|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 31 2023 19:22 Taelshin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 19:06 KwarK wrote:On March 31 2023 18:46 Taelshin wrote:On March 31 2023 12:51 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2023 09:10 StasisField wrote:On March 28 2023 08:58 micronesia wrote:
Just to check, does Trump getting elected count as one of the worthwhile benefits? Or was that somehow unrelated? Hillary losing is on Hillary Daily reminder that Hillary got more votes but the republican votes were worth more because states. Our life time reminder. That is the way your republic is set up. Yes but people consistently imply she lost because she lost the vote and not because of second place gets the job weirdness. No, People like to reinforce a stereotype that the only reason Hillary lost was the system. She lost because she was terrible. So terrible she won the majority vote and only lost because the system does not count each vote as equal.
Hillary losing because of the system is a fact.
You can hold the position that if she was less terrible she would have won with the system and that is not unreasonable but that doesn't change simple observable facts.
|
On March 31 2023 19:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 19:22 Taelshin wrote:On March 31 2023 19:06 KwarK wrote:On March 31 2023 18:46 Taelshin wrote:On March 31 2023 12:51 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2023 09:10 StasisField wrote:On March 28 2023 08:58 micronesia wrote:
Just to check, does Trump getting elected count as one of the worthwhile benefits? Or was that somehow unrelated? Hillary losing is on Hillary Daily reminder that Hillary got more votes but the republican votes were worth more because states. Our life time reminder. That is the way your republic is set up. Yes but people consistently imply she lost because she lost the vote and not because of second place gets the job weirdness. No, People like to reinforce a stereotype that the only reason Hillary lost was the system. She lost because she was terrible. So terrible she won the majority vote and only lost because the system does not count each vote as equal. Hillary losing because of the system is a fact. You can hold the position that if she was less terrible she would have won with the system and that is not unreasonable but that doesn't change simple observable facts.
No, I can hold any position I want. My position is : she was terrible and that's how the republic is setup, like it or lump it.
|
On March 31 2023 20:17 Taelshin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 19:27 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 19:22 Taelshin wrote:On March 31 2023 19:06 KwarK wrote:On March 31 2023 18:46 Taelshin wrote:On March 31 2023 12:51 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2023 09:10 StasisField wrote:On March 28 2023 08:58 micronesia wrote:
Just to check, does Trump getting elected count as one of the worthwhile benefits? Or was that somehow unrelated? Hillary losing is on Hillary Daily reminder that Hillary got more votes but the republican votes were worth more because states. Our life time reminder. That is the way your republic is set up. Yes but people consistently imply she lost because she lost the vote and not because of second place gets the job weirdness. No, People like to reinforce a stereotype that the only reason Hillary lost was the system. She lost because she was terrible. So terrible she won the majority vote and only lost because the system does not count each vote as equal. Hillary losing because of the system is a fact. You can hold the position that if she was less terrible she would have won with the system and that is not unreasonable but that doesn't change simple observable facts. No, I can hold any position I want. My position is : she was terrible and that's how the republic is setup, like it or lump it.
Umm, no, she objectively lost because of how the system is set up. She got more votes, she lost anyway. There's no other way to explain it. You think she's terrible and you like that the system was able to grant the loser of the popular vote with the presidency. Good for you. You can say "but it's a Republic" as much as you want. We know it's not a democracy, that's our problem with it. As much as the Right likes to whine about tyranny of the majority, I think we're finding out that tyranny of the minority is predictably worse.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
And so began the era of arresting the previous President.
|
On March 31 2023 13:35 gobbledydook wrote:
According to Trump:
Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing with regard to the payments made to Daniels and McDougal, and has repeatedly said the payments were "not a campaign violation," but rather a "simple private transaction."
Essentially, he claims he did pay the money but it was not illegal to do it.
The goal posts have sure come a long way. We finally made it to "yeah I did it, but it wasn't so bad".
|
On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States?
|
|
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States?
Should it? No
Will it? Yeah
Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"?
I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office.
|
On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office.
This only makes sense if you conceive of criminal prosecutions as utterly arbitrary and possible in an unlimited number of circumstances. That view is understandable given the relative obscurity of how high profile prosecutions actually work, but it doesn't square with reality. If Democratic presidents committed crimes that can be charged and brought to verdict, they should be prosecuted. In fact, that ought to have always been the case with respect to all presidents.
|
United States44379 Posts
On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President.
So far it’s just the era of arresting criminal former presidents. We need to see if they arrest non criminal ones too before we’ll know if it’s all previous presidents.
|
United States44379 Posts
On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office.
They were literally already doing that. Did you somehow miss the chants of “lock her up” in 2016? Weaponizing the justice system to attack political opponents is not just a hypothetical, it’s a manifesto promise. It’s a part of their platform.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On March 31 2023 22:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office. This only makes sense if you conceive of criminal prosecutions as utterly arbitrary and possible in an unlimited number of circumstances. That view is understandable given the relative obscurity of how high profile prosecutions actually work, but it doesn't square with reality. If Democratic presidents committed crimes that can be charged and brought to verdict, they should be prosecuted. In fact, that ought to have always been the case with respect to all presidents.
I think that's an exaggeration. I see it as pretty pliable depending on intentions though.
Also its the fairly thin dividing lines at play. For example, with Trump its "We need to look into this guy, he's obviously a criminal", with Biden its "I think if we look into this guy enough we could probably find something we could charge him with". I don't know how this difference plays out in the real world but I can only imagine there's at some political element to it when you're talking about Presidents.
Clearly we're on new ground, but I am curious as to whether this will be a case of the floodgates opening.
On March 31 2023 22:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office. They were literally already doing that. Did you somehow miss the chants of “lock her up” in 2016? Weaponizing the justice system to attack political opponents is not just a hypothetical, it’s a manifesto promise. It’s a part of their platform.
I guess you're right in a way.
The difference is how far they get with it.
|
On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office. They said the same thing about just accusing everyone of sexual misconduct after Kavanaugh. They did 1 attempt that everyone laughed at them for and otherwise ignored and that was that.
Also, how many Benghazi investigations did we have? How many investigations did Trump launch that all ended up in a drawer because they never found anything they could act on? The Durham special counsel investigation into the 'illegal' FBI investigation into Trump that only resulted in a single lawsuit for lying to the FBI that ended up being an acquittal.
Republicans are weaponizing everything anyway, "but they will weaponize this" has stopped being an excuse long long ago.
|
On March 31 2023 22:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 22:10 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office. This only makes sense if you conceive of criminal prosecutions as utterly arbitrary and possible in an unlimited number of circumstances. That view is understandable given the relative obscurity of how high profile prosecutions actually work, but it doesn't square with reality. If Democratic presidents committed crimes that can be charged and brought to verdict, they should be prosecuted. In fact, that ought to have always been the case with respect to all presidents. I think that's an exaggeration. I see it as pretty pliable depending on intentions though. Also its the fairly thin dividing lines at play. For example, with Trump its "We need to look into this guy, he's obviously a criminal", with Biden its "I think if we look into this guy enough we could probably find something we could charge him with". I don't know how this difference plays out in the real world but I can only imagine there's at some political element to it when you're talking about Presidents. Clearly we're on new ground, but I am curious as to whether this will be a case of the floodgates opening. Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 22:26 KwarK wrote:On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office. They were literally already doing that. Did you somehow miss the chants of “lock her up” in 2016? Weaponizing the justice system to attack political opponents is not just a hypothetical, it’s a manifesto promise. It’s a part of their platform. I guess you're right in a way. The difference is how far they get with it. Biden has nothing to do with the investigations into Trump. The DoJ has a whole bunch of procedures that exist purely to separate the current President from any investigation into potential political opponents/allies.
He might get briefed on "we have an investigation into Trump that found this" but at no point will Biden have said that they should look into him long enough to find something incriminating.
Not to mention that this case is NY, not federal and that more cases are investigation Trump which are also state, not federal.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On March 31 2023 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office. They said the same thing about just accusing everyone of sexual misconduct after Kavanaugh. They did 1 attempt that everyone laughed at them for and otherwise ignored and that was that. Also, how many Benghazi investigations did we have? How many investigations did Trump launch that all ended up in a drawer because they never found anything they could act on? The Durham special counsel investigation into the 'illegal' FBI investigation into Trump that only resulted in a single lawsuit for lying to the FBI that ended up being an acquittal. Republicans are weaponizing everything anyway, "but they will weaponize this" has stopped being an excuse long long ago.
It doesn't make sense to call this an excuse, because that would suggest that someone had the choice NOT to charge Trump. I thought these things were supposed to be based on objective legal stuff.
I'm mostly just interested in what the effects of this will be. How will it affect the FBI, or judges, and how they see their role in politics? I think there will be some changes. Maybe they'll be good changes.
On March 31 2023 22:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 22:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 22:10 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office. This only makes sense if you conceive of criminal prosecutions as utterly arbitrary and possible in an unlimited number of circumstances. That view is understandable given the relative obscurity of how high profile prosecutions actually work, but it doesn't square with reality. If Democratic presidents committed crimes that can be charged and brought to verdict, they should be prosecuted. In fact, that ought to have always been the case with respect to all presidents. I think that's an exaggeration. I see it as pretty pliable depending on intentions though. Also its the fairly thin dividing lines at play. For example, with Trump its "We need to look into this guy, he's obviously a criminal", with Biden its "I think if we look into this guy enough we could probably find something we could charge him with". I don't know how this difference plays out in the real world but I can only imagine there's at some political element to it when you're talking about Presidents. Clearly we're on new ground, but I am curious as to whether this will be a case of the floodgates opening. On March 31 2023 22:26 KwarK wrote:On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office. They were literally already doing that. Did you somehow miss the chants of “lock her up” in 2016? Weaponizing the justice system to attack political opponents is not just a hypothetical, it’s a manifesto promise. It’s a part of their platform. I guess you're right in a way. The difference is how far they get with it. Biden has nothing to do with the investigations into Trump. The DoJ has a whole bunch of procedures that exist purely to separate the current President from any investigation into potential political opponents/allies. He might get briefed on "we have an investigation into Trump that found this" but at no point will Biden have said that they should look into him long enough to find something incriminating. Not to mention that this case is NY, not federal and that more cases are investigation Trump which are also state, not federal.
You completely misunderstood my post.
I'm saying if they looked into Biden long enough they could probably find something to charge him with. Its different to Trump, but there's certainly enough political history there that the guy has doubtlessly been involved in some dodgy stuff.
I'm not sure I believe that there is zero political influence in who does or does not get investigated.
|
United States44379 Posts
I think you would have a very hard time arguing that Trump has been persecuted by the justice system because he was president. Had a non president done half the amount of fraud and embezzlement he’s provably done they would have been locked up years ago. The embezzlement of public and charitable funds to his own companies, the constant conflict of interest where he ordered the secret service to rent a floor in his building and hosted government functions at his golf courses, the nepotism, the withholding of congressional authorized payments until he got quid pro quos, the sheer number of fraudulent businesses that have been shut down, the unauthorized theft (and subsequent loss) of secret government documents without cause.
It is precisely because the justice system is so terrified of the appearance of political bias that they have allowed this to go on so long. The problem isn’t that someone is finally prosecuting a political figure, the problem is that it took this long.
|
United States44379 Posts
On March 31 2023 22:35 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office. They said the same thing about just accusing everyone of sexual misconduct after Kavanaugh. They did 1 attempt that everyone laughed at them for and otherwise ignored and that was that. Also, how many Benghazi investigations did we have? How many investigations did Trump launch that all ended up in a drawer because they never found anything they could act on? The Durham special counsel investigation into the 'illegal' FBI investigation into Trump that only resulted in a single lawsuit for lying to the FBI that ended up being an acquittal. Republicans are weaponizing everything anyway, "but they will weaponize this" has stopped being an excuse long long ago. It doesn't make sense to call this an excuse, because that would suggest that someone had the choice NOT to charge Trump. I thought these things were supposed to be based on objective legal stuff. I'm mostly just interested in what the effects of this will be. How will it affect the FBI, or judges, and how they see their role in politics? I think there will be some changes. Maybe they'll be good changes. Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 22:33 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 22:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 22:10 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office. This only makes sense if you conceive of criminal prosecutions as utterly arbitrary and possible in an unlimited number of circumstances. That view is understandable given the relative obscurity of how high profile prosecutions actually work, but it doesn't square with reality. If Democratic presidents committed crimes that can be charged and brought to verdict, they should be prosecuted. In fact, that ought to have always been the case with respect to all presidents. I think that's an exaggeration. I see it as pretty pliable depending on intentions though. Also its the fairly thin dividing lines at play. For example, with Trump its "We need to look into this guy, he's obviously a criminal", with Biden its "I think if we look into this guy enough we could probably find something we could charge him with". I don't know how this difference plays out in the real world but I can only imagine there's at some political element to it when you're talking about Presidents. Clearly we're on new ground, but I am curious as to whether this will be a case of the floodgates opening. On March 31 2023 22:26 KwarK wrote:On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office. They were literally already doing that. Did you somehow miss the chants of “lock her up” in 2016? Weaponizing the justice system to attack political opponents is not just a hypothetical, it’s a manifesto promise. It’s a part of their platform. I guess you're right in a way. The difference is how far they get with it. Biden has nothing to do with the investigations into Trump. The DoJ has a whole bunch of procedures that exist purely to separate the current President from any investigation into potential political opponents/allies. He might get briefed on "we have an investigation into Trump that found this" but at no point will Biden have said that they should look into him long enough to find something incriminating. Not to mention that this case is NY, not federal and that more cases are investigation Trump which are also state, not federal. You completely misunderstood my post. I'm saying if they looked into Biden long enough they could probably find something to charge him with. Its different to Trump, but there's certainly enough political history there that the guy has doubtlessly been involved in some dodgy stuff. I'm not sure I believe that there is zero political influence in who does or does not get investigated.
There’s an obvious counterpoint to “if someone was sufficiently motivated to do so they could drum up charges on any political figure”. They non stop tried to get Hillary for a decade but they couldn’t because she didn’t actually do the things they accuse her of.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On March 31 2023 22:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2023 22:35 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office. They said the same thing about just accusing everyone of sexual misconduct after Kavanaugh. They did 1 attempt that everyone laughed at them for and otherwise ignored and that was that. Also, how many Benghazi investigations did we have? How many investigations did Trump launch that all ended up in a drawer because they never found anything they could act on? The Durham special counsel investigation into the 'illegal' FBI investigation into Trump that only resulted in a single lawsuit for lying to the FBI that ended up being an acquittal. Republicans are weaponizing everything anyway, "but they will weaponize this" has stopped being an excuse long long ago. It doesn't make sense to call this an excuse, because that would suggest that someone had the choice NOT to charge Trump. I thought these things were supposed to be based on objective legal stuff. I'm mostly just interested in what the effects of this will be. How will it affect the FBI, or judges, and how they see their role in politics? I think there will be some changes. Maybe they'll be good changes. On March 31 2023 22:33 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 22:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 22:10 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office. This only makes sense if you conceive of criminal prosecutions as utterly arbitrary and possible in an unlimited number of circumstances. That view is understandable given the relative obscurity of how high profile prosecutions actually work, but it doesn't square with reality. If Democratic presidents committed crimes that can be charged and brought to verdict, they should be prosecuted. In fact, that ought to have always been the case with respect to all presidents. I think that's an exaggeration. I see it as pretty pliable depending on intentions though. Also its the fairly thin dividing lines at play. For example, with Trump its "We need to look into this guy, he's obviously a criminal", with Biden its "I think if we look into this guy enough we could probably find something we could charge him with". I don't know how this difference plays out in the real world but I can only imagine there's at some political element to it when you're talking about Presidents. Clearly we're on new ground, but I am curious as to whether this will be a case of the floodgates opening. On March 31 2023 22:26 KwarK wrote:On March 31 2023 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 31 2023 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2023 21:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
And so began the era of arresting the previous President. Should it matter that he was President at some point when the crimes he is being arrested for have nothing to do with his actions as President of the United States? Should it? No Will it? Yeah Do you think the republicans will just say "Oh I guess we lost this one then"? I reckon they'll go after every Dem president from now until someone from their party gets a good few terms in office. They were literally already doing that. Did you somehow miss the chants of “lock her up” in 2016? Weaponizing the justice system to attack political opponents is not just a hypothetical, it’s a manifesto promise. It’s a part of their platform. I guess you're right in a way. The difference is how far they get with it. Biden has nothing to do with the investigations into Trump. The DoJ has a whole bunch of procedures that exist purely to separate the current President from any investigation into potential political opponents/allies. He might get briefed on "we have an investigation into Trump that found this" but at no point will Biden have said that they should look into him long enough to find something incriminating. Not to mention that this case is NY, not federal and that more cases are investigation Trump which are also state, not federal. You completely misunderstood my post. I'm saying if they looked into Biden long enough they could probably find something to charge him with. Its different to Trump, but there's certainly enough political history there that the guy has doubtlessly been involved in some dodgy stuff. I'm not sure I believe that there is zero political influence in who does or does not get investigated. There’s an obvious counterpoint to “if someone was sufficiently motivated to do so they could drum up charges on any political figure”. They non stop tried to get Hillary for a decade but they couldn’t because she didn’t actually do the things they accuse her of.
Of course, but its more whether these charges will affect things going forward than looking at what's happened previously.
Don't you get the sense that this is setting a new precedent?
I do.
Maybe I'm wrong and these high level political figures are either more squeaky clean than I thought, or better at hiding their dirt than Trump, but I suppose this is the basic assumption I'm making here that people are disagreeing with. Not that you could drum up something if you had to, but more that I doubt any of them have gotten this far without committing some crimes along the way.
Of course I suppose there's also the argument that Trump made it extremely difficult for people NOT to charge him, assuming that the preference here is not to charge high level politicians if at all possible.
|
I think a much more important precedent is de santis saying he won't extradite because he thinks it's all a Jewish conspiracy. If states stop respecting extradition to each other things will turn fast on crime to the bad old days of prohibition.
|
On March 31 2023 23:52 Sermokala wrote:
I think a much more important precedent is de santis saying he won't extradite because he thinks it's all a Jewish conspiracy. If states stop respecting extradition to each other things will turn fast on crime to the bad old days of prohibition. The only reason DeSantis is saying that is because he is sure that Trump will voluntarily surrender and is using this to score points with Trumps base.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
