I understand. It was not an argument or a counterstatement. (I edited to make my intention a bit more clear).
Just Cliff Clavin’ing here. Pointing out something for the crowd here who aren’t necessarily versed in such things.
11 Likes
My understanding of the statute is that you don’t have to prove the other crime or have a conviction for it already in hand. The important thing is, was the fraud committed to avoid detection of the other crime? It’s about the intent of the fraud, not the quality of evidence for the other crime. And they’ve nailed his intent in the testimony.
14 Likes
This is what I come to the BBS for: actual respect for one another. Thanks to both of you for the inside view.
12 Likes
Thank you to all lawyer folk for putting things in terms us non law talking people can understand. It really is a great service.
11 Likes
That would be up to the voters to decide. The constitution only says that to be eligible to become president you must be 35 or older, a natural-born citizen, and have resided in the US for at least 14 years – it doesn’t say you must be healthy to be elected POTUS.
(The 25th amendment provides for the removal of an incumbent who is ”unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”, but does not deign to specify exactly what that is supposed to mean in medical terms.)
5 Likes
Medically unfit or faking it, the GOP would still back him and his minions would still vote for him. Good thing there’s more of us than them.
10 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
