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

[numberthirty]

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.

...

Again, this is all pretty simple...

On the one hand?

I've got a tax racket that someone was running while they were a private citizen before they ever took office.

On the other hand?

I've got a repeated pattern of folks having their homes raided without a warrant, and utility scamming on the state level that involved current office holders.

I know which one of those amounts to what is essentially a non-issue.

[JackDaw]

Again, this is all pretty simple...

On the one hand?

I've got a tax racket that someone was running while they were a private citizen before they ever took office.

On the other hand?

I've got a repeated pattern of folks having their homes raided without a warrant, and utility scamming on the state level that involved current office holders.

I know which one of those amounts to what is essentially a non-issue.

Why do you see either as a non issue?

A billionaire (?? I think most of us suspect the Donald’s net worth is negative billions rather than positive) falsifying his tax returns is immensely damaging to the state, and clearly criminal, and should be prosecuted. Other crimes are even more serious...but that’s irrelevant...the tax charge alone warrants action.

And...of course..it’s possible that auctioning the tax charge will flush other stuff out, like with that other great patriot Al Capone.

[numberthirty]

Why do you see either as a non issue?

A billionaire (?? I think most of us suspect the Donald’s net worth is negative billions rather than positive) falsifying his tax returns is immensely damaging to the state, and clearly criminal, and should be prosecuted. Other crimes are even more serious...but that’s irrelevant...the tax charge alone warrants action.

And...of course..it’s possible that auctioning the tax charge will flush other stuff out, like with that other great patriot Al Capone.

If a non-office holder is ducking taxes?

It is essentially a non-issue. Something that the state should maybe throw some taxpayer money at attempting to recoup? When it was seemingly never enough of an issue to look into while it was in it's heyday?

I guess so?

Actual office holders seemingly being a part of a statewide utility scam or making a effort to cover up an instance of ongoing police raids that wind up kicking down the wrong doors?

That is on a completely different level.

Namely, the "This Is Actually Amounts To An Issue..." level.

[Adam Allen]

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.

Ugh. I had thankfully not heard of the "cannibal cop" case. From your posted article, apparently the cop was in jail about two years before a judge overturned his conviction, then there was another guy who got ten years along with the librarian's fifteen ... and, a fourth who was never charged. I guess I will hope the cop's charge was not overturned because he was a cop, and that the one who was never charged did not get off scott-free due to wealth or some other kinds of connections ... honestly, it's kind of hard to believe that's not the case.

On the other hand, I don't know any of the details, and apparently the school librarian should have lost his job long before he was arrested for a plot to commit murder, so maybe it really is just a matter of the threshold of evidence. Maybe the one who was never charged really only ever talked about wanting to murder and eat people, and maybe that alone is not illegal. Although, I guess I feel like -- how could you prove the two who got ten and fifteen years were more serious than the other two? I don't know. I suppose I really don't envy the judge and lawyers who need to seriously ponder the case.

As for how it relates to Trump though -- like, I would say that the cop should have been held to a different standard. This is to say, what you or I may say or do, as private citizens, would need to be considered as different from what the sitting president can say or do.

I can appreciate that some would immediately want to disagree with that, but consider -- there is a different standard for if a random person says they are going to or would like to harm you or me, than if they said it about a president, right? And that makes sense. The very particular role comes with unique powers and correlatedly unique responsibilities.

This is to say, your neutral standard ... should apply to all politicians who become POTUS. No one has the ear of the entire world, and is taken as speaking for the United States as a nation, like the sitting president does. Right?

So I guess the question would be, is there a law against a sitting POTUS attempting to use the power of the office to subvert the will of the people and the function of the government, to remain in power? And if there isn't, why isn't there?

If we have gotten this far just on assuming that would never happen ... maybe now is a good time to seriously consider what will prevent it? Just in case?

[JackDaw]

If a non-office holder is ducking taxes?

It is essentially a non-issue. Something that the state should maybe throw some taxpayer money at attempting to recoup? When it was seemingly never enough of an issue to look into while it was in it's heyday?

I guess so?

Actual office holders seemingly being a part of a statewide utility scam or making a effort to cover up an instance of ongoing police raids that wind up kicking down the wrong doors?

That is on a completely different level.

Namely, the "This Is Actually Amounts To An Issue..." level.

So putting your argument in its simplest form: tax offences are not worth prosecuting

That I think will strike most people as an absurd stance...certainly it strikes me as a bizarre one.

[JackDaw]

Must admit if I was Joe Biden the idea of not trying to get the Donal prosecuted would not cross my mind...I’d be just concentrating on which tactic would most likely be successful.

I can see it mustn’t be Joe’s top priority, but he has to be seen as not being personally involved anyway...he can just quietly pull a few levers and get some young legal wiz doing the biz

[numberthirty]

So putting your argument in its simplest form: tax offences are not worth prosecuting

That I think will strike most people as an absurd stance...certainly it strikes me as a bizarre one.

Negative.

In it's simplest form, it goes a little something like this -

That private citizen who is a tax cheat?

He has no duty to the citizen.

Current office holders who apparently sandbagged footage of the police hassling a nude woman because they raided the wrong house(setting aside that it is a part of a lengthy pattern of such mistaken raids...) or are involved in a statewide instance of a utility fleecing the residents of that state?

Actual existing responsibility to the citizen that comes along with the office that they hold.

One is a pretty legitimate priority. One is worth what it's worth.

Getting the priorities there out of whack is what would actually seem bizarre.

[Mister Mets]

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?

The context would matter because the reasons would be different.

Ford pardoned Nixon because he didn't want the distraction of a trial.

The argument here would be for Biden to offer Trump a pardon to get more information, or to have some kind of fact-checking panel focusing on documenting rather than prosecuting.

The articles on this are often under paywall, but there were a few shortly after the election.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-be-prosecuted

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-b1600867.html

I think the main flaw with the idea is that Trump would be interested in telling the truth.

Ugh. I had thankfully not heard of the "cannibal cop" case. From your posted article, apparently the cop was in jail about two years before a judge overturned his conviction, then there was another guy who got ten years along with the librarian's fifteen ... and, a fourth who was never charged. I guess I will hope the cop's charge was not overturned because he was a cop, and that the one who was never charged did not get off scott-free due to wealth or some other kinds of connections ... honestly, it's kind of hard to believe that's not the case.

On the other hand, I don't know any of the details, and apparently the school librarian should have lost his job long before he was arrested for a plot to commit murder, so maybe it really is just a matter of the threshold of evidence. Maybe the one who was never charged really only ever talked about wanting to murder and eat people, and maybe that alone is not illegal. Although, I guess I feel like -- how could you prove the two who got ten and fifteen years were more serious than the other two? I don't know. I suppose I really don't envy the judge and lawyers who need to seriously ponder the case.

As for how it relates to Trump though -- like, I would say that the cop should have been held to a different standard. This is to say, what you or I may say or do, as private citizens, would need to be considered as different from what the sitting president can say or do.

I can appreciate that some would immediately want to disagree with that, but consider -- there is a different standard for if a random person says they are going to or would like to harm you or me, than if they said it about a president, right? And that makes sense. The very particular role comes with unique powers and correlatedly unique responsibilities.

This is to say, your neutral standard ... should apply to all politicians who become POTUS. No one has the ear of the entire world, and is taken as speaking for the United States as a nation, like the sitting president does. Right?

So I guess the question would be, is there a law against a sitting POTUS attempting to use the power of the office to subvert the will of the people and the function of the government, to remain in power? And if there isn't, why isn't there?

If we have gotten this far just on assuming that would never happen ... maybe now is a good time to seriously consider what will prevent it? Just in case?

We're definitely going to see some laws about the stuff Trump did that was objectionable, but not illegal.

An obvious one would be that candidates for President would have to release their tax returns.

But there will be much more.

There should be room for bipartisan consensus here. Republicans aren't in the White House, so it's in their immediate interest to establish limits on the executive branch. Democrats get to fix the stuff that bothered them about Trump.

[Mister Mets]

Weird details about the attempt on the life of Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/21/e...ard/index.html

He got one of the agents responsible to go into detail about it on a phone call by posing as a security council official.

Moscow (CNN)A Russian agent sent to tail opposition leader Alexey Navalny has revealed how he was poisoned in August -- with the lethal nerve agent Novichok planted in his underpants.

The stunning disclosure from an agent who belonged to an elite toxins team in Russia's FSB security service came in a lengthy phone call following the unmasking of the unit by CNN and the online investigative outfit Bellingcat last week.
In what he was told was a debriefing, Konstantin Kudryavtsev also talked about others involved in the poisoning in the Siberian city of Tomsk, and how he was sent to clean things up.

But the agent was not speaking to an official in Russia's National Security Council as he thought. He was talking to Navalny himself, who almost died after being poisoned in August.

Navalny has long been a thorn in the side of President Vladimir Putin, exposing corruption in high places and campaigning against the ruling United Russia party.

Putin essentially confirmed last week that FSB agents tailed Navalny but said if Russia had wanted him dead, "they would've probably finished it."

The Bellingcat-CNN investigation found that the FSB toxins team of about six to 10 agents trailed Navalny for more than three years. After identifying most of the team, CNN and Bellingcat tried to contact them and their superiors.

One man, Oleg Tayakin, slammed the door shut when questioned by CNN. Others did not respond.

At the same time, Navalny was also making calls. To begin with, he told the agents who he was, and those he contacted immediately ended the call. For the final call to Kudryavtsev, his team decided on a different approach: a sting operation.
How Navalny did it

Navalny, who is still recovering at a secret location in Germany, posed as a senior official from Russia's National Security Council tasked with carrying out an analysis of the poisoning operation. His phone number was disguised as that of the headquarters of the FSB, according to Navalny's team and a recording of the call later provided to CNN and Bellingcat.

After Kudryavtsev confirmed his identity, Navalny said he'd been tasked with getting "a brief understanding from the team members: what went wrong, why was there a complete failure in Tomsk with Navalny?"

Kudryavtsev's responses in the 45-minute call provide the first direct evidence of the unit's involvement in poisoning Navalny.

At times he is clearly apprehensive about talking on an unsecured line but Navalny, speaking at times in a brusque and urgent way, persuades him that senior officials are demanding a report immediately and says that "all of this will be discussed at the Security Council on the highest level."

[The Cool Thatguy]

Weird details about the attempt on the life of Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/21/e...ard/index.html

He got one of the agents responsible to go into detail about it on a phone call by posing as a security council official.

Ouch.

That guy isn't going to get a good performance review.

[Tami]

Weird details about the attempt on the life of Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/21/e...ard/index.html

He got one of the agents responsible to go into detail about it on a phone call by posing as a security council official.

Who needs the CIA when you have CNN? Good on them for getting this.

[Tendrin]

Ouch.

That guy isn't going to get a good performance review.

Wonder how long it'll be before he trips and falls out of a window.

[Steel Inquisitor]

The context would matter because the reasons would be different.

Ford pardoned Nixon because he didn't want the distraction of a trial.

The argument here would be for Biden to offer Trump a pardon to get more information, or to have some kind of fact-checking panel focusing on documenting rather than prosecuting.

The articles on this are often under paywall, but there were a few shortly after the election.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-be-prosecuted

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-b1600867.html

I think the main flaw with the idea is that Trump would be interested in telling the truth.

Ford pardoning Nixon is a snipe hunt, because Biden's not pardoning a Republican president (he's gone so far as to confirm this) and even if he did do this he wouldn't do it for Trump. If there was a time for a Democratic present pardoning a GOP president it would be George W Bush and Obama didn't because he knew it would be wrong and he's not stupid. Ford pardoned Nixon because he was a Republican, he wasn't going to that for a Democratic present. Nixon left because he was too damaged politically and the pardon cost Ford whatever legacy he had.

If Biden wanted more information about Trump's administration he wouldn't need to pardon Trump because Trump is not only untrustworthy he can't retain that information, he's worse than W was at it. It's useless. And pardons aren't given just for information that various intelligence organisations could get away, they'll find more valid intel just asking the secret service watching on Trump and putting any Trump lackey under a hot lamp. Which wouldn't be hard because his administration is like a sieve with leaks. If they wanted to they could bust his children for information and they have them over the barrel with their known New York problems, besides whatever else they got up to over the last 4 years.

The Independent article offers Biden should pardon Trump simply because Ford did to Nixon, ignoring the context that that would not the be the same circumstance as Ford and is uninterested in examining the details of that, we're just supposed to take it on faith that since it technically is an option Biden should take it as valid. Which is incredibly wrong and just parrots a right wing talking point to connect Biden to Ford because reasons. What she does go into is from Ford's perspective, and that Biden should be in his shadow rather than Obama's.

We're definitely going to see some laws about the stuff Trump did that was objectionable, but not illegal.

An obvious one would be that candidates for President would have to release their tax returns.

But there will be much more.

There should be room for bipartisan consensus here. Republicans aren't in the White House, so it's in their immediate interest to establish limits on the executive branch. Democrats get to fix the stuff that bothered them about Trump.

Republicans never cared about anything to hold Democrats accountable for crimes, only the crime of being a Democrat. There was an angle of attack on Bill Clinton which was valid, but they sabotaged that by going after him of flimsy reasons - the real reason this went anywhere was because he was a Democrat. Bill is also losing steam on the left for his gross behaviours, while the GOP emboldened Trump whenever he broke the law. Trump was only breaking the law as soon as he got into office, the GOP did nothing about this then and not doing anything now. Trump is the Republican party, they made him.

[JackDaw]

Negative.

In it's simplest form, it goes a little something like this -

That private citizen who is a tax cheat?

He has no duty to the citizen.

Current office holders who apparently sandbagged footage of the police hassling a nude woman because they raided the wrong house(setting aside that it is a part of a lengthy pattern of such mistaken raids...) or are involved in a statewide instance of a utility fleecing the residents of that state?

Actual existing responsibility to the citizen that comes along with the office that they hold.

One is a pretty legitimate priority. One is worth what it's worth.

Getting the priorities there out of whack is what would actually seem bizarre.

You’re completely losing me.

Of course, a private citizen has a duty to pay his taxes, most especially one like the Donald who has received immense benefits from the American state.

Citizenship is a two way street...citizens (private or otherwise) have responsibilities as well as rights.

You’re not seriously putting the argument, are you that because more serious crimes exist, less serious crimes should not be prosecuted?

That line would result in murders going free because they weren’t mass murderers...and mass murderers not being prosecuted because they weren’t terrorists...

[Kirby101]

You’re completely losing me.

Of course, a private citizen has a duty to pay his taxes, most especially one like the Donald who has received immense benefits from the American state.

Citizenship is a two way street...citizens (private or otherwise) have responsibilities as well as rights.

You’re not seriously putting the argument, are you that because more serious crimes exist, less serious crimes should not be prosecuted?

That line would result in murders going free because they weren’t mass murderers...and mass murderers not being prosecuted because they weren’t terrorists...

His argument is worse than that. Because the Democratic Mayor of Chicago did something wrong, though I don't see how it was a crime. The AG of New York State and the DA of New York City should not prosecute GOP ex-President of serious crimes. One has zero to do with the other.

It's just a ludicrous argument.