The Deranged Jack Smith Signing
-
Ok, if not, I found the link just now: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000191-9582-d690-a9f3-dfff52f50000
Anyway, to answer your question, no I didn't think it was lawfare at all. I know, if you're on the right you think I'm an idiot, but let's think about this in a bubble. And keep in mind, from a civics perspective, the peaceful transfer of power and the Constitution should be the most protected rituals and artifacts for our country to survive.
Read the indictment, replace Trump with "Obama" or just any President and look at the facts (both in the indictment and in general what we already know)... I think it is highly appropriate, damn it is incumbent upon us as a country, to perform a federal investigation into such an unprecedented and egregious abuse of influence and power to try and disrupt a Presidential election and transfer of power with such fraudulent claims (and the ripple effect of the lives lost and impacted by those who believed the lies). But just read the indictment, replace Trump with Biden, or Obama, or any President name and if you think that is something the DOJ shouldn't investigate then we're just on different pages. It was not lawfare. It was justice and due process.
And I know this next statement will hold no water because of "lawfare" but think about this, if Trump hadn't won, his dozens of felonies (found guilty), sexual assault (liable), fraud (guilty and fined), etc... would've potentially seen Trump in federal prison after following due process in the courts and by juries. But I guess it was just a big conspiracy because Trump has mean tweets and Biden was out to get him.
-
@89th I was content to let the court proceedings play out, mostly because I wanted more clarity from arguments from both sides about where the line between Trump believing his own delusions (a human failing, which is not difficult to find amongst the masses), and illegal plans for a takeover of our very democracy. I'm aware that a lot of the most severe rhetorical dunks aren't fair framings. The "fake elector" scheme for instance was a contingency plan for electors to be available if election fraud was ever established, which obviously it never was. In any case, no plan, even the most egregious if you accept those framings, was viable without SCOTUS complicity. Ultimately, that's why I was never overwhelmed with emotion by any of it. Because even the worst framings from the most motivated opposition, boil down to fantasies.
-
Fair enough. I can put it even more simply (I do have a simple brain), to me... investigating all the stuff the President (not just a normal citizen, but the person losing power) did to try and prevent the winner from being sworn in makes sense to me. Doesn't matter who it was, it deserved an investigation. Even if the result is nothing, that is not lawfare.
To me, lawfare would be asking the DOJ to just go...you know, go find something, anything, maybe plant evidence (ok joking), but do whatever...just use the agency to dig for bodies in order to smear an opponent.
Not joking, typing that out just reminded me of Trump's call to Ukraine to ask them to find evidence he can use against Biden in the 2020 election. Maybe that is one reason Trump is so quick to throw Zelensky under the tank.
-
Selective prosecution is lawfare, and it is not easily agreed upon what is or is not selective prosecution. I do know that Trump was facing several hundred years over the document cases. I'm fairly confident that that is selective prosecution, and that if any former president had had documents in their private residence, it would not have been prosecuted. Granted, Trump gave the authorities the middle finger when they asked for them back, which former presidents would not have done. I remember well the rhetoric at the time. How the nuclear codes were there, how Trump was probably selling them to Russia. It is the context of that sort of rhetoric that we're supposed to take talking points seriously to this day.
-
That is true, and a separate indictment. But yes I'd imagine there wouldn't have been a pursuit by the DOJ in the classified documents case had Trump not denied his election loss and lied to get folks to stop the process so he didn't have to leave office. I'd say the classified documents indictment was 60% selective prosecution and the election interference was 10% selective prosecution. Clearly these numbers were not just made up in my head just now.
-
Ok, if not, I found the link just now: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000191-9582-d690-a9f3-dfff52f50000
Anyway, to answer your question, no I didn't think it was lawfare at all. I know, if you're on the right you think I'm an idiot, but let's think about this in a bubble. And keep in mind, from a civics perspective, the peaceful transfer of power and the Constitution should be the most protected rituals and artifacts for our country to survive.
Read the indictment, replace Trump with "Obama" or just any President and look at the facts (both in the indictment and in general what we already know)... I think it is highly appropriate, damn it is incumbent upon us as a country, to perform a federal investigation into such an unprecedented and egregious abuse of influence and power to try and disrupt a Presidential election and transfer of power with such fraudulent claims (and the ripple effect of the lives lost and impacted by those who believed the lies). But just read the indictment, replace Trump with Biden, or Obama, or any President name and if you think that is something the DOJ shouldn't investigate then we're just on different pages. It was not lawfare. It was justice and due process.
And I know this next statement will hold no water because of "lawfare" but think about this, if Trump hadn't won, his dozens of felonies (found guilty), sexual assault (liable), fraud (guilty and fined), etc... would've potentially seen Trump in federal prison after following due process in the courts and by juries. But I guess it was just a big conspiracy because Trump has mean tweets and Biden was out to get him.
@89th said in The Deranged Jack Smith Signing:
Ok, if not, I found the link just now: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000191-9582-d690-a9f3-dfff52f50000
Anyway, to answer your question, no I didn't think it was lawfare at all. I know, if you're on the right you think I'm an idiot, but let's think about this in a bubble. And keep in mind, from a civics perspective, the peaceful transfer of power and the Constitution should be the most protected rituals and artifacts for our country to survive.
Read the indictment, replace Trump with "Obama" or just any President and look at the facts (both in the indictment and in general what we already know)... I think it is highly appropriate, damn it is incumbent upon us as a country, to perform a federal investigation into such an unprecedented and egregious abuse of influence and power to try and disrupt a Presidential election and transfer of power with such fraudulent claims (and the ripple effect of the lives lost and impacted by those who believed the lies). But just read the indictment, replace Trump with Biden, or Obama, or any President name and if you think that is something the DOJ shouldn't investigate then we're just on different pages. It was not lawfare. It was justice and due process.
And I know this next statement will hold no water because of "lawfare" but think about this, if Trump hadn't won, his dozens of felonies (found guilty), sexual assault (liable), fraud (guilty and fined), etc... would've potentially seen Trump in federal prison after following due process in the courts and by juries. But I guess it was just a big conspiracy because Trump has mean tweets and Biden was out to get him.
Nope, on this issue, you're an idiot. Smith was not legally appointed. His mandate was a fishing expedition and selective prosecution originating in the Biden Whitehouse for pure political purposes.
In the end, Jack Smith helped reelect Donald Trump.
As for weaponizing the DOJ...Get your fingers out of your ears and listen to what Bondi, Patel and Bongino are saying. In their view Justice has been politically weaponized and it is time for a return to as much an apolitical department as possible.
Until proved otherwise, I'd take them at their word.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Fair enough. I can put it even more simply (I do have a simple brain), to me... investigating all the stuff the President (not just a normal citizen, but the person losing power) did to try and prevent the winner from being sworn in makes sense to me. Doesn't matter who it was, it deserved an investigation. Even if the result is nothing, that is not lawfare.
To me, lawfare would be asking the DOJ to just go...you know, go find something, anything, maybe plant evidence (ok joking), but do whatever...just use the agency to dig for bodies in order to smear an opponent.
Not joking, typing that out just reminded me of Trump's call to Ukraine to ask them to find evidence he can use against Biden in the 2020 election. Maybe that is one reason Trump is so quick to throw Zelensky under the tank.
@89th said in The Deranged Jack Smith Signing:
typing that out just reminded me of Trump's call to Ukraine to ask them to find evidence he can use against Biden in the 2020 election.
Actually, Trump was asking about Biden (and Biden's family) to see if there was some graft going on. You can't blame him, since Biden had bragged about having an investigation stopped. Remember the famous SOB quote?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@89th said in The Deranged Jack Smith Signing:
Ok, if not, I found the link just now: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000191-9582-d690-a9f3-dfff52f50000
Anyway, to answer your question, no I didn't think it was lawfare at all. I know, if you're on the right you think I'm an idiot, but let's think about this in a bubble. And keep in mind, from a civics perspective, the peaceful transfer of power and the Constitution should be the most protected rituals and artifacts for our country to survive.
Read the indictment, replace Trump with "Obama" or just any President and look at the facts (both in the indictment and in general what we already know)... I think it is highly appropriate, damn it is incumbent upon us as a country, to perform a federal investigation into such an unprecedented and egregious abuse of influence and power to try and disrupt a Presidential election and transfer of power with such fraudulent claims (and the ripple effect of the lives lost and impacted by those who believed the lies). But just read the indictment, replace Trump with Biden, or Obama, or any President name and if you think that is something the DOJ shouldn't investigate then we're just on different pages. It was not lawfare. It was justice and due process.
And I know this next statement will hold no water because of "lawfare" but think about this, if Trump hadn't won, his dozens of felonies (found guilty), sexual assault (liable), fraud (guilty and fined), etc... would've potentially seen Trump in federal prison after following due process in the courts and by juries. But I guess it was just a big conspiracy because Trump has mean tweets and Biden was out to get him.
Nope, on this issue, you're an idiot. Smith was not legally appointed. His mandate was a fishing expedition and selective prosecution originating in the Biden Whitehouse for pure political purposes.
In the end, Jack Smith helped reelect Donald Trump.
As for weaponizing the DOJ...Get your fingers out of your ears and listen to what Bondi, Patel and Bongino are saying. In their view Justice has been politically weaponized and it is time for a return to as much an apolitical department as possible.
Until proved otherwise, I'd take them at their word.
@Jolly said in The Deranged Jack Smith Signing:
As for weaponizing the DOJ...Get your fingers out of your ears and listen to what Bondi, Patel and Bongino are saying. In their view Justice has been politically weaponized and it is time for a return to as much an apolitical department as possible.
Until proved otherwise, I'd take them at their word.
I presume you listen to those right wing folks to balance out the center and left wing media you listen to as well, or do you just listen to one echo chamber room?
-
@89th said in The Deranged Jack Smith Signing:
typing that out just reminded me of Trump's call to Ukraine to ask them to find evidence he can use against Biden in the 2020 election.
Actually, Trump was asking about Biden (and Biden's family) to see if there was some graft going on. You can't blame him, since Biden had bragged about having an investigation stopped. Remember the famous SOB quote?
@Jolly said in The Deranged Jack Smith Signing:
@89th said in The Deranged Jack Smith Signing:
typing that out just reminded me of Trump's call to Ukraine to ask them to find evidence he can use against Biden in the 2020 election.
Actually, Trump was asking about Biden (and Biden's family) to see if there was some graft going on. You can't blame him, since Biden had bragged about having an investigation stopped. Remember the famous SOB quote?
As always, switch the names Trump and Biden and see how you feel. Same with every news story.
-
@Jolly said in The Deranged Jack Smith Signing:
As for weaponizing the DOJ...Get your fingers out of your ears and listen to what Bondi, Patel and Bongino are saying. In their view Justice has been politically weaponized and it is time for a return to as much an apolitical department as possible.
Until proved otherwise, I'd take them at their word.
I presume you listen to those right wing folks to balance out the center and left wing media you listen to as well, or do you just listen to one echo chamber room?
@89th said in The Deranged Jack Smith Signing:
@Jolly said in The Deranged Jack Smith Signing:
As for weaponizing the DOJ...Get your fingers out of your ears and listen to what Bondi, Patel and Bongino are saying. In their view Justice has been politically weaponized and it is time for a return to as much an apolitical department as possible.
Until proved otherwise, I'd take them at their word.
I presume you listen to those right wing folks to balance out the center and left wing media you listen to as well, or do you just listen to one echo chamber room?
Do you listen to anything besides your preconceived utterances?
