Surprise, President-elect doesn't want criminal investigations of a sitting President

[Agema]

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.

Sophistry. You're proposing a range of options far more limited than reality.

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?

This is not the same thing.

The Democrats could only push an impeachment past the Senate, and the Senate (being Republican) would be almost guaranteed to reject impeachment, certainly without a cast iron signal from Mueller, which Mueller declined to provide due to his interpretation of DoJ policy. In other words, the Democrats knew that impeaching Trump over the Mueller probe would fail. And sure, they took action against him over Ukraine when he started threatening Biden, and they were almost certainly sure that would fail too. But nevertheless, once Trump steps down, he is potentially still open to prosecution over Mueller.

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.

Right, but we're arguing the same point here. The case against Trump needs to be investigated neutrally by legal professionals on its own merits. There will indeed be political "blowback" if a prosecution is pursued under any circumstance, but that blowback is best mitigated by the process being as transparently neutral as possible... and that a prosecution is ultimately successful.

 

[Bartholen]

View attachment 1591

Getting a lot of use out of that picture.

Speaking of that picture, this is easily one of the most nauseatingly headache-inducing images I've ever seen. What the fuck am I looking at? It looks like a guy leaning back in a chair, but everything is wrong. Where are his arms supposed to be? Where's the backrest? Where do his legs begin and end? What's a knee and what's an armrest? Where is his head? Genuinely disgusting.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Speaking of that picture, this is easily one of the most nauseatingly headache-inducing images I've ever seen. What the fuck am I looking at? It looks like a guy leaning back in a chair, but everything is wrong. Where are his arms supposed to be? Where's the backrest? Where do his legs begin and end? What's a knee and what's an armrest? Where is his head? Genuinely disgusting.

Accurate, everything should look wrong. It should be pain to look at him.

It's Asdrubael Vect, from If The Emperor had a Text-to-Speech Device, in a very animated laugh.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Sophistry. You're proposing a range of options far more limited than reality.

Unless one regards some of those options as distinctions without differences, which is not unreasonable.

 

[Agema]

Unless one regards some of those options as distinctions without differences, which is not unreasonable.

Sure. And if you pick broad enough criteria, there's no difference between a cow and a human, too.

 

[Gordon_4]

Accurate, everything should look wrong. It should be pain to look at him.

It's Asdrubael Vect, from If The Emperor had a Text-to-Speech Device, in a very animated laugh.

I hate WH40k and all it’s lore and yet that show is one of the most hysterical things I’ve ever seen.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I hate WH40k and all it’s lore and yet that show is one of the most hysterical things I’ve ever seen.

And highly quotable.

 

[Gordon_4]

And highly quotable.

No promises are made. Also I can’t decide if Kitten or Magnus is my favourite.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

No promises are made. Also I can’t decide if Kitten or Magnus is my favourite.

I mean the only correct answer is Russ, for nearly summoning Slaanesh as a joke.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Sure. And if you pick broad enough criteria, there's no difference between a cow and a human, too.

In any case, there is no need to invent the Minotaur.

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.

This analysis collapses when you also consider that the Democrats have been treating his legislative proposals and judicial appointments no differently from those of other presidents as well. They appear to whine for fundraising purposes only.

 

[Avnger]

This analysis collapses when you also consider that the Democrats have been treating his legislative proposals and judicial appointments no differently from those of other presidents as well. They appear to whine for fundraising purposes only.

How exactly were the Democrats supposed to stop judicial appointments when they were the minority in the Senate and the filibuster not being possible? If we're talking about post-2018 election, what legislative proposals of Trump's actually passed? If we're talking pre-2018 election, how exactly were Democrats supposed to stop legislation as minorities in both the House and the Senate with the filibuster again not applying?

You carry this immense double-standard around that either you don't realize or you ignore for "owning the libs." Let's take pandemic aid and the Barrett appointment as good examples. Out of one side of your mouth, you repeatedly cried that Democrats were failing to prevent Barrett's nomination by entirely obstructing Congress doing any work; out of the other side, you repeatedly crowed about how Democrats weren't going to pass any aid proposals. Both obstructing all Congressional business AND passing pandemic aid through the House (forget about actually getting Republicans to vote on it in the Senate or Trump to sign it) are entirely incompatible to do at the same time!

You love to trash Democrats for even thinking about working with Republicans while simultaneously trashing Democrats for getting nothing done as the minority party.

 

[Agema]

This analysis collapses when you also consider that the Democrats have been treating his legislative proposals and judicial appointments no differently from those of other presidents as well. They appear to whine for fundraising purposes only.

Their job is to govern. They may as well work with stuff they like the look of and try to obstruct what they don't, and it's not as if literally everything that Trump and the Republicans do is bad.

Whether the Democrats should take a strategy of total obstruction is a difficult question. It doesn't necessarily play well with a lot of their voters and independents, as I think many Democrats like to have an image of their party being the reasonable and constructive one.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Both obstructing all Congressional business AND passing pandemic aid through the House (forget about actually getting Republicans to vote on it in the Senate or Trump to sign it) are entirely incompatible to do at the same time!

Wow, this would be such a great point if the Democrats chose to do one of those. But they chose to do neither in cooperation with their Republican allies.

Their job is to govern. They may as well work with stuff they like the look of and try to obstruct what they don't, and it's not as if literally everything that Trump and the Republicans do is bad.

Well, no, but those things that aren't bad (Afghan drawdown, not attacking someplace, etc.) they typically oppose, because they're .

Whether the Democrats should take a strategy of total obstruction is a difficult question. It doesn't necessarily play well with a lot of their voters and independents, as I think many Democrats like to have an image of their party being the reasonable and constructive one.

They absolutely should not give the President larger and larger military budgets, expanded surveillance powers, and so on.

 

[SupahEwok]

They absolutely should not give the President larger and larger military budgets, expanded surveillance powers, and so on.

Why not? They'll inherit it whenever they get around to getting back into the Whitehouse. Any expansion of federal power is, in the long run, an expansion of both parties.

Incidentally, this is a point that people who advocate packing the Supreme Court to "check the Republicans" don't understand.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Incidentally, this is a point that people who advocate packing the Supreme Court to "check the Republicans" don't understand.

Dunno about that. If you believe that the Republicans will do anything to have a supreme court majority anyway (and, yeah, there's reasons for believing this), giving them another precedent to play with that they might not need mightn't seem a bad cost for s short term gain.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Why not?

For the purposes of that post, I'm assuming that they aren't talking out their hypocritical asses when it comes to criticism of Donald Trump as an authoritarian.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Thoughts?

 

[ralfy]

Both parties work with each other and for Wall Street through the use of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism, and can be seen in politicians like the Clintons, the Bushes, Obama, Kerry, Harris, Pelosi, and others. Trump has shown that can be part of the same system, as seen in his views on bombing Iran and tax cuts to billionaires. If he can demonstrate that he can continue doing that, then he can avoid investigation, like Bush, Obama, and other past Presidents.