[Lurking Libertarian]

You left out the "intimidation". That's subject to "interpretation" - the interpreation of the US prosecuting attorneys, and the US federal judges.

...and, ultimately, the jury.

You don't look good as a Libertarian when you're supporting subjective government over-reach.

I'm a small-l libertarian, but also a lawyer. When I post about legal topics, I'm trying to educate people as to what the law is, which very often is not what I think the law should be.

[kiryandil]

...and, ultimately, the jury.

Oh, Good Lord. Juries are NEVER led around by the nose in the courtroom. /s

Give me a break.

I'm a small-l libertarian, but also a lawyer. When I post about legal topics, I'm trying to educate people as to what the law is, which very often is not what I think the law should be.

We all got a fairly decent legal education here in the use of "the legal escape hatch" by the Clintons during the impeachment wars back in 98-99. Many of us continued our education in lawyer talk and legal doublespeak.

Lawyers always play their facts close to the vest, and you're no exception.

You'll not share an inconvenient legal fact that will torpedo your "argument" on this thread, so there's little use in discussing it with you.

You've chosen a side to "argue" and you're not going to change your tune. :)