squistion

Thank you!

He hasn't been charged with a hate crime.

Both. No one can name even one case of impersonation that has ever been charged as a hate crime. And if this type of crime somehow falls into the hate crime category, it would be essential to prove what he did was racially motivated (which we haven't seen yet). Bottom line, it is not a hate crime and will never be charged as one IMO.

I have yet to see any evidence this was racially motivated which would be an essential element if this were a hate crime. He is charged with impersonation, and I have never seen that charged as a hate crime in any jurisdiction.

You should if you are arguing (as others are here) that he committed a hate crime.

https://twitter.com/KatiePhang/status/1783836186085077412 It’s Day 8 of Trump’s NY election interference trial. Former publisher/CEO of the National Enquirer, David Pecker, returns to the witness stand for the continuation of his Cross-Examination by Trump’s lawyer, Emil Bove. And the judge reset the contempt hearing for Trump’s 4 newest violations of the gag order for Thursday, May 2nd.

Fun Fact: Jussie Smollett was not charged with committing a hate crime even though he perpetrated a hate crime hoax. Smollett was eventually indicted on six counts of felony disorderly conduct for lying to the police. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussie_Smollett_hate_crime_hoax#Initial_charges_dropped

Neither of those are hate crimes as the law defines a hate crime, as the violence itself does not make it a hate crime.

There is no proof that this was racially motivated (the fact that it is a black on white crime does, by itself make it a hate crime). Plus, this is an impersonation, has anyone ever been charged anywhere for a hate crime for impersonating someone of another race? This is more akin to an act of fraud. Hate crimes that are prosecuted almost always involve an act of violence against someone based on their race, religion, ethnicity etc.

If a white person had done this in any jurisdiction in this country to someone black, they wouldn't be charged with a hate crime either. A "race hoax" no matter who does it is not considered a hate crime anywhere.

Doesn't matter, there isn't a hate crime statute in any jurisdiction in this country in which this would qualify as a hate crime.

Since it doesn't qualify as a "hate crime" in that jurisdiction, it doesn't matter.

And you can't explain the rules either, it seems...

So, again, how exactly does this qualify as a hate crime?

How exactly does this qualify as a hate crime?

Except those that believe in Democracy and oppose Putin.

Which doesn't mean a manufactured "boy band" can't turn out to be good (see The Monkees). That said, whatever one thinks of their music, The Beastie Boys do not come close to qualifying as a boy band.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1783527654970236975 Alito: "If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election and knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?" Michael Dreeben, representing the U.S.: "I think it's exactly the opposite, Justice Alito. There are lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election."

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1783522633763496098 Alito: "Did I understand you to say, 'Well, you know, if he makes a mistake, he makes a mistake. He's subject to the criminal laws just like anybody else' You don't think he's in a peculiarly precarious position?" Michael Dreeben, representing the U.S.: "He's under a constitutional obligation ... he's supposed to be faithful to the laws of the United States and the Constitution of the United States." "And making a mistake is not what lands you in a criminal prosecution."

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1783518878892442005 Justice Sotomayor: The president is only explicitly mentioned in a few federal statutes. "Justice Barrett made the point that if we say a president can't be included in a criminal law unless explicitly named, then that would bar the Senate from impeaching him for high crimes or misdemeanor because that means that he's not subject to the law at all."

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1783515113741287765 Justice Jackson tells Trump's lawyer that he seems to be "worried about the president being chilled." She argues that, in reality, a "really significant opposite problem" would emerge: "If the president wasn't chilled, if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country."

Uh Oh!