Turtler says:

Is Discount Roehm using a different username?

Time to first lie: 0 Seconds. Since you clearly aren’t reading.

“I love how you neglected to include the part where DeSantis said he wouldn’t allowed Trump to be extradited, which is a violation of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, you know that document conservatives claim to know so much about and revere.”

This is utterly fucking bullshit. The Full Faith and Credit Clause only applies to laws and credentials agreed to by all states. Meaning that if you have a driving license in New York State, Florida has to respect it. It does NOT however apply where there is disagreement between the laws or credentials of the different states.

Or to put it in another way: Texas can’t prosecute Cali people for conducting abortions beyond the limits of what Texas allows but which are allowed in California. Period. Fullstop. DeSantis’s stance is that Trump committed no crime under Florida law (and indeed did not do so under New York Law) and thus no extradition is possible or justifiable.

And that’s just talking about what grounds people can be extradited under. Even when THERE IS agreement that something worthy of extradition, STATES ARE NOT OBLIGED TO ACTUALLY DO THE EXTRADITION. This comes up FREQUENTLY when it comes to cross-state outlaws like smugglers, roving serial killers, and so forth. Often times there will be turf wars over who gets first crack at them or where their primary place of incarceration will be. Hell, this is so common it has even become a watchword on the sort of comfort-food-tier crime and police shows the American Public eats up.

And under the Constitution, THOSE STATES HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO STUFF LIKE THAT.
So this is simply gaslighting on your part.

Turns out this is the problem being a totalitarian idiot who knows everything they know about the Full Faith and Credit Clause from some kneejerk leftist agitprop bashed out by a legal illiterate in explicit response to DeSantis’s stance, in complete ignorance of the actual legal questions.

And our reverence of the document means ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDING IT AND ITS APPLICATIONS. Not cravenly trying to use a part of it as a cudgel out of context when you (INCORRECTLY) think it serves your fleeting, transient, nakedly unethical and frankly illegal agenda.

And that’s just talking about the legality without touching on the ethics. The Fugitive Slave Acts were “the law”, unironically. They also demanded the return of escaped slaves to their owners, and no jurisdiction had a legal justification to refuse. Did that make it Right? Did that make it ok? The people who rejected this and continued to harbor escaped slaves were unquestionably breaking the law and jurisdictions that continued to do so were UNQUESTIONABLY in ACTUAL violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Were they wrong? Should they have turned the slaves back to hell pits like the Bayou Plantations?

The consensus now says No.

Which brings us to an important point. Because something being legal or illegal does not necessarily make it JUST. After all, Putin, Xi, and others can legally demand extradition of dissidents back home. That doesn’t make it right.

And for the record you fucking idiot: Yes, I am going to compare the Great Orange Whale to escaped slaves. Firstly because people like you obviously have no grasp of history, nuance, or particular understandings of such, so I have to dumb this down to the most basic beeotch level. Secondly because it helps underlie the moral, legal, and philosophical frameworks. And thirdly because Fuck You, you deserve to mald over me doing so.

“Trump’s lawyers have said he’ll show up anyways”

As he has every right to do. Because a basic reading of the law shows THAT TRUMP IS INNOCENT and he is, for all of his many many flaws, a fighter.

” but it’s still interesting that you ignored that.”

No, it really, really isn’t.

It’s not at all interesting that the author didn’t mention something that *FLATLY DOESN’T EXIST OUT OF YOUR DELUDED MIND,* created solely by your utterly biased, thoroughly ignorant misunderstanding of the US Constitution and legal precedent.

“Also, way to spread dog whistles and antisemitism!”

Way to smear people as racist. Got any proof of that, you fucking asswipe?

Because Trump has something that most Liberal Jews do not. Jewish grandchildren. Trying to pull the “antisemitism” card is beyond stupid, especially given how many of the same people trying to do it happily embrace DeBlasio’s anti-Jewish racism, BDS, and the judicial branch jihad against Netanyahu trying to rein in rogue judges.

“I also love how you think Trump should be above the law.”

Nice strawman. Shame it doesn’t work. I favor Trump to have the exact same legal penalties as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Hunter Biden, yourself, and myself.

And legally, there is no there to this case. The Feds dropped it. The best Bragg could come up with was a completely tortured and utterly fallacious argument that a payment Trump made OUT OF HIS OWN PRIVATE FUNDS *should have been* registered as a Campaign Donation because… Uh, Reasons.

Which is complete nonsense. Legal Precedent (you know, the thing you showed you have neither respect for nor awareness of when you idiotically tried to cite the Full Faith and Credit clause) gives people VERY BROAD leeway about how to spend THEIR private money, because it is after all THEIR money. One of the uses of it CLEARLY defended under the law and jurisprudence is paying non-criminal hush money. So unless Bragg or you wish to claim that Trump was paying the money to Daniels for her services in robbing a bank, or assassinating someone, or some other act that was criminal unto itself (something that neither you nor Bragg have claimed), TRUMP HAD EVERY LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO.

“Yes, if you or anyone else did what he’s accused of doing— which, by the way, we don’t know the details of since the indictment is under seal— then they would be indicted.”

Don’t fucking make me laugh, you simpering shithead. The Feds couldn’t and wouldn’t indict Trump for this because – as they correctly pointed out – there was NO CASE. Because to do so would involve criminalizing a non-crime and would require arresting about half of the Pols in DC and three fourths of Albany. And while that might make great strides to improving the ethics and efficiency of governance, that doesn’t change the fact that a bedrock part of our legal system is SUPPOSED TO BE that we cannot prosecute people for non-crimes.

Which is what this is.

“Either the law applies to everyone, including former presidents and current candidates, or it doesn’t. And yes, that includes conservatives favorite boogeyman, the Clintons, the Bidens, etc. ”

Then you’ve answered your own question. The law VERY OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT APPLY to everyone. Or else Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and James Biden would all be in prison or worse for their far greater crimes. As would significant others, such as the many jurisdictions that got caught miscounting or breaking chain of custody during elections like 2020.

So having established that Rule of Law does not in fact function as you are claiming, trying to make grandiose preaching about its integrity and sacredness rings as hollow as the empty cavity above your spine. It shows that for all of your elevated rhetoric and appeals to principles, you have none. None whatsoever. And are only citing this here in an Alinskyite attempt to make us live up to our own principles.

The problem is that you, being an idiot, did so at a time when us living up to our principles doesn’t actually inconvenience us, since this charge is obviously politically motivated, obviously ridiculous, and obviously a case of prosecutorial misconduct.

“If he’s truly innocent he’ll have the chance to prove that.”

And he is clearly intent on taking it.

Though frankly this never should have come to an indictment at all, as the Feds correctly pointed out. The same Feds that employ scum like Weissman and co.

“Just like everyone else should be able to.”

Yeah, tell me that after January 6, when Jacob the Shaman had to get out after years of delay because the actual exculpatory evidence was given over to an actually somewhat independent media outlet showing HE WAS SET UP and that the prosecutors DID NOT DISCLOSE OBVIOUSLY EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE but continued to do so.

“And if you don’t think Bragg thought about this and the political ramifications, including likely death threats by Trump supporters, then I have a bridge I’d love to sell you. ”

I think he obviously welcomed them, because there is not much other merit or reason for launching an obviously fraudulent, abusive indictment.

“I would venture to guess there’s more going on than we’re aware of and it will become clearer when the indictment is unsealed. Anything before then is pure speculation.”

This is rich coming from the hateful idiot who obviously does not understand the Full Faith and Credit clause, but who wants to use it to bludgeon us to accept 1984 style utterly unequal “justice” and selective prosecution.

“Other countries have indicted and imprisoned former or current leaders, including Israel and Italy.”

Correct, but free countries have rarely done so on grounds like this.

And indeed that is a pretty good indication the country either is no longer free or is quickly becoming unfree.

“I’d rather live in a country where everyone can be held accountable, even leaders. You apparently don’t. *shrug*”

Again, this is rich coming from someone who provably said NOTHING against the utter abuses against normal Americans swept up in the January 6th Dragnet, tortured, held without charge, and denied both counsel and exculpatory evidence. This is rich coming from someone who mealy-mouths platitudes about the known crimes of the Bidens and Clintons but does nothing to advocate they actually face such grounds.

And from someone who displays aggressive contempt for and ignorance of the basic law of the United States, but who wishes to weaponize it. And on a goddamn comment thread no less.

You really think we are inclined to trust that someone who will weaponize their misinterpretations of the law on a Comment Thread WON’T do so in the judicial and political arenas?

Well, you and your ilk have LONG AGO forfeited any expectation or justification for such trust.