Why would he meet with Putin with either:
Only a Russian interpreter,
or
A US interpreter, from whom he seizes notes?
Weird, right? We have no record of what was discussed, but the Russians sure do.
How do you explain it?
And how come Mexico isn’t paying for the wall? Why did Trump U people wind up with a huge settlement? Why did both Trump and Pence rail against presidential declarations of emergency when a democrat was the POTUS?
If you don’t support it yourself, and nobody here is proposing it, there’s no point in arguing about it in this thread.
Actually, on one level I agree with the question. The crime should be the crime. Assault. Murder. Rape. Whatever. “Hate crime” is just an artificial construct to add penalty to the existing crime.
But what was proposed here was this: If a crime is hoaxed, the hoaxer should suffer the penalty of the crime he hoaxed. Since this thread is about “hate crime”, that was the context in which the concept was raised. That’s what was hoaxed in this case. Moving the goalposts to debate whether “hate crime” is a worthwhile charge is a whole different matter.
It’s not a goal post move. I have no problem with this hoaxer being charged.
Read what WR wrote. He wrote that sgrresious hate crime should be prosecuted as hate crime. I am not detailing this thread by asking if some conservatives and more specifically @WildRose now support prosecution of thought crime when coupled with an overt act.
The rest of your paragraph is exactly what i am trying to figure out. Your response clearly shows that you question whether hate crime should can can be prosecuted as a separate type of crime.
No way. Arguably, certain intentions behind committing a crime could change the degree of blame. Just having the thought without some resulting illegal action…no.
Perhaps your reading of the thread is biased by your perception that considering the extenuating motive of hate when sentencing someone convicted of a crime makes it a “thought crime.”