(08-10-2018 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Slight change of subject, but Trump is now on Twitter explicitly calling for NFL players to be suspended, without pay, if they don't stand for the national anthem.

Regardless of where one stands on the matter, is this not wading into 1st Amendment infringement, since the head of the executive branch is explicitly advocating for/against an individuals right to speech? If the NFL wanted to fine the individual or suspend them without pay under their own volition, I would imagine it isn't a free speech violation. But does the pressuring of the POTUS push it into that category since he is, in effect, the head of the government?

No. He's entitled to an opinion on the subject like any other fan.

That's not really true.

18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

(a)Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—(1)takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2)influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(b)In this section, the term “covered government person” means—(1)a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2)an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3)the President, Vice President, an employee of the United StatesPostal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

(08-10-2018 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Slight change of subject, but Trump is now on Twitter explicitly calling for NFL players to be suspended, without pay, if they don't stand for the national anthem.

Regardless of where one stands on the matter, is this not wading into 1st Amendment infringement, since the head of the executive branch is explicitly advocating for/against an individuals right to speech? If the NFL wanted to fine the individual or suspend them without pay under their own volition, I would imagine it isn't a free speech violation. But does the pressuring of the POTUS push it into that category since he is, in effect, the head of the government?

No. He's entitled to an opinion on the subject like any other fan.

That's not really true.

18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

(a)Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—(1)takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2)influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(b)In this section, the term “covered government person” means—(1)a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2)an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3)the President, Vice President, an employee of the United StatesPostal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

(08-10-2018 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Slight change of subject, but Trump is now on Twitter explicitly calling for NFL players to be suspended, without pay, if they don't stand for the national anthem.

Regardless of where one stands on the matter, is this not wading into 1st Amendment infringement, since the head of the executive branch is explicitly advocating for/against an individuals right to speech? If the NFL wanted to fine the individual or suspend them without pay under their own volition, I would imagine it isn't a free speech violation. But does the pressuring of the POTUS push it into that category since he is, in effect, the head of the government?

No. He's entitled to an opinion on the subject like any other fan.

That's not really true.

18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

(a)Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—(1)takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2)influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(b)In this section, the term “covered government person” means—(1)a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2)an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3)the President, Vice President, an employee of the United StatesPostal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

Yes it is true.

You need to read a tad more carefully. I dont see an 'official act' anywhere there. Nor do I see any particular 'partisan political affiliation.'

Hate to tell you every word is important, not just the phrase 'attempt to influence .... an employment decision' in isolation.

Further you missed the adjective 'solely' in the statute as well.

(08-10-2018 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Slight change of subject, but Trump is now on Twitter explicitly calling for NFL players to be suspended, without pay, if they don't stand for the national anthem.

Regardless of where one stands on the matter, is this not wading into 1st Amendment infringement, since the head of the executive branch is explicitly advocating for/against an individuals right to speech? If the NFL wanted to fine the individual or suspend them without pay under their own volition, I would imagine it isn't a free speech violation. But does the pressuring of the POTUS push it into that category since he is, in effect, the head of the government?

No. He's entitled to an opinion on the subject like any other fan.

That's not really true.

18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

(a)Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—(1)takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2)influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(b)In this section, the term “covered government person” means—(1)a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2)an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3)the President, Vice President, an employee of the United StatesPostal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

Yes it is true.

You need to read a tad more carefully. I dont see an 'official act' anywhere there. Nor do I see any particular 'partisan political affiliation.'

Hate to tell you every word is important, not just the phrase 'attempt to influence .... an employment decision' in isolation.

Further you missed the adjective 'solely' in the statute as well.

No, it's not reading more carefully- I've done that. I'll fully agree that maybe I need a better understanding of legal definitions.

I took (a)(2) to suggest that one doesn't have to actually do an "official act," just threaten another's "official act." In this case, would this not be a private employer's ability to discipline/fire their employees? Trump is threatening to influence their act -but if my understanding of what that word means is off, then it doesn't apply. Are all of the "official acts" described in the statute related pending/passed laws?

And Trump's "solely" selecting these players based on their political stance regarding the flag - would that not fit into the definition of partisan political affiliation? Or is that definition so narrow that it literally only describes someone's self-identified political party, and not a portion of the platform?

(08-10-2018 03:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  No. He's entitled to an opinion on the subject like any other fan.

That's not really true.

18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

(a)Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—(1)takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2)influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(b)In this section, the term “covered government person” means—(1)a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2)an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3)the President, Vice President, an employee of the United StatesPostal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

Yes it is true.

You need to read a tad more carefully. I dont see an 'official act' anywhere there. Nor do I see any particular 'partisan political affiliation.'

Hate to tell you every word is important, not just the phrase 'attempt to influence .... an employment decision' in isolation.

Further you missed the adjective 'solely' in the statute as well.

No, it's not reading more carefully- I've done that. I'll fully agree that maybe I need a better understanding of legal definitions.

I took (a)(2) to suggest that one doesn't have to actually do an "official act," just threaten another's "official act." In this case, would this not be a private employer's ability to discipline/fire their employees? Trump is threatening to influence their act -but if my understanding of what that word means is off, then it doesn't apply. Are all of the "official acts" described in the statute related pending/passed laws?

And Trump's "solely" selecting these players based on their political stance regarding the flag - would that not fit into the definition of partisan political affiliation? Or is that definition so narrow that it literally only describes someone's self-identified political party, and not a portion of the platform?

Official act means a government action. It is an anti-extortion law. And no, it is not related to 'pending/passed' laws -- you seemingly overlook the immense inherent power of various administrative and executive branch power/actions.

This means trump cannot 'do something' to get someone fired, nor 'do something' to get someone hired, nor can he threaten to 'not do something' *unless*. Nor can he use another's 'do something' or 'not do something' in lieu of his.

The 'solely' does not mean 'solely the players'. It means he has to do the 'do something' or 'not do something' for *solely* for partisan political affiliation. What 'political affiliation' is your defined group in this case? And, to be honest, the *solely* means just that ---- even if there is a .0000000001 per cent part of the issue being 'non-partisan' (even if it is for the purpose of researching the alien origins of Stonehenge, let's say) that still destroys the use of the statute. Words mean things.

Its not a matter of 'legal definitions'; it is a matter of reading and, if not understood, look at both the caselaw and the background and usage of the law.

Sorry, the Vox-lovers seemed to throw this piece **** around about a year ago. Hasnt changed since then. But it is amazing how many people still just throw it around without bothering with the background or reading the statute thoroughly.

Kind of like the Florida 'stand your ground' laws that so many people throw around willy nilly.

(08-10-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Goodness, even when I admit I may not understand an issue fully, you find someone to be a giant jack***. Who would have thunk that words mean things???? I wonder how old you are sometimes...
But hey, thanks for providing some education, even if it came with that wonderful Tanq tone that I love so much.

(08-10-2018 04:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Goodness, even when I admit I may not understand an issue fully, you find someone to be a giant jack***. Who would have thunk that words mean things???? I wonder how old you are sometimes...
But hey, thanks for providing some education, even if it came with that wonderful Tanq tone that I love so much.

If the 15 in your screen name means anything, Tanq is a bunch older than you.

And I quite enjoy his tone.

(08-10-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . Who would have thunk that words mean things????

(08-10-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 03:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That's not really true.

18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

(a)Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—(1)takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2)influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(b)In this section, the term “covered government person” means—(1)a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2)an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3)the President, Vice President, an employee of the United StatesPostal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

Yes it is true.

You need to read a tad more carefully. I dont see an 'official act' anywhere there. Nor do I see any particular 'partisan political affiliation.'

Hate to tell you every word is important, not just the phrase 'attempt to influence .... an employment decision' in isolation.

Further you missed the adjective 'solely' in the statute as well.

No, it's not reading more carefully- I've done that. I'll fully agree that maybe I need a better understanding of legal definitions.

I took (a)(2) to suggest that one doesn't have to actually do an "official act," just threaten another's "official act." In this case, would this not be a private employer's ability to discipline/fire their employees? Trump is threatening to influence their act -but if my understanding of what that word means is off, then it doesn't apply. Are all of the "official acts" described in the statute related pending/passed laws?

And Trump's "solely" selecting these players based on their political stance regarding the flag - would that not fit into the definition of partisan political affiliation? Or is that definition so narrow that it literally only describes someone's self-identified political party, and not a portion of the platform?

Official act means a government action. It is an anti-extortion law. And no, it is not related to 'pending/passed' laws -- you seemingly overlook the immense inherent power of various administrative and executive branch power/actions.

This means trump cannot 'do something' to get someone fired, nor 'do something' to get someone hired, nor can he threaten to 'not do something' *unless*. Nor can he use another's 'do something' or 'not do something' in lieu of his.

The 'solely' does not mean 'solely the players'. It means he has to do the 'do something' or 'not do something' for *solely* for partisan political affiliation. What 'political affiliation' is your defined group in this case? And, to be honest, the *solely* means just that ---- even if there is a .0000000001 per cent part of the issue being 'non-partisan' (even if it is for the purpose of researching the alien origins of Stonehenge, let's say) that still destroys the use of the statute. Words mean things.

Its not a matter of 'legal definitions'; it is a matter of reading and, if not understood, look at both the caselaw and the background and usage of the law.

Sorry, the Vox-lovers seemed to throw this piece **** around about a year ago. Hasnt changed since then. But it is amazing how many people still just throw it around without bothering with the background or reading the statute thoroughly.

Kind of like the Florida 'stand your ground' laws that so many people throw around willy nilly.

Goodness, even when I admit I may not understand an issue fully, you find someone to be a giant jack***. Who would have thunk that words mean things???? I wonder how old you are sometimes...

Quote:That's not really true.

Quote:But hey, thanks for providing some education, even if it came with that wonderful Tanq tone that I love so much.

Quote:Focusing on the "solely" aspect of the statue, does in practice mean that the act/threat of action have to be directed pretty much at someone because of what political party they identify with? That because causes can be bipartisan, that the language is so narrowly defined that supporting a cause would not fit within that definition?

(08-10-2018 06:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 03:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes it is true.

You need to read a tad more carefully. I dont see an 'official act' anywhere there. Nor do I see any particular 'partisan political affiliation.'

Hate to tell you every word is important, not just the phrase 'attempt to influence .... an employment decision' in isolation.

Further you missed the adjective 'solely' in the statute as well.

No, it's not reading more carefully- I've done that. I'll fully agree that maybe I need a better understanding of legal definitions.

I took (a)(2) to suggest that one doesn't have to actually do an "official act," just threaten another's "official act." In this case, would this not be a private employer's ability to discipline/fire their employees? Trump is threatening to influence their act -but if my understanding of what that word means is off, then it doesn't apply. Are all of the "official acts" described in the statute related pending/passed laws?

And Trump's "solely" selecting these players based on their political stance regarding the flag - would that not fit into the definition of partisan political affiliation? Or is that definition so narrow that it literally only describes someone's self-identified political party, and not a portion of the platform?

Official act means a government action. It is an anti-extortion law. And no, it is not related to 'pending/passed' laws -- you seemingly overlook the immense inherent power of various administrative and executive branch power/actions.

This means trump cannot 'do something' to get someone fired, nor 'do something' to get someone hired, nor can he threaten to 'not do something' *unless*. Nor can he use another's 'do something' or 'not do something' in lieu of his.

The 'solely' does not mean 'solely the players'. It means he has to do the 'do something' or 'not do something' for *solely* for partisan political affiliation. What 'political affiliation' is your defined group in this case? And, to be honest, the *solely* means just that ---- even if there is a .0000000001 per cent part of the issue being 'non-partisan' (even if it is for the purpose of researching the alien origins of Stonehenge, let's say) that still destroys the use of the statute. Words mean things.

Its not a matter of 'legal definitions'; it is a matter of reading and, if not understood, look at both the caselaw and the background and usage of the law.

Sorry, the Vox-lovers seemed to throw this piece **** around about a year ago. Hasnt changed since then. But it is amazing how many people still just throw it around without bothering with the background or reading the statute thoroughly.

Kind of like the Florida 'stand your ground' laws that so many people throw around willy nilly.

Goodness, even when I admit I may not understand an issue fully, you find someone to be a giant jack***. Who would have thunk that words mean things???? I wonder how old you are sometimes...

With all due respect I fail to read anywhere (except in this sentence above) that you do not understand the statue fully. Had it been approached in that manner, I think the tone would have been very different.

Lad, your full post on the statute was:

Quote:That's not really true.

followed by the text. You kind of went 'all in' there.....

Sorry you got trolled by the people that threw this out there a year and a half ago.

Quote:But hey, thanks for providing some education, even if it came with that wonderful Tanq tone that I love so much.

Kind of a mirror of the all-in in the introduction post for the statute, isnt it? With all respect, it actually pays to read a statute thoroughly prior to stating that it is determinative, let alone touches on, a particular fact pattern.

Had the tone been one of 'Hey, this statute sounds on point but I am not sure' I would guarantee you that the tone in response would have been far more to your liking. The meme on this statute being applicable has been around for a year and a half --- and it is pretty much troll material on those who want to kind of blindly toss it out there as such.

Quote:Focusing on the "solely" aspect of the statue, does in practice mean that the act/threat of action have to be directed pretty much at someone because of what political party they identify with? That because causes can be bipartisan, that the language is so narrowly defined that supporting a cause would not fit within that definition?

In practice that makes the statute really not horribly effective. 'Solely' is pretty much an 'ultimate' extreme-type word.

(08-10-2018 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 06:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 03:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, it's not reading more carefully- I've done that. I'll fully agree that maybe I need a better understanding of legal definitions.

I took (a)(2) to suggest that one doesn't have to actually do an "official act," just threaten another's "official act." In this case, would this not be a private employer's ability to discipline/fire their employees? Trump is threatening to influence their act -but if my understanding of what that word means is off, then it doesn't apply. Are all of the "official acts" described in the statute related pending/passed laws?

And Trump's "solely" selecting these players based on their political stance regarding the flag - would that not fit into the definition of partisan political affiliation? Or is that definition so narrow that it literally only describes someone's self-identified political party, and not a portion of the platform?

Official act means a government action. It is an anti-extortion law. And no, it is not related to 'pending/passed' laws -- you seemingly overlook the immense inherent power of various administrative and executive branch power/actions.

This means trump cannot 'do something' to get someone fired, nor 'do something' to get someone hired, nor can he threaten to 'not do something' *unless*. Nor can he use another's 'do something' or 'not do something' in lieu of his.

The 'solely' does not mean 'solely the players'. It means he has to do the 'do something' or 'not do something' for *solely* for partisan political affiliation. What 'political affiliation' is your defined group in this case? And, to be honest, the *solely* means just that ---- even if there is a .0000000001 per cent part of the issue being 'non-partisan' (even if it is for the purpose of researching the alien origins of Stonehenge, let's say) that still destroys the use of the statute. Words mean things.

Its not a matter of 'legal definitions'; it is a matter of reading and, if not understood, look at both the caselaw and the background and usage of the law.

Sorry, the Vox-lovers seemed to throw this piece **** around about a year ago. Hasnt changed since then. But it is amazing how many people still just throw it around without bothering with the background or reading the statute thoroughly.

Kind of like the Florida 'stand your ground' laws that so many people throw around willy nilly.

Goodness, even when I admit I may not understand an issue fully, you find someone to be a giant jack***. Who would have thunk that words mean things???? I wonder how old you are sometimes...

With all due respect I fail to read anywhere (except in this sentence above) that you do not understand the statue fully. Had it been approached in that manner, I think the tone would have been very different.

Lad, your full post on the statute was:

Quote:That's not really true.

followed by the text. You kind of went 'all in' there.....

Sorry you got trolled by the people that threw this out there a year and a half ago.

Quote:But hey, thanks for providing some education, even if it came with that wonderful Tanq tone that I love so much.

Kind of a mirror of the all-in in the introduction post for the statute, isnt it? With all respect, it actually pays to read a statute thoroughly prior to stating that it is determinative, let alone touches on, a particular fact pattern.

Had the tone been one of 'Hey, this statute sounds on point but I am not sure' I would guarantee you that the tone in response would have been far more to your liking. The meme on this statute being applicable has been around for a year and a half --- and it is pretty much troll material on those who want to kind of blindly toss it out there as such.

Quote:Focusing on the "solely" aspect of the statue, does in practice mean that the act/threat of action have to be directed pretty much at someone because of what political party they identify with? That because causes can be bipartisan, that the language is so narrowly defined that supporting a cause would not fit within that definition?

In practice that makes the statute really not horribly effective. 'Solely' is pretty much an 'ultimate' extreme-type word.

I can’t tell if you keep missing what my question is, or your answer just isn’t communicated clearly enough. My question isn’t about the word “solely” but what that word is referencing, and the definition of the political affiliation term, something you hit on earlier. Is political affiliation so narrowly defined that this statute can only be applied if an action is taken against someone of a defined political affiliation? Or is it broad enough to cover a political action (e.g. protesting)?

(08-10-2018 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 06:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 03:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Official act means a government action. It is an anti-extortion law. And no, it is not related to 'pending/passed' laws -- you seemingly overlook the immense inherent power of various administrative and executive branch power/actions.

This means trump cannot 'do something' to get someone fired, nor 'do something' to get someone hired, nor can he threaten to 'not do something' *unless*. Nor can he use another's 'do something' or 'not do something' in lieu of his.

The 'solely' does not mean 'solely the players'. It means he has to do the 'do something' or 'not do something' for *solely* for partisan political affiliation. What 'political affiliation' is your defined group in this case? And, to be honest, the *solely* means just that ---- even if there is a .0000000001 per cent part of the issue being 'non-partisan' (even if it is for the purpose of researching the alien origins of Stonehenge, let's say) that still destroys the use of the statute. Words mean things.

Its not a matter of 'legal definitions'; it is a matter of reading and, if not understood, look at both the caselaw and the background and usage of the law.

Sorry, the Vox-lovers seemed to throw this piece **** around about a year ago. Hasnt changed since then. But it is amazing how many people still just throw it around without bothering with the background or reading the statute thoroughly.

Kind of like the Florida 'stand your ground' laws that so many people throw around willy nilly.

Goodness, even when I admit I may not understand an issue fully, you find someone to be a giant jack***. Who would have thunk that words mean things???? I wonder how old you are sometimes...

With all due respect I fail to read anywhere (except in this sentence above) that you do not understand the statue fully. Had it been approached in that manner, I think the tone would have been very different.

Lad, your full post on the statute was:

Quote:That's not really true.

followed by the text. You kind of went 'all in' there.....

Sorry you got trolled by the people that threw this out there a year and a half ago.

Quote:But hey, thanks for providing some education, even if it came with that wonderful Tanq tone that I love so much.

Kind of a mirror of the all-in in the introduction post for the statute, isnt it? With all respect, it actually pays to read a statute thoroughly prior to stating that it is determinative, let alone touches on, a particular fact pattern.

Had the tone been one of 'Hey, this statute sounds on point but I am not sure' I would guarantee you that the tone in response would have been far more to your liking. The meme on this statute being applicable has been around for a year and a half --- and it is pretty much troll material on those who want to kind of blindly toss it out there as such.

Quote:Focusing on the "solely" aspect of the statue, does in practice mean that the act/threat of action have to be directed pretty much at someone because of what political party they identify with? That because causes can be bipartisan, that the language is so narrowly defined that supporting a cause would not fit within that definition?

In practice that makes the statute really not horribly effective. 'Solely' is pretty much an 'ultimate' extreme-type word.

I can’t tell if you keep missing what my question is, or your answer just isn’t communicated clearly enough. My question isn’t about the word “solely” but what that word is referencing, and the definition of the political affiliation term, something you hit on earlier. Is political affiliation so narrowly defined that this statute can only be applied if an action is taken against someone of a defined political affiliation? Or is it broad enough to cover a political action (e.g. protesting)?

You need to focus on the definition of “official act.”

(08-10-2018 07:21 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  His Twitter posts are not crimes.

(08-10-2018 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 06:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 03:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, it's not reading more carefully- I've done that. I'll fully agree that maybe I need a better understanding of legal definitions.

I took (a)(2) to suggest that one doesn't have to actually do an "official act," just threaten another's "official act." In this case, would this not be a private employer's ability to discipline/fire their employees? Trump is threatening to influence their act -but if my understanding of what that word means is off, then it doesn't apply. Are all of the "official acts" described in the statute related pending/passed laws?

And Trump's "solely" selecting these players based on their political stance regarding the flag - would that not fit into the definition of partisan political affiliation? Or is that definition so narrow that it literally only describes someone's self-identified political party, and not a portion of the platform?

Official act means a government action. It is an anti-extortion law. And no, it is not related to 'pending/passed' laws -- you seemingly overlook the immense inherent power of various administrative and executive branch power/actions.

This means trump cannot 'do something' to get someone fired, nor 'do something' to get someone hired, nor can he threaten to 'not do something' *unless*. Nor can he use another's 'do something' or 'not do something' in lieu of his.

The 'solely' does not mean 'solely the players'. It means he has to do the 'do something' or 'not do something' for *solely* for partisan political affiliation. What 'political affiliation' is your defined group in this case? And, to be honest, the *solely* means just that ---- even if there is a .0000000001 per cent part of the issue being 'non-partisan' (even if it is for the purpose of researching the alien origins of Stonehenge, let's say) that still destroys the use of the statute. Words mean things.

Its not a matter of 'legal definitions'; it is a matter of reading and, if not understood, look at both the caselaw and the background and usage of the law.

Sorry, the Vox-lovers seemed to throw this piece **** around about a year ago. Hasnt changed since then. But it is amazing how many people still just throw it around without bothering with the background or reading the statute thoroughly.

Kind of like the Florida 'stand your ground' laws that so many people throw around willy nilly.

Goodness, even when I admit I may not understand an issue fully, you find someone to be a giant jack***. Who would have thunk that words mean things???? I wonder how old you are sometimes...

With all due respect I fail to read anywhere (except in this sentence above) that you do not understand the statue fully. Had it been approached in that manner, I think the tone would have been very different.

Lad, your full post on the statute was:

Quote:That's not really true.

followed by the text. You kind of went 'all in' there.....

Sorry you got trolled by the people that threw this out there a year and a half ago.

Quote:But hey, thanks for providing some education, even if it came with that wonderful Tanq tone that I love so much.

Kind of a mirror of the all-in in the introduction post for the statute, isnt it? With all respect, it actually pays to read a statute thoroughly prior to stating that it is determinative, let alone touches on, a particular fact pattern.

Had the tone been one of 'Hey, this statute sounds on point but I am not sure' I would guarantee you that the tone in response would have been far more to your liking. The meme on this statute being applicable has been around for a year and a half --- and it is pretty much troll material on those who want to kind of blindly toss it out there as such.

Quote:Focusing on the "solely" aspect of the statue, does in practice mean that the act/threat of action have to be directed pretty much at someone because of what political party they identify with? That because causes can be bipartisan, that the language is so narrowly defined that supporting a cause would not fit within that definition?

In practice that makes the statute really not horribly effective. 'Solely' is pretty much an 'ultimate' extreme-type word.

I can’t tell if you keep missing what my question is, or your answer just isn’t communicated clearly enough. My question isn’t about the word “solely” but what that word is referencing, and the definition of the political affiliation term, something you hit on earlier. Is political affiliation so narrowly defined that this statute can only be applied if an action is taken against someone of a defined political affiliation? Or is it broad enough to cover a political action (e.g. protesting)?

(08-13-2018 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Strzok fired

Quote:he was relegated to a position in human resources

Trump via Twitter Wrote:...People in the White House hated her.
She was vicious, but not smart.
I would rarely see her but heard.... ...really bad things.
Nasty to people & would constantly miss meetings & work.
When Gen. Kelly came on board he told me she was a loser & nothing but problems.
I told him to try working it out, if possible, because she only said GREAT things about me...