Could one say, morality is a spook?That whether or not they’re moral, they’re self-involved, and it is unreasonable to expect the interests of career politicians, lawyers, and capitalists to align with our own. Morality has nothing to do with it.
Could one say, morality is a spook?That whether or not they’re moral, they’re self-involved, and it is unreasonable to expect the interests of career politicians, lawyers, and capitalists to align with our own. Morality has nothing to do with it.
Ok, if we are arguing different things, yeah, this is a moot point. I will indict him as a president when he does Presidential things. Yes, he could do everything you're saying. Just like a police officer can be a racist and might put me in the crosshairs.You're conflating the de jure state of affairs with the de facto state of affairs, which is what I'm pointing out. If Biden acting through his appointees in the DoJ wants the investigation killed, and I assure you he does for all the reasons I stated earlier, the investigation will be killed. Cuomo won't be doing shit about it, and neither will anyone in the state prosecutors' office because it would be political suicide. Maybe Eric or Don, Jr., or other associates, see the inside of a courtroom, but I'd lay cold, hard cash Trump himself won't be on the docket. Not a former President of the United states, let alone in a state courtroom.
The bottom line is, it's in Biden's -- and likely more importantly Harris' because she's being obviously set up for her own presidency -- self-interest Trump doesn't. Because again, that sets a precedent no President is going to tolerate, their own criminal liability.
Food for thought: how and why did Nixon not face indictment in the DC Superior Court? That's not actually a federal jurisdiction, DC Code is roughly equivalent to state code in terms of jurisdiction, despite DC Code being drafted by Congress, and DC cases presented and heard by federally-appointed officials.
My apologies for using you as an example here, but I think you’ve illustrated my point of why moralizing gets nowhere. To illustrate further, let’s go with a thought experiment.Ok, if we are arguing different things, yeah, this is a moot point. I will indict him as a president when he does Presidential things. Yes, he could do everything you're saying. Just like a police officer can be a racist and might put me in the crosshairs.
But I will only treat that police officer as a racist if he is actually racist. Not a second before. Same with Biden. And in fact, same with Trump.
Trump just earned my spite.
Okay, I think you need a quick rundown on everything because sentence 1 of your response already showed some serious ignorance in how the Department of Justice (the DoJ, not plural) works.DoJ's aren't actually independent, you know that, right? Those are presidential appointees and inherently political, and presidential appointees are, unsurprisingly, going to act in accordance to their appointor's agenda. That's how and why they get the damned appointment in the first place. If Biden says he doesn't want Trump investigated, the "independent" DoJ isn't going to investigate Trump, because Biden's appointees are going to "independently" do what Biden wants and doesn't want because that's what they were appointed to do.
It is a form of doublespeak, but not in the way you think it is.Biden's commentary is political doublespeak, to dodge accountability and enable defenders to rationalize and shift blame just as you're doing now. I strongly suspect you already know this.
I don't think it's unreasonable. It is absolutely reasonable to require the scum that rule over us to live up to their own propaganda, to relentlessly point out when they don't (which is basically always), and to condition cooperation on change. The expectation is not unreasonable, it's just not realistic, at least until such time as there is coordinated action to enforce the changes that would make it so.That whether or not they’re moral, they’re self-involved, and it is unreasonable to expect the interests of career politicians, lawyers, and capitalists to align with our own. Morality has nothing to do with it.
So I'm going to go out of my way and play devils advocate as to why the Bush II war crimes should have been set aside (though I personally believe they should have had an independent prosecutor) while Trump's didn't: the war crimes at least committed under the reasonable perception they were acting in the US's authorization and interests (not legally a defense, but mitigating overall and why later administrations avoid prosecuting the previous ones generally), while most of Trump's all-but-legally-confirmed criminal activity was in service of himself or his associates, ranging from overcharging the secret service, steering US military planes to stop at an airport near his Scotland golf course that may have been closed had the flights not increased the runway use, and interfering in a decades-long government construction project to protect his hotel, just to name a few.I saw this video pop up today, from yonks ago and its still pretty relevant.
Okay, I'm all ears. Let's see what you have to say about it.Okay, I think you need a quick rundown on everything because sentence 1 of your response already showed some serious ignorance in how the Department of Justice (the DoJ, not plural) works.
Potentially, but if he really wanted to rule it out, all he would have to do is say so, as any statement one way or another would kill said investigations. You're just reading in a conspiracy where you have no evidence other than your own fantasies.Okay, I'm all ears. Let's see what you have to say about it.
Which is quite a lot, for someone who missed the point we're currently in Biden's transitional period, and Biden's statement is a broadcast that whomever he appoints is expected to torpedo investigation into Trump. Because as someone who is not yet President, Biden has yet to appoint anyone to those seats. And, that his statement was specifically worded to avoid potential liability for any of what you just said.
In the same way that the president can order a nuclear strike at any time. Yes, they have the power, but you're acting as if having the power is a foregone conclusion. You see why that might be reaching?While simultaneously conceding the point that indeed, those members of the DoJ who are presidential appointees can and do have the power to do exactly that.
Are you done? Do you even know what it takes to disbar someone? Do you even know the grounds for doing so?An impressive feat, thanks to having brought a wealth of evidence that exactly what you just said can't happen does, and the administrations that did it suffered absolutely no negative consequences whatsoever other than having to throw some folks under the bus. Who promptly went on to bigger and better things for having been good soldiers. Remind me, for all the shit Alberto Gonzales pulled, was he even disbarred? Or did he work the mediation circuit for a while before landing in a cushy university job, and is currently grifting the talking head circuit as a token "never Trump Republican"?
If you'd ever like to know why people fear your ideas, read this part back to yourself, and each time you read it picture schools, hospitals, groceries... Picture everything that keeps people alive, everything that makes people happy, it's all systems. Imagine looking someone in the eye and telling them malpractice is an explicit, necessary, and intended element of healthcare.No, the problem of policing, of any system, is not found in the many sinful acts of those who work within it. It is that those “sinful” acts are an explicit, necessary, and intended element of the system.
And as you so eloquently explained, how and why an outright admission of such would not occur. Least of all without invoking severe blowback, before he's even taken the oath of office. You're simultaneously saying Biden "could" do so, but explaining why it's in his best interests to not, whilst simultaneously expecting us to just overlook the obvious implication of the statement.Potentially, but if he really wanted to rule it out, all he would have to do is say so, as any statement one way or another would kill said investigations.
It's not a reach if you can only respond to it in tautologies, adding rhetorical flair to try to make the tautology sound as if it is anything but.Yes, they have the power, but you're acting as if having the power is a foregone conclusion. You see why that might be reaching?
Are you going to answer the question?Are you done? Do you even know what it takes to disbar someone? Do you even know the grounds for doing so?
My complaint is the applicable practice of law, as you put it, does not matter here. The crux of the issue is whether or not presidents are above the law, and the self-interest of the president-elect is at odds with the rule of law -- and with zero presumptive checks or balances. Case in point,I chimed in because there was a clear factual gap in what you were saying and the applicable practice of law as it relates to all these matters.
God forbid we ask ourselves why "almost every president" might have to state this platitude in the first place, and what it says that "almost every president" would seek to shield their predecessors from criminal investigation and prosecution by whatever means necessary regardless of political party. It's odd to what you refer as "conspiracy", I simply consider "pattern recognition", a capability every human being nominally develops by age five regardless how many letters they may or may not have by their name.Biden restated a platitude that almost every president states, particularly when they're following scandal ridden presidencies...
If malpractice is common enough to be notable, perhaps it is an intended element or an accepted consequence of an intended element of the healthcare system as it is currently constituted.If you'd ever like to know why people fear your ideas, read this part back to yourself, and each time you read it picture schools, hospitals, groceries... Picture everything that keeps people alive, everything that makes people happy, it's all systems. Imagine looking someone in the eye and telling them malpractice is an explicit, necessary, and intended element of healthcare.
If you put a gun to my head I’d probably say Metal Gear Solid 3 was the best, but I don’t like choosing.If you'd ever like to know why people fear your ideas, read this part back to yourself, and each time you read it picture schools, hospitals, groceries... Picture everything that keeps people alive, everything that makes people happy, it's all systems. Imagine looking someone in the eye and telling them malpractice is an explicit, necessary, and intended element of healthcare.
I’d also point out that you wouldn’t argue that they’re necessary/intentional because they occur, but actually try and see if such an argument can be made. In the case of police, the enforcement of racially biased laws is intentional and can be seen throughout US history, while structurally they are setup so as to be proficient at dealing with particular kinds of property crime and miserable at dealing with crimes against individuals.If malpractice is common enough to be notable, perhaps it is an intended element or an accepted consequence of an intended element of the healthcare system as it is currently constituted.
Seems like an error to equate the concept of healthcare with the system that currently delivers it (to some people).
Jim Crow, gang laws in California, three strikes penalties for non-violent offenses.Can you give one or more examples?
How are you defining "racially biased laws"? I wouldn't say that a law that disproportionately impacts one race over another isn't the fault of the law.gang laws in California, three strikes penalties for non-violent offenses.