SectionC3

And yet volume II ends with no exoneration on obstruction. "Being able to read . . ." I'll let you finish. On Flynn, last I checked he pleaded guilty to violation of 18 USC 1001. The information underlying that plea alleges that Flynn made false statements to the FBI. "Facts aren't your friends when you don't know them." But that's to be expected when you're on the Washed up Psycho list. https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-flynn-plea-agreement-documents https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-flynn-plea-agreement-documents Read and enjoy. Paragraph 3d of the statement of offense (signed by Flynn and his counsels) is a pretty tough workaround for the fake news crowd here.

A case like that probably would be very tough to prove absent a cluster and a very diligent plaintiff who otherwise could establish that he/she took stringent precautions outside the area in question.

Are you talking about the Mueller report? Or the transcript of the Ukraine call? I joined late. Gotta fill me in.

Interesting. An economic argument for not prosecuting crime. Are there any other instances in which you would apply this theory? The guy who burglarizes your house? The person who steals from your car? The bar assault where somebody sustains a broken arm? Or is it just because you like Flynn's politics?

Would have been a great point at oral argument. Particularly with argument being broadcast. Great, great point.

Right as rain.

Yeah, no. He lied to the FBI about activity that undermined the sitting United States government. And pleaded guilty to that activity. *** From what little I know about this the judge presiding over the Flynn case pulled a lovely move yesterday. Predictable to anyone who does this for a living, but hilarious nonetheless. Just because the government wants to vacate the plea (and drop the prosecution) doesn't meant the court, which has jurisdiction over the matter, has to accede to the request. Out. Freaking. Standing.

Still no statistic. I'm leaning toward the "rear" explanation for your point.

Also, I just received a census form. Should my wife take a pregnancy test before I return the form? What if she's pregnant? Do we add an extra child to the form? Do I "deduct" that unborn "child" on my federal income tax return? Any advice in this respect would be appreciated, counselor.

If a fetus is a person, then consuming beer on behalf of that minor person would constitute endangering the welfare of a child. "A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when . . . [h]e or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than [17] years old . . . ." EDIT: This is admittedly a bit dicey with respect to an unknown pregnancy. Knowingly can be interpreted as pertaining to the consumption of the beer, but it's arguable. There would be no argument with respect to alcohol consumption if the pregnant consumer was aware of the pregnancy.

Seriously. My understanding is that there is a 30% uptick in deaths this spring over last.

Hoax.

The short man has arisen this morning. Top of the morning to you, sir! He’s good at rallies at TV. Bad at retail politics. But retail isn’t his game.

What about having a beer before the pregnancy is known? Endangering the welfare of a child? Talk about governmental excess.

You're more like CNN than you think.

They're emulating the president.

You argument is one that might be rooted in Irish law, but it has no foundation in American law. 1. Penal Law article 125 absolutely relates to the central premise. It defines a person as "a human who has been born and is alive." 2. Roe does not place "a duty . . . upon people not to offend the right of a fetus to be born" after the second trimester. In point of fact Roe considers the ability of states to regulate abortion. As a pregnancy progresses, the extent of regulation grows, and the third trimester is a period in which the state may increase regulation to safeguard its interest in "protecting fetal life after viability." That's not a right to be born, it's a right on the part of the state to regulate. And even if it is a right to be born, there is no conferral of personhood upon the fetus. Why? Move to point 3. 3. Some light reading from Roe, which specifically rejected the "personhood" contention you seek to inject into American law. "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

Getting tricked by the libs with such things as facts, science, and inconvenient truth would be worse for my health. Gotta keep the TV on as a matter of protection.

You’re all twisted up here. You’re injecting a constitutional discussion into a quote about criminal statutes. And, frankly, your statutory interpretation is absurd. At issue here is the NYS penal law, which defines person as one who has been born and is alive. Your point probably is that to characterize an abortional act as a homicide is to suggest personhood on the part of the fetus. Reasonable, to be sure, but the full text of the title to NY PL 125 doesn’t support the theory (homicide, abortion, and other crimes [paraphrase]) and the definition of person established in that article flat out defeats it.

Says the guy who supports a president leery of a “perjury trap.” He wasn’t so tough at the presser yesterday. He acted like a snowflake when he slinked away from the podium. Sad!

This is why in my house we only watch OAN. It’s not just only news channel. It’s the only channel. Period. I even leave it on when I sleep so that the libs can’t sneak anything into my brain when my guard is down.

you said homicide. Abortional act is the homicide crime that relates to the unwanted termination of a fetus. Murder, man, etc. wouldn’t stand bc the fetus has to be born alive to be a person, and the latter classes of charges pertain to the death of a person, not of a fetus. You’re correct that death of mom and fetus could result in two homicide charges, but the classes of charges are different and the charges with respect to baby do not assume or confer personhood. I believe the vehicular man issue was resolved against your position in NYS on two relatively recent occasions.

Sure. But the vast majority of jurisdictions approach the law this way.

And the fact that someone could be charged with two counts of homicide in your hypothetical is meaningless. Mom and fetus are not treated the same under the law; NY penal law article 125 illustrates the point well. Murder or man charges re: the baby wouldn’t stand. An abortion act charge might, but that charge doesn’t contemplate the death of a person — it relates only to a miscarriage. Your reading comprehension is lacking.. Nobody said anything about reporting to congress. It was within congressional province to act on the findings inasmuch as congress effectively is the arbiter with respect to a sitting president.

You said it best: a third trimester FETUS. Not person. FETUS. edit: its been a long time since I took con law, but recollection of roe is that the regulation of third trimester abortion flows not from a right conferred upon a fetus, but from the state interest in protecting the POTENTIAL for human life that accrues when the fetus becomes viable. In the near term, to marshal evidence to enable the making of findings. Which is exactly what he did. It was up to Congress to act on the evidence. Which it did. Grand jury presentation could come after trump leaves office.