have done nothing wrong by the FEC, just being hidden was alone enough to constitute a criminal conspiracy.
Anyone with any care for civil liberties should be able to see why that's wrong, the ensuing trial's lack of discovery/counsel/speediness besides. They violated half the constitution, just missing quartering soldiers in their bungalow. There's no prerequisite in the legal theory for the offenders to be foreign or malicious. Anyone concealing their identity while making posts on the internet about politics would be equally guilty, so there goes PARD
I try to lean on experts when I'm out of my depth. If you have prominent lawyers who support your viewpoint, I'd be interested in reading them. Seriously, I'd like to read some serious people who are in agreement with your stance.
As far as the case you laid out, it's unconvincing. The government has the power to be tyrannical in many circumstances, but until they are, the actions they take to defend American interests don't necessarily bother me.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.