All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Kirby101]

Yeah...

When you have that and Lightfoot sitting on footage of the cops raiding the wrong house/Madigan seemingly taking kickbacks from ComEd in Illinois?

I get the desire, but still think that dealing with Dems' own issues is a better use of time in the long run.

Probably the most likely to yield actual results versus blowing through tax money on trying to actually make some of the obvious issues with Trump stick.

What does the Mayor of Chicago have to do with the NY AG going after Trump's business dealings in New York? Did you just have to find a random problem for a Democratic to whatabout?

[numberthirty]

What does the Mayor of Chicago have to do with the NY AG going after Trump's business dealings in New York? Did you just have to find a random problem for a Democratic to whatabout?

Pretty "Basics 101..."

While a private citizen ducking taxes and running a garbage charity is absolutely worth the state looking into going after?

There is no even remotely realistic scenario where that should be a higher priority than a mayor who is trying to keep a botched police raid under wraps or the leader of a state's Democratic party taking kickbacks from an electrical utility.

You've got to be kidding yourself to even try to compare them.

[Kirby101]

Pretty "Basics 101..."

While a private citizen ducking taxes and running a garbage charity is absolutely worth the state looking into going after?

There is no even remotely realistic scenario where that should be a higher priority than a mayor who is trying to keep a botched police raid under wraps or the leader of a state's Democratic party taking kickbacks from an electrical utility.

You've got to be kidding yourself to even try to compare them.

What does the Mayor of Chicago have to do with NY State? And if you think that is the extent of Trumps crimes, you are kidding yourself..

But not the first time you defended Trump, so not surprising.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

But what if the situation is more ambiguous? Presidents and people in their administration are going to make mistakes, or run into legal grey areas.

Who cares? If they can bring up a good enough charge against Biden to send him to jail or any President to send them to jail, then that President should go to jail. Maybe it will make politicians less corrupt. However, lets be real, it's far more likely there is a lot on Trump and anything they can find on Biden would be difficult at best and they'd be left with their dick in their hands. Let them take public losses.

[Gray Lensman]

What does the Mayor of Chicago have to do with NY State? And if you think that is the extent of Trumps crimes, you are kidding yourself..

But not the first time you defended Trump, so not surprising.

I think it's more of a case that Biden should let New York State chase after Trump, letting him face charges there without having to order any investigation into Trump at the federal level. Basically he can have his cake and eat it too with that issue. Then he can use the Justice Dept's resources to do a deep dive into many of the police departments and work at denazifying many of them.

[Kirby101]

I think it's more of a case that Biden should let New York State chase after Trump, letting him face charges there without having to order any investigation into Trump at the federal level. Basically he can have his cake and eat it too with that issue. Then he can use the Justice Dept's resources to do a deep dive into many of the police departments and work at denazifying many of them.

No, Trumps illegal, criminal and possibly traitorous behavior as President must come to light.

[Gray Lensman]

No, Trumps illegal, criminal and possibly traitorous behavior as President must come to light.

I'd rather them start with the abuses from ICE, Trump's Little Green Men, and the people he has left behind first, then work their way up. I'm more concerned with what is already still in the government than Trump, at least at first.

[Adam Allen]

But what if the situation is more ambiguous? Presidents and people in their administration are going to make mistakes, or run into legal grey areas.

This would in fact be the threshold we seek to delineate. Mistakes, or areas that are just unavoidably grey, not worthy of conviction.

Continually calling the election process a fraud, after it has been certified repeatedly? For that matter, calling it into doubt at all, when you were probably the person with the most singular power to make sure it was fair, from the start? How is that a mistake?

I mean, trying to tell governors or other officials to change their vote tally, so it keeps you in power ... you know, "mistake" only protects one so much, in a legal sense. Like, once upon a time, I had a military clearance; didn't really know anything that was likely to be of value to anyone, but if I were a much dumber person, how much should I have been allowed to ask around about the value of selling what I knew? Online, in random bars, with other military members? So long as no foreign agent took me up on it, and all US folks told me it was a bad idea -- totally not a crime?

What's the threshold, there? For when it becomes a crime?

[Kirby101]

I'd rather them start with the abuses from ICE, Trump's Little Green Men, and the people he has left behind first, then work their way up. I'm more concerned with what is already still in the government than Trump, at least at first.

They will be doing that. Actually Biden should stay out of it and let the DOJ do their job.

[numberthirty]

What does the Mayor of Chicago have to do with NY State? And if you think that is the extent of Trumps crimes, you are kidding yourself..

But not the first time you defended Trump, so not surprising.

Again, what is in blue is pretty "Basics 101...".

If you are going to look at two state instances where one of them involves the actions of what is about to be a former government official versus a current instance of an office holder attempting to hide a botched police raid and another current office holder involved in a racket with a utility?

One of those involves the crimes(well, currently alleged...) of a private citizen, while the other involves the actions of current office holders.

If the question is "What Should Democrats Be Doing?..." and you are overlooking state-level scamming and the police just smashing folks doors in by current Democratic office holders to focus on a private citizen's scamming?

The issue is incredibly obvious. At least it should be.

As for what's in green...

If you look at when someone is saying "Actually, I Think That Democrats Should Front Burner Dealing With The Police Raiding Regular Folks Homes And Getting In On Statewide Utility Scamming..." and you see a defense of Trump?

Again, the issue is obvious.

Holding the police to the most basic level of accountability(never mind Madigan/ComEd...) should be on you "To Do..." list before a private citizen tax scamming.

Never mind that a credibly accused rapist is still running as a Democrat for governor. Again, dealing with that is probably(or should be...) a more pressing concern.

[Mister Mets]

This would in fact be the threshold we seek to delineate. Mistakes, or areas that are just unavoidably grey, not worthy of conviction.

Continually calling the election process a fraud, after it has been certified repeatedly? For that matter, calling it into doubt at all, when you were probably the person with the most singular power to make sure it was fair, from the start? How is that a mistake?

I mean, trying to tell governors or other officials to change their vote tally, so it keeps you in power ... you know, "mistake" only protects one so much, in a legal sense. Like, once upon a time, I had a military clearance; didn't really know anything that was likely to be of value to anyone, but if I were a much dumber person, how much should I have been allowed to ask around about the value of selling what I knew? Online, in random bars, with other military members? So long as no foreign agent took me up on it, and all US folks told me it was a bad idea -- totally not a crime?

What's the threshold, there? For when it becomes a crime?

This is a legitimately messy question.

If we're too far in one direction, politicians will get away with corrupt behavior. If we're too far in the other, you'll be able to arrest pretty much any politician. Both scenarios will create perverse incentives, and voter distrust.

It should apply mainly to situations where reasonable people aren't going to disagree, and where clearly established laws have been violated.

What law has Trump violated when he calls the election process a fraud? What's the neutral standard that would apply to all politicians?

The example of a soldier asking around the value of selling what he knows is an interesting one. It is possible that he'll be arrested because of his clear willingness to commit a crime. However, there are other potential outcomes. That soldier would be very vulnerable to a sting operation, where he might clearly violate serious laws. He might also end up divulging classified information in the process of demonstrating what he knows. He would also likely end up getting kicked out of the military, which has a lower burden of proof than a criminal conviction.

There was an interesting case that gets to the distinctions. Years ago, a police officer was arrested for discussing his plans to kidnap, murder and eat specific women, including his ex-wife (you might remember it as the "cannibal cop" case.) One of his online friends got a fifteen year sentence, because he came to a meeting with a collection of tools (including a stun gun disguised as a flashlight, a meat mallet, gloves, and bleach), showing a willingness to follow through. The officer's conviction was overturned.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...icle-1.3786933

This case is on my mind as I know someone who worked with the librarian.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Ford pardoned Nixon, and Obama decided not to prosecute GW Bush. Unfortunately, those are the precedents that Biden has to consider here.

So what? Neither Nixon or Ford are Democrats, this idea that Biden is going to pardon TRump is a right wing talking point to play "Both Sides." Biden isn't a Republican.

[Mister Mets]

Again, what is in blue is pretty "Basics 101...".

If you are going to look at two state instances where one of them involves the actions of what is about to be a former government official versus a current instance of an office holder attempting to hide a botched police raid and another current office holder involved in a racket with a utility?

One of those involves the crimes(well, currently alleged...) of a private citizen, while the other involves the actions of current office holders.

If the question is "What Should Democrats Be Doing?..." and you are overlooking state-level scamming and the police just smashing folks doors in by current Democratic office holders to focus on a private citizen's scamming?

The issue is incredibly obvious. At least it should be.

As for what's in green...

If you look at when someone is saying "Actually, I Think That Democrats Should Front Burner Dealing With The Police Raiding Regular Folks Homes And Getting In On Statewide Utility Scamming..." and you see a defense of Trump?

Again, the issue is obvious.

Holding the police to the most basic level of accountability(never mind Madigan/ComEd...) should be on you "To Do..." list before a private citizen tax scamming.

Never mind that a credibly accused rapist is still running as a Democrat for governor. Again, dealing with that is probably(or should be...) a more pressing concern.

Trump isn't exactly a private citizen. He will be a former President, and likely be seen as a potential contender for a future nomination.

Politically, the best move is to investigate both. Obviously, the New York state attorney's office isn't going to be involved with anything to do with the mayor of Chicago.

But Biden's US Attorney for Northern Illinois should look into the case. It could very well turn out that Lightfoot and Madigan are cleared of any wrongdoing.

So what? Neither Nixon or Ford are Democrats, this idea that Biden is going to pardon TRump is a right wing talking point to play "Both Sides." Biden isn't a Republican.

The main argument I've seen for Biden pardoning Trump is as part of some kind of truth and reconciliation type commission, as a way to incentivize members of the Trump administration to be honest in various investigations. That would be a different context, and come with all sorts of conditions for any Republicans given a deal.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I dont see how Biden and the dems can after after Trump for his actions after the election. Yes he is being a cry baby and bitching. But how is bitching on Twitter and in the press about the election illegal. He has used the courts. He has not called for an armed revolt or anything. I guess asking the different state leaders or Secretaries of state to throw out results. But how far could they get if they focused on that?

Go after him for the massive shit he did and there is overwhelming proof of. Not some grey area.

I suggest you pay more attention to what his administration are doing behind closed doors, not that Trump hasn't been ok endorsing Nazis to attack his political opponents - like the terrorist who tried to abduct and murder Whitmer.

https://www.***************.com/mich...ection-2020-12

Former national security advisor Michael Flynn said this week that President Donald Trump should impose martial law to force new elections in battleground states that he lost.

Speaking with the pro-Trump network Newsmax on Thursday night, Flynn said the president should deploy the military and "seize" voting machines to hold a new election.

"There is no way in the world we are going to be able to move forward as a nation," said Flynn, who was recently pardoned by Trump after pleading guilty to a felony count of lying to the FBI. "He could immediately, on his order, seize every single one of these machines, on his order."

You know why Flynn was saying things like this in Trump's presence? Because he allows this, this wouldn't be normalised in a normal presidency.

Trump is not in the Apprentice any longer, he's a wannabe dictator.

This is the first time in modern history the US military has had to openly state that it won't interfere with elections, because of what Trump's doing.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/29/top-...tial-vote.html

The U.S. armed forces will have no role in carrying out the election process or resolving a disputed vote, the top U.S. military officer has told Congress.

The comments from Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, underscore the extraordinary political environment in America, where the president has declared without evidence that the expected surge in mail-in ballots will make the vote “inaccurate and fraudulent,” and has suggested he might not accept the election results if he loses. Milley’s comments were released Friday.

[Steel Inquisitor]

The main argument I've seen for Biden pardoning Trump is as part of some kind of truth and reconciliation type commission, as a way to incentivize members of the Trump administration to be honest in various investigations. That would be a different context, and come with all sorts of conditions for any Republicans given a deal.

An argument which still hinges on Biden pardoning Trump as something he'd do, as if he's a Republican like Ford. It's a means to discredit the left, nothing more. "A different context," has as much meaning as "some people say." And who are these people? Why should I care what they have to say?