8
8
0
Do the writers of laws sit around asking each other if a statement is Ambiguous enough?
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, LTC Trent Klug,
CSM Charles Hayden, SMSgt David A Asbury,
SSG William Jones,
SSG Michael Noll, MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
SGM Erik Marquez, CW3 Harvey K.
SFC William Farrell, CPL Ronald Keyes Jr
Sgt (Join to see), SSG (Join to see)
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, LTC Trent Klug,
CSM Charles Hayden, SMSgt David A Asbury,
SSG William Jones,
SSG Michael Noll, MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
SGM Erik Marquez, CW3 Harvey K.
SFC William Farrell, CPL Ronald Keyes Jr
Sgt (Join to see), SSG (Join to see)
SCOTUS Delivers Setbacks to Anti-Trump Lawfare
Posted from theamericanconservative.comPosted in these groups: 
Political Opinions
Political Opinions
Edited 2 mo ago
Posted 2 mo ago
Responses: 1
1
1
0
So, because the law may be ambiguous, we should not prosecute those who tried to overthrow the duly elected government?
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Setting aside the completely false assertion of government overthrow because we have been around that block enough times....
If they committed actual crimes, they should be charged with the crimes they committed. In keeping with the intent of the laws written.
And that goes for ALL prosecutions.
The process should NEVER be "we don't like that, let's figure out what we can charge them with.". It should be "well they broke that law, should we prosecute?"
In the case of most J6 defendants (not all, but most) the former methodology was used. Also in the NY hush money case. Also in the NY civil fraud trial. Also in the GA RICO case. Also in the Trump J6 case. Not, however, in the documents case. That one was the latter methodology.
If the law is too ambiguous, it should not be prosecuted at all. It is legal precedent - void for vagueness.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-67/130168/ [login to see] 2301915_Amicus%20Brief%20for%20NACDL%20and%20NAFD%20-%20U.S.%20v.%20Sineneng-Smith.pdf
If they committed actual crimes, they should be charged with the crimes they committed. In keeping with the intent of the laws written.
And that goes for ALL prosecutions.
The process should NEVER be "we don't like that, let's figure out what we can charge them with.". It should be "well they broke that law, should we prosecute?"
In the case of most J6 defendants (not all, but most) the former methodology was used. Also in the NY hush money case. Also in the NY civil fraud trial. Also in the GA RICO case. Also in the Trump J6 case. Not, however, in the documents case. That one was the latter methodology.
If the law is too ambiguous, it should not be prosecuted at all. It is legal precedent - void for vagueness.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-67/130168/ [login to see] 2301915_Amicus%20Brief%20for%20NACDL%20and%20NAFD%20-%20U.S.%20v.%20Sineneng-Smith.pdf
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google