For years, right wingers have told people who got arrested for minor offenses that claimed they didn't know it was illegal that, "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Now suddenly it's an excuse.
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
143 points (97.4% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3835 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There is a word for that, hypocrite.
Yes, but I already said 'right wingers' and I didn't want to repeat myself.
Good point
It already worked for Jr when they decided he was too dumb to collude with Russia.
Ah, the Mueller report, where Mueller wrote that there was so much obstruction that he couldn't do his job, and the Republicans and Fox then screamed "see, no collusion found".
If you don't look for it, it doesn't exist. It works for crime, it works for COVID, it works for everything!
All four charges laid out in the second federal indictment of former President Donald Trump center around the idea that Trump tried to steal the 2020 election. Hence, some people incorrectly believe that part of the prosecution’s job will be showing that Trump understood that he was the one trying to steal the election, and not that it was stolen from him. Those people are mistaken. Special counsel Jack Smith can convict Trump on all charges — corruptly obstructing and conspiring to corrupt an official proceeding, conspiring to defraud the government, and conspiring to violate civil rights — without ever showing that Trump knew he had lost the 2020 election.
I’m liking Jack Smith more-and-more everyday.
Trumpy-Boi has the burden of proof
You can show him something and have him deny it moments later and there's no way of divining if he's lying, a moron, that fucking narcissistic or all of the above.
The answer is D, all of the above.
Sadly, that isn't how it works. The prosecution always has the burden of proof. The accused is presumed innocent.
Let's not go crazy and act like things are different just because cheeto man is a douche canoe and we want to see him rot in jail.
On the other hand, we can't just allow "I didn't know" or "I can't remember" to be a universal get-out-of-jail-free card, or anybody could get out of anything with this One Weird Trick. Can you imagine someone getting out of a murder charge by claiming they didn't know the thing in their hand was a gun? (Oh wait, that actually happened, more or less. Not sure how that affects my argument, though.)