The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Surprise, President-elect doesn't want criminal investigations of a sitting President
- Thread starter Eacaraxe
- Start date
In a way that doesn’t believe that Plato’s realm of forms is from whence all law is derived but instead looks at the hows and whys of the drafting of said laws and realizes they were written to fuck over particular ethnic groups with the goal of maintaining white supremacy.
Erm, could you explain why California’s assault weapons ban is there, because at first glance I can see a lot of similarities in the others, but not so much that one.
Oh, it was specifically put in place to arrest the Panthers
Yeah, really. I would think that white gun-nut military, pepper types would be the most likely to have "assault weapons"
Which specific law are you referring to? Because I'm trying to look up the history of assault weapon laws, and I'm not seeing anything that overlaps with when the Panthers were active.
That sounds like the definition of a conspiracy theory. That's not to say you're wrong, just that it requires you to be right about the intentions of everyone involved as a prerequisite, and I doubt that.
Last edited:
Mulford Act. I fucked up the lingo because I’m lazy.
Last edited:
I feel like the super predators campaign was pretty explicit, same with Bloomberg on stop and frisk.
You sound like a complete and utter clown. If you want to sound reasonable you list the actual crimes you want them to go after, you don't implicitly whine that you didn't like the mean things people said about Trump
Can you manage to have a conversation without insulting the other party or is that too much to ask for in a civil discussion.
Why? The point's clear, either Democrats are letting Trump off the hook for being the complete and utterly contemptuous shitbag we literally all know he is, or that Trump turned out to be a more or less thoroughly mediocre president who behaved exactly as expected of the office in terms of ethics and policy, and Democrats have been talking out their fartboxes for four years with no real intent of doing anything about it.
The only dispute I take with the statement, is both are simultaneously true. Trump behaved exactly as any contemporary president can be expected to behave, like a complete and utterly contemptuous shitbag. His mortal sin was making no effort to hide being a complete and utterly contemptuous shitbag; rather, he seemed to put great effort into and derive much pleasure from making it as visible as possible. And as can be expected from the opposition party, they're going to let him walk because to do otherwise means future Democratic presidents can and would be held liable for being complete and utterly contemptuous shitbags.
All the Democratic party has engaged in for four years, has been kayfabe.
This is exactly why and how impeachment played out as it did. Democrats ran in 2018 on "investigate and impeach", and gave themselves just enough rope to hang themselves with, because Democrats were then expected to follow through. Which is why Pelosi sat for a whole-ass year on it despite in that time the Mueller report having been released, that is until Trump started in on Hunter Biden which was an actual scandal that could have fatally damaged the candidacy of basically the only person in the Democratic field capable of beating Bernie.
Congressional Democrats knew impeachment was a non-starter to begin with; they didn't have enough on Trump to make it happen, and even if they did, Senate Republicans would simply vote to acquit regardless of material fact. And, they knew damned good and well that came with a very real, very likely, chance of political blowback because they saw what happened to Republicans in '98 after impeaching Clinton. What forced their hand, was the need to protect Joe Biden's presidential bid.
Do you ever just think maybe you're not critical enough of things and just because he's slamming the Democrats doesn't mean he did it reasonably. It's about whining that they said mean things about his boy
Hey guy who was totally forced into supporting Trump by everyone being so mean
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? WTF does "being mean" have to do with anything?
Pascrell Demands Investigation, Prosecution of Trump Government Crimes
pascrell.house.gov
Well at least one representative wants to make the lie true.
That's what's called a false dichotomy.
Other options are, for instance, that Trump is a complete and utter contemptuous (contemptible?) shitbag, except that hasn't done anything obviously illegal enough to require federal prosecution. Or that he's been an extraordinarily bad president, but hasn't done anything obviously illegal enough to require federal prosecution. Or they're going to let the DoJ take a long and careful look at the Mueller report, but not push a prosecution for political reasons if the chance of conviction looks low. And so on.
I am totally in favour of prosecuting Trump upon a balanced and rational analysis of the evidence indicating a reasonable chance of prosecution. But pushing a prosecution that will be likely to fail could be gifting the Republican Party a big political win they can leverage for 2022 or 2024 elections.
I think the mistake here is the idea that the Democratic Party actually cares that much about winning. Other relevant variables constant they would prefer it, certainly, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination a priority.
I literally said in the exact same post I believe both are simultaneously true, meaning I disagreed with the assertion it's an either/or proposition to begin with.
In other words, despite four years of sustained heightened partisan rhetoric, the Democrats don't actually have anything on him, never had anything on him, and knew it. Which would be why, as I said and have said for a year and a half, Democrats kicked the can on impeachment down the road until they reached a point the matter was forced upon them to protect Biden's candidacy. Exactly how many times did I make this precise point on the old forums?
There'd be blowback for prosecution regardless, likely in terms of both electoral fallout and a return to Clinton-era right-wing extremist violence. This is as moot a point as one can possibly be. The rule of law ought not hinge upon whether people get mad about it after the fact; justice is, after all, blind. If Trump committed criminal acts, and those acts are of prosecutorial merit, he damn well ought to be investigated and indicted regardless of the fact he will very soon be an ex-president.
None of that is up for debate, here.
What is up for debate is whether Democrats, in this case Biden and his incoming DoJ appointments, will pursue the matter or cover their own ass to preserve presidential unaccountability.
He needs them to forget Donald Trump, not remind them of him every year. With news about Trump investigations that will seem politically motivated 'witchhunts' to Trump supporters.
Trumpism can only die without attention on the orange man.
Trumpism can only die without attention on the orange man.