What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

Seems like he could make a good case that this is just a selective prosecution.

Not a defense.

[DGuller]

Seems like he could make a good case that this is just a selective prosecution.

Not a defense.

It should be, though.  Selective prosecution is a very popular and effective tool of abuse by state.

[The Minsky Moment]

If selective prosecution were a defense, every white collar criminal defendant would raise it and every case would involve costly meta-litigation about the processes used in deciding which cases to prosecute.  The entire federal criminal justice system would grind to a halt.

Federal prosecutions are by definition selective.  The USAs decide which cases to bring.

[DGuller]

If selective prosecution were a defense, every white collar criminal defendant would raise it and every case would involve costly meta-litigation about the processes used in deciding which cases to prosecute.  The entire federal criminal justice system would grind to a halt.

Federal prosecutions are by definition selective.  The USAs decide which cases to bring.

I understand the practical limitations, but I think the legal system also has to recognize the dangers of selective enforcement, rather than function at Kohlberg stage 1 level.  Before Putin's Russia became an overt dictatorship, the way regime opponents were punished were by prosecution for crimes that everyone in their position were guilty of.  You wouldn't become rich in 1990s Russia by paying effective tax rates in excess of 100%, so every single person was guilty, but strangely only the ones opposed to Putin were prosecuted for tax evasion.

[Jacob]

I understand the practical limitations, but I think the legal system also has to recognize the dangers of selective enforcement, rather than function at Kohlberg stage 1 level.  Before Putin's Russia became an overt dictatorship, the way regime opponents were punished were by prosecution for crimes that everyone in their position were guilty of.  You wouldn't become rich in 1990s Russia by paying effective tax rates in excess of 100%, so every single person was guilty, but strangely only the ones opposed to Putin were prosecuted for tax evasion.

While this is true about Putin's Russia (and Xi's China, for that matter) do you genuinely believe there are relevant parallels to whatever the FBI is doing right now? Do you genuinely believe that someone has designs to turn the US into a Democrat dictatorship, and they're using the FBI to advance that agenda?

[Valmy]

If selective prosecution were a defense, every white collar criminal defendant would raise it and every case would involve costly meta-litigation about the processes used in deciding which cases to prosecute.  The entire federal criminal justice system would grind to a halt.

Federal prosecutions are by definition selective.  The USAs decide which cases to bring.

I understand the practical limitations, but I think the legal system also has to recognize the dangers of selective enforcement, rather than function at Kohlberg stage 1 level.  Before Putin's Russia became an overt dictatorship, the way regime opponents were punished were by prosecution for crimes that everyone in their position were guilty of.  You wouldn't become rich in 1990s Russia by paying effective tax rates in excess of 100%, so every single person was guilty, but strangely only the ones opposed to Putin were prosecuted for tax evasion.

Yes I am aware of that and AFAIK the laws were pretty much designed for this purpose. If there are laws that everybody has to break then we probably should dump those laws.

[Valmy]

Seems like he could make a good case that this is just a selective prosecution.

Not a defense.

It should be, though.  Selective prosecution is a very popular and effective tool of abuse by state.

So should we randomly prosecute based on RNG or something?

[The Brain]

I think selective prosecution is very unsound.

[Syt]

Has there been any official-ish info on what the warrant entailed or what was taken?

I saw comments that Trump would be free to release his copy and the list of confiscated items if he so chooses, though even if it was all made up charges and they took Eric's teddy bear I'm not sure there would be much benefit to it?

[Valmy]

I think selective prosecution is very unsound.

There are only so many resources.

[crazy canuck]

I think selective prosecution is very unsound.

Selective in the sense of devoting resources to the worst offenders, good chance of conviction and in the interests of Justice to pursue is actually exactly what we want from a prosecutorial exercise of discretion.

The alternative is no exercise of discretion and that would be horrific.

[Jacob]

I agree that the notion that politicians should wield the justice system to prosecute opponents is completely unsound.

My understanding is that that is why liberal democracies have prosecution decisions taken at arms length by professoinal prosecutors offices, as removed as possible from being influenced politically.

Those prosecutors use their discretion - based on the severity of the offenses, the evidence available, the likelihood of conviction, and broad objectives set by policy makers (which may not include "attack my opponents") on which crimes and potential crimes are investigated and prosecuted.

Those of you speaking of "selective prosection" being problemeatic in the context of the FBI seizing materials from Trump's safe, are you suggesting that there was undue influence from politicians in the decision-making that led to FBI's actions? Or are you saying that the whole idea of prosecutional discretion - which is as far as I understand it present in every single justice system in the West - is fundamentally unsound an the FBI seizing evidence from Trump highlights this? Or something else?

[Razgovory]

Someone attacked an FBI office in Indiana.  He didn't get in and now there's a stand off.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Someone attacked an FBI office in Indiana.  He didn't get in and now there's a stand off.

Indiana or Cincinnati? I'm seeing reporting on an attack in Cincinnati so it's crazy if there are two concurrent.

[Razgovory]

Someone attacked an FBI office in Indiana.  He didn't get in and now there's a stand off.

Indiana or Cincinnati? I'm seeing reporting on an attack in Cincinnati so it's crazy if there are two concurrent.

Sorry, for some reason I thought it was Indianapolis.