FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Prosecute Fozzie
Prosecute Fozzie
Jump to: Newest in thread
"Needing evidence of crime is so 2010s. We now prosecute because people don't like stuff. Who needs law?
You mean just like with Julian Assange?"
Aren't they going to charge him with amongst other things hacking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Needing evidence of crime is so 2010s. We now prosecute because people don't like stuff. Who needs law?
You mean just like with Julian Assange?"
Last I checked, Assange had been indicted on 18 real life charges that actually exist in law. Whether or not you believe that the charges are legitimately applied to him, they are things that actually exist in non-imaginary legal procedure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Needing evidence of crime is so 2010s. We now prosecute because people don't like stuff. Who needs law?
You mean just like with Julian Assange?
Last I checked, Assange had been indicted on 18 real life charges that actually exist in law. Whether or not you believe that the charges are legitimately applied to him, they are things that actually exist in non-imaginary legal procedure."
There you have it 'legitimately applied'.
The Establishment have a habit of applying things legitimately.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Needing evidence of crime is so 2010s. We now prosecute because people don't like stuff. Who needs law?
You mean just like with Julian Assange?
Last I checked, Assange had been indicted on 18 real life charges that actually exist in law. Whether or not you believe that the charges are legitimately applied to him, they are things that actually exist in non-imaginary legal procedure.
There you have it 'legitimately applied'.
The Establishment have a habit of applying things legitimately.."
So laws and processes which exist and are legitimate are being applied in ways you don't like.
I'm afraid that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Nor does it apply any evidence that there's any legitimacy to any charge against any public health official. Evidence would be in the form of statute, not "I think Assange is persecuted". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Needing evidence of crime is so 2010s. We now prosecute because people don't like stuff. Who needs law?
You mean just like with Julian Assange?
Last I checked, Assange had been indicted on 18 real life charges that actually exist in law. Whether or not you believe that the charges are legitimately applied to him, they are things that actually exist in non-imaginary legal procedure.
There you have it 'legitimately applied'.
The Establishment have a habit of applying things legitimately..
So laws and processes which exist and are legitimate are being applied in ways you don't like.
I'm afraid that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Nor does it apply any evidence that there's any legitimacy to any charge against any public health official. Evidence would be in the form of statute, not "I think Assange is persecuted"."
Assange is accused, in much the same way Fauci has been accused of lying to Congress which carries jail time under oath or not..
Whats the old saying again Innocent until proven guilty?
However, nobody in the history of the world has ever been fitted up to suit an agenda right?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Needing evidence of crime is so 2010s. We now prosecute because people don't like stuff. Who needs law?
You mean just like with Julian Assange?
Last I checked, Assange had been indicted on 18 real life charges that actually exist in law. Whether or not you believe that the charges are legitimately applied to him, they are things that actually exist in non-imaginary legal procedure.
There you have it 'legitimately applied'.
The Establishment have a habit of applying things legitimately..
So laws and processes which exist and are legitimate are being applied in ways you don't like.
I'm afraid that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Nor does it apply any evidence that there's any legitimacy to any charge against any public health official. Evidence would be in the form of statute, not "I think Assange is persecuted".
Assange is accused, in much the same way Fauci has been accused of lying to Congress which carries jail time under oath or not..
Whats the old saying again Innocent until proven guilty?
However, nobody in the history of the world has ever been fitted up to suit an agenda right?
"
If I said that I think Assange is guilty, I apologise, that wasn't my intention. I said that you disliking something doesn't mean it's incorrect. I dislike all sorts of things that are still true.
I have no opinion on Assange's position, other than he has been charged with real offences and is going through real process. Fauci has not.
My quick glance at the issue of lying to Congress would seem to indicate that it's not a slam dunk - that there are caveats on the statement, that it's rarely prosecuted, etc. I suppose that if the relevant authorities ever considered prosecuting Fauci, they'd be more conversant in the case law, the statutory interpretation, etc, than either of us.
Even if Assange is totes stitched up and it's all an evil conspiracy by the Martians, he's been charged with real laws that actually exist. Fauci has not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Needing evidence of crime is so 2010s. We now prosecute because people don't like stuff. Who needs law?
You mean just like with Julian Assange?
Last I checked, Assange had been indicted on 18 real life charges that actually exist in law. Whether or not you believe that the charges are legitimately applied to him, they are things that actually exist in non-imaginary legal procedure.
There you have it 'legitimately applied'.
The Establishment have a habit of applying things legitimately..
So laws and processes which exist and are legitimate are being applied in ways you don't like.
I'm afraid that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Nor does it apply any evidence that there's any legitimacy to any charge against any public health official. Evidence would be in the form of statute, not "I think Assange is persecuted".
Assange is accused, in much the same way Fauci has been accused of lying to Congress which carries jail time under oath or not..
Whats the old saying again Innocent until proven guilty?
However, nobody in the history of the world has ever been fitted up to suit an agenda right?
"
The same people defending Fauci of his crimes are those who would have trump hung drawn and quartered despite, Like fauci, not being convicted of anything. Ahh. Double standards. Gotta love them  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Needing evidence of crime is so 2010s. We now prosecute because people don't like stuff. Who needs law?
You mean just like with Julian Assange?
Last I checked, Assange had been indicted on 18 real life charges that actually exist in law. Whether or not you believe that the charges are legitimately applied to him, they are things that actually exist in non-imaginary legal procedure.
There you have it 'legitimately applied'.
The Establishment have a habit of applying things legitimately..
So laws and processes which exist and are legitimate are being applied in ways you don't like.
I'm afraid that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Nor does it apply any evidence that there's any legitimacy to any charge against any public health official. Evidence would be in the form of statute, not "I think Assange is persecuted".
Assange is accused, in much the same way Fauci has been accused of lying to Congress which carries jail time under oath or not..
Whats the old saying again Innocent until proven guilty?
However, nobody in the history of the world has ever been fitted up to suit an agenda right?
The same people defending Fauci of his crimes are those who would have trump hung drawn and quartered despite, Like fauci, not being convicted of anything. Ahh. Double standards. Gotta love them "
Point to a single law that Fauci has broken, that amounts to a crime, that is likely to be prosecuted given the related history.
I'll start.
Trump: mishandling official documents. 18 U.S.C. § 793. Relevant case law, United States v. Gonzalez, 16 M.J. 428 (1983) - a case where classified material was left in a desk drawer negligently. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Needing evidence of crime is so 2010s. We now prosecute because people don't like stuff. Who needs law?
You mean just like with Julian Assange?
Last I checked, Assange had been indicted on 18 real life charges that actually exist in law. Whether or not you believe that the charges are legitimately applied to him, they are things that actually exist in non-imaginary legal procedure.
There you have it 'legitimately applied'.
The Establishment have a habit of applying things legitimately..
So laws and processes which exist and are legitimate are being applied in ways you don't like.
I'm afraid that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Nor does it apply any evidence that there's any legitimacy to any charge against any public health official. Evidence would be in the form of statute, not "I think Assange is persecuted".
Assange is accused, in much the same way Fauci has been accused of lying to Congress which carries jail time under oath or not..
Whats the old saying again Innocent until proven guilty?
However, nobody in the history of the world has ever been fitted up to suit an agenda right?
The same people defending Fauci of his crimes are those who would have trump hung drawn and quartered despite, Like fauci, not being convicted of anything. Ahh. Double standards. Gotta love them
Point to a single law that Fauci has broken, that amounts to a crime, that is likely to be prosecuted given the related history.
I'll start.
Trump: mishandling official documents. 18 U.S.C. § 793. Relevant case law, United States v. Gonzalez, 16 M.J. 428 (1983) - a case where classified material was left in a desk drawer negligently."
Point me to the conviction? No. Guess he's innocent then, just like fauci |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Needing evidence of crime is so 2010s. We now prosecute because people don't like stuff. Who needs law?
You mean just like with Julian Assange?
Last I checked, Assange had been indicted on 18 real life charges that actually exist in law. Whether or not you believe that the charges are legitimately applied to him, they are things that actually exist in non-imaginary legal procedure.
There you have it 'legitimately applied'.
The Establishment have a habit of applying things legitimately..
So laws and processes which exist and are legitimate are being applied in ways you don't like.
I'm afraid that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Nor does it apply any evidence that there's any legitimacy to any charge against any public health official. Evidence would be in the form of statute, not "I think Assange is persecuted".
Assange is accused, in much the same way Fauci has been accused of lying to Congress which carries jail time under oath or not..
Whats the old saying again Innocent until proven guilty?
However, nobody in the history of the world has ever been fitted up to suit an agenda right?
The same people defending Fauci of his crimes are those who would have trump hung drawn and quartered despite, Like fauci, not being convicted of anything. Ahh. Double standards. Gotta love them
Point to a single law that Fauci has broken, that amounts to a crime, that is likely to be prosecuted given the related history.
I'll start.
Trump: mishandling official documents. 18 U.S.C. § 793. Relevant case law, United States v. Gonzalez, 16 M.J. 428 (1983) - a case where classified material was left in a desk drawer negligently.Point me to the conviction? No. Guess he's innocent then, just like fauci"
Don't move the goalposts.
Sure, he's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So is even the most heinous of criminals until that verdict comes down.
But comparing like with like - the evidence points to Trump having committed that specific offence. Enough to justify the ongoing investigation, and likely enough to justify prosecution. The case I cited has a lower standard than the one that, it would seem, would apply to Trump, if you look at the specific facts.
I see no evidence that the same applies to Fauci. I'd be willing to be persuaded - with citations of statute and leading cases in the area, as I have done for you.
I support the proper criminal procedure being used against Trump if it applies. I support the proper criminal procedure being used against anyone if it applies.
Do you have any evidence that there is reasonable grounds to warrant the prosecution of Fauci - the same kind of evidence that I've provided you for Trump? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He lied to Congress. He's also a fucking awful human."
I'm not going to provide cases because it's not my burden to prove - I've not seen a citation from you - but this (pre Covid, so not to do with Fauci) would tend to indicate that it's very rarely prosecuted. The case law and precedent matters in the American legal system
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-congress-what-happened-them-n941936
Under what law is being a fucking awful human a crime? Do I get to decide that anyone I deem to be a fucking awful human is prosecuted? I'm not sure that follows the principles of the rule of law, but I could get behind that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He lied to Congress. He's also a fucking awful human.
I'm not going to provide cases because it's not my burden to prove - I've not seen a citation from you - but this (pre Covid, so not to do with Fauci) would tend to indicate that it's very rarely prosecuted. The case law and precedent matters in the American legal system
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-congress-what-happened-them-n941936
Under what law is being a fucking awful human a crime? Do I get to decide that anyone I deem to be a fucking awful human is prosecuted? I'm not sure that follows the principles of the rule of law, but I could get behind that."
You can provide all the cases you want, you are making my point for me. You are defending fauci and condemning trump. Neither have been convicted of anything. It isn't for you or me to decide what laws either have broken.
If I'm made supreme overlord of the world tomorrow, both are being jailed, just because I can. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He lied to Congress. He's also a fucking awful human.
I'm not going to provide cases because it's not my burden to prove - I've not seen a citation from you - but this (pre Covid, so not to do with Fauci) would tend to indicate that it's very rarely prosecuted. The case law and precedent matters in the American legal system
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-congress-what-happened-them-n941936
Under what law is being a fucking awful human a crime? Do I get to decide that anyone I deem to be a fucking awful human is prosecuted? I'm not sure that follows the principles of the rule of law, but I could get behind that.You can provide all the cases you want, you are making my point for me. You are defending fauci and condemning trump. Neither have been convicted of anything. It isn't for you or me to decide what laws either have broken.
If I'm made supreme overlord of the world tomorrow, both are being jailed, just because I can."
No. You said that people would hang draw and quarter Trump.
Saying "it seems according to case law that there might be a case for prosecuting Trump" is not anywhere close to it.
I'm providing somewhat educated speculation as to why there may be grounds for prosecuting Trump.
If Fauci can be found to the relevant standard to have broken the law, prosecute him. I'd be interested to see if there's an equivalent to what I've provided for Trump.
If I'm found to the relevant standard to have broken the law, prosecute me. My mother. My baby nephew. Got any evidence that prosecution deserves to happen? Prosecute.
That's just the way the system works. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple
over a year ago
Cookstown |
"Get Fozzie Bear in the dock! Might as well, his name sounds a bit like Fauci, so that's got to be enough to make him guilty. While we're at it let prosecute faucets as well (that's taps, for the benefit of our non-american readers). Hell, better prosecute the entire bathtub, not just the taps...     "
I think we need a prosecute X section to keep the virus section clear for real issues
#sarcasm (just to be clear) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He lied to Congress. He's also a fucking awful human.
I'm not going to provide cases because it's not my burden to prove - I've not seen a citation from you - but this (pre Covid, so not to do with Fauci) would tend to indicate that it's very rarely prosecuted. The case law and precedent matters in the American legal system
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-congress-what-happened-them-n941936
Under what law is being a fucking awful human a crime? Do I get to decide that anyone I deem to be a fucking awful human is prosecuted? I'm not sure that follows the principles of the rule of law, but I could get behind that.You can provide all the cases you want, you are making my point for me. You are defending fauci and condemning trump. Neither have been convicted of anything. It isn't for you or me to decide what laws either have broken.
If I'm made supreme overlord of the world tomorrow, both are being jailed, just because I can.
No. You said that people would hang draw and quarter Trump.
Saying "it seems according to case law that there might be a case for prosecuting Trump" is not anywhere close to it.
I'm providing somewhat educated speculation as to why there may be grounds for prosecuting Trump.
If Fauci can be found to the relevant standard to have broken the law, prosecute him. I'd be interested to see if there's an equivalent to what I've provided for Trump.
If I'm found to the relevant standard to have broken the law, prosecute me. My mother. My baby nephew. Got any evidence that prosecution deserves to happen? Prosecute.
That's just the way the system works."
Time will tell |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He lied to Congress. He's also a fucking awful human.
I'm not going to provide cases because it's not my burden to prove - I've not seen a citation from you - but this (pre Covid, so not to do with Fauci) would tend to indicate that it's very rarely prosecuted. The case law and precedent matters in the American legal system
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-congress-what-happened-them-n941936
Under what law is being a fucking awful human a crime? Do I get to decide that anyone I deem to be a fucking awful human is prosecuted? I'm not sure that follows the principles of the rule of law, but I could get behind that.You can provide all the cases you want, you are making my point for me. You are defending fauci and condemning trump. Neither have been convicted of anything. It isn't for you or me to decide what laws either have broken.
If I'm made supreme overlord of the world tomorrow, both are being jailed, just because I can.
No. You said that people would hang draw and quarter Trump.
Saying "it seems according to case law that there might be a case for prosecuting Trump" is not anywhere close to it.
I'm providing somewhat educated speculation as to why there may be grounds for prosecuting Trump.
If Fauci can be found to the relevant standard to have broken the law, prosecute him. I'd be interested to see if there's an equivalent to what I've provided for Trump.
If I'm found to the relevant standard to have broken the law, prosecute me. My mother. My baby nephew. Got any evidence that prosecution deserves to happen? Prosecute.
That's just the way the system works.Time will tell"
Maybe.
In the meantime, on what grounds are Fauci and Trump equivalent, realising that we're not prosecuting anyone and just having educated speculation about the subject?
There is some dispute, of course, whether or not Fauci lied to Congress, and I'm not sure I'm familiar with any area of law where "fucking awful human being" is liable to criminal penalty.
I'd be happy to hash out the details of both Trump (in the documents case, in this instance) and why I think Gonzales is authoritative in this instance, if you can provide me equivalent authority for Fauci. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
Winston 
