Jump to content

Fauci Pardon Idiot Discussion


No Mames Guey

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Bevo said:

 

The weaponization of the Department of Justice has happened but because it is inherently political people will disagree based on their political leanings. And congressmen have absolutely threatened criminal prosecution of their political enemies. Shit, right now Chuck Schumer announced that he and other Senate Democrats will work to advance legislation to strip former President Trump of the immunity he was granted under a recent Supreme Court ruling protecting a president’s official acts from criminal prosecution. And Congressman Bennie Thompson filed a federal suit against Trump. And six Democratic members of Congress sued Bush maintaining that only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war. And Tulsi Gabbard sued Hillary Clinton over defamation. And those were actual lawsuits, not just threats.

What the fuck does this have to do with COVID? Take this to the appropriate forum and thread.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bevo said:

 

You seem to be saying that John Adams didn't go after his political enemies with criminal charges?

 

 

President John Adams oversees passage of first of Alien and Sedition Acts

1798
President John Adams oversees passage of first of Alien and Sedition Acts

President John Adams oversees the passage of the Naturalization Act, the first of four pieces of controversial legislation known together as the Alien and Sedition Acts, on June 18, 1798. Strong political opposition to these acts succeeded in undermining the Adams administration, helping Thomas Jefferson to win the presidency in 1800.

At the time, America was threatened by war with France, and Congress was attempting to pass laws that would give more authority to the federal government, and the president in particular, to deal with suspicious persons, especially foreign nationals. The Naturalization Act raised the requirements for aliens to apply for U.S. citizenship, requiring that immigrants reside in the U.S. for 14 years before becoming eligible. The earlier law had required only five years of residence before an application could be made.

Adams, in fact, never enforced the Naturalization Act. Nevertheless, he came under heavy fire from opponents, led by Vice President Thomas Jefferson, who felt that the Naturalization Act and its companion legislation was unconstitutional and smacked of despotism. So disgusted was Jefferson with Adams’ enthusiastic support of the law that he could no longer support the president and left Washington during the Congressional vote.

Former President George Washington, on the other hand, supported the legislation. Adams signed the second piece of the legislation, the Alien Act, on June 25. This act gave the president the authority to deport aliens during peacetime. The Alien Enemies Act, which Adams signed on July 6, gave him the power to deport any alien living in the U.S. with ties to U.S. wartime enemies. Finally, the Sedition Act, passed on July 14, gave Adams tremendous power to define treasonable activity including any false, scandalous and malicious writing. The intended targets of the Sedition Act were newspaper, pamphlet and broadside publishers who printed what he considered to be libelous articles aimed primarily at his administration. Abigail Adams urged her husband to pass the Sedition Act, calling his opponents criminal and vile.

Of the four acts, the Sedition Act was the most distressing to staunch First Amendment advocates. They objected to the fact that treasonable activity was vaguely defined, was defined at the discretion of the president and would be punished by heavy fines and imprisonment. The arrest and imprisonment of 25 men for supposedly violating the Sedition Act ignited an enormous outcry against the legislation. Among those arrested was Benjamin Franklin’s grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, who was the editor of the Republican-leaning Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora. Citing Adams’ abuse of presidential powers and threats to free speech, Jefferson’s party took control of Congress and the presidency in 1800.

 

Eugene Debs was also prosecuted for sedition because he was a political enemy.

 

Besides those two were there any others criminally prosecuted for being political enemies?

 

 

 

And again Dude ever heard of Debs?

Passing legislation to address perceived problems is again not the same as prosecuting your enemies.  Ever heard of the ex post facto clause?

Adams was dead 150 years before Eugene Debs.

 

Just give it up, your examples are shit and inapposite.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, royiv said:

What the fuck does this have to do with COVID? Take this to the appropriate forum and thread.

Well, 20 people all of the same political persuasion are arguing with me because I said that the preemptive pardoning of Fausi set a dangerous precedent that others will follow in the future. They won't bet me that Trump will use a preemptive pardon within 4 years and they won't admit that it is a problem. And if you go back a page, you can see who made the original post regarding the Fausi pardon that I responded to.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Well, 20 people all of the same political persuasion are arguing with me because I said that the preemptive pardoning of Fausi set a dangerous precedent that others will follow in the future. They won't bet me that Trump will use a preemptive pardon within 4 years and they won't admit that it is a problem. And if you go back a page, you can see who made the original post regarding the Fausi pardon that I responded to.

Who the fuck is Fausi?

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

You seem to be saying that John Adams didn't go after his political enemies with criminal charges?

 

 

President John Adams oversees passage of first of Alien and Sedition Acts

1798
President John Adams oversees passage of first of Alien and Sedition Acts

President John Adams oversees the passage of the Naturalization Act, the first of four pieces of controversial legislation known together as the Alien and Sedition Acts, on June 18, 1798. Strong political opposition to these acts succeeded in undermining the Adams administration, helping Thomas Jefferson to win the presidency in 1800.

At the time, America was threatened by war with France, and Congress was attempting to pass laws that would give more authority to the federal government, and the president in particular, to deal with suspicious persons, especially foreign nationals. The Naturalization Act raised the requirements for aliens to apply for U.S. citizenship, requiring that immigrants reside in the U.S. for 14 years before becoming eligible. The earlier law had required only five years of residence before an application could be made.

Adams, in fact, never enforced the Naturalization Act. Nevertheless, he came under heavy fire from opponents, led by Vice President Thomas Jefferson, who felt that the Naturalization Act and its companion legislation was unconstitutional and smacked of despotism. So disgusted was Jefferson with Adams’ enthusiastic support of the law that he could no longer support the president and left Washington during the Congressional vote.

Former President George Washington, on the other hand, supported the legislation. Adams signed the second piece of the legislation, the Alien Act, on June 25. This act gave the president the authority to deport aliens during peacetime. The Alien Enemies Act, which Adams signed on July 6, gave him the power to deport any alien living in the U.S. with ties to U.S. wartime enemies. Finally, the Sedition Act, passed on July 14, gave Adams tremendous power to define treasonable activity including any false, scandalous and malicious writing. The intended targets of the Sedition Act were newspaper, pamphlet and broadside publishers who printed what he considered to be libelous articles aimed primarily at his administration. Abigail Adams urged her husband to pass the Sedition Act, calling his opponents criminal and vile.

Of the four acts, the Sedition Act was the most distressing to staunch First Amendment advocates. They objected to the fact that treasonable activity was vaguely defined, was defined at the discretion of the president and would be punished by heavy fines and imprisonment. The arrest and imprisonment of 25 men for supposedly violating the Sedition Act ignited an enormous outcry against the legislation. Among those arrested was Benjamin Franklin’s grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, who was the editor of the Republican-leaning Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora. Citing Adams’ abuse of presidential powers and threats to free speech, Jefferson’s party took control of Congress and the presidency in 1800.

 

Eugene Debs was also prosecuted for sedition because he was a political enemy.

 

Besides those two were there any others criminally prosecuted for being political enemies?

 

 

are you a bot?  you have to tell us if you're a bot.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Well, 20 people all of the same political persuasion are arguing with me because I said that the preemptive pardoning of Fausi set a dangerous precedent that others will follow in the future. They won't bet me that Trump will use a preemptive pardon within 4 years and they won't admit that it is a problem. And if you go back a page, you can see who made the original post regarding the Fausi pardon that I responded to.

Yeah. You cloaked a DT  thread and got pantsed. Maybe take a break. 

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

JFC, trump and friends committed legitimate crimes, and prosecuting them is not "weaponization." Lil' donny has talked about prosecuting political enimies where no crimes exist, which is the textbook definition of "weaponization." Of course the majority of the braindead electorate belives the opposite is true, because feelings matter more than facts. There's no use in debating these issues. 

Wait, didn't they have a slogan about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Passing legislation to address perceived problems is again not the same as prosecuting your enemies.  Ever heard of the ex post facto clause?

Adams was dead 150 years before Eugene Debs.

 

Just give it up, your examples are shit and inapposite.

So you are saying using the Sedition act against your political enemies isn't the same as threatening to put a political enemy in jail?

And, I guess this is different because Trump is guilty?

Kamala Harris Says DOJ Would Prosecute Trump If She’s Elected https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/kamala-harris-prosecuting-donald-trump?srsltid=AfmBOooxmIKVj-Z15s048sXtCQb7LBdmPL67e2VLq-sdr0qgIdfErSZa
While Democrats in Congress are at loggerheads over whether to begin impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, Democrats on the campaign trail have been less constrained in their opinion that the president has committed crimes—and should be charged as soon as he is out of office. Jumping on the Lock Him Up bandwagon is California senator Kamala Harris, who told the NPR Politics Podcast in an interview that aired Wednesday that the Department of Justice would have “no choice” but to prosecute Trump once he is no longer president.

What about the political opponents who threatened to criminally prosecute Harry S. Truman for war crimes for his use of the atomic bomb in Japan. And Oppenheimer wasn't criminally charged but he was threatened with criminal charges. How is that different?

 

 

And who the fuck cares about this point - It doesn't change the fact that pardoning Fausi sets a dangerous precedent.

Why do you think it doesn't? Because Trump sucks as a person? I don't get your reasoning.

 

 

 

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/gore-lays-out-a-compelling-indictment-of-bush-actions/

But even after discounting for political motivations, it seems to me that Gore has done a service by laying out the case as clearly and copiously as he has done. His overall charge is that Bush has systematically broken the laws and bent the Constitution by his actions in the national security and domestic anti-terrorism areas. He is not the first to make that complaint. My e-mail has included many messages from people who have leaped far ahead of the evidence and concluded that Bush should be impeached and removed from office for actions they deem to be illegal.

Gore stops well short of that point and contents himself with citing the cases that cause many others concern. The first – and, to my mind, weakest – instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein’s military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did – and so did other governments in the Western alliance.

It is a reach to attempt to make a crime of a policy misjudgment.

But the other cases cited by Gore are more troubling. The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, for which only low-level military personnel have been punished, traces back through higher and untouched levels of command to the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House, all of which failed in their duties to assure that the occupation forces were adhering to recognized international standards for the treatment of prisoners.

Similarly, the administration’s resistance to setting and enforcing clear prohibitions on torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in the war on terrorism raises legitimate questions about its willingness to adhere to the rule of law. From the first days after 9/11, Bush has appeared to believe that he is essentially unconstrained. His oddly equivocal recent signing statement on John McCain’s legislation banning such tactics seemed to say he could ignore the plain terms of the law.

If Judge Samuel Alito is right that “no one is above the law,” then Bush’s supposition deserves to be challenged.

Gore’s final example – on which he has lots of company among legal scholars – is the contention that Bush broke the law in ordering the National Security Agency to monitor domestic phone calls without a warrant from the court Congress had created to supervise all such wiretapping. If – as the Justice Department and the White House insist – the president can flout that law, then it is hard to imagine what power he cannot assert.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has summoned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to a hearing on the warrantless wiretap issue, and that hearing should be the occasion for a broad exploration of the willingness of this administration to be constrained by the Constitution and the laws.

The committee should keep the attorney general on the witness stand as long as it takes – as long as it spent examining the qualifications of Judge Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, if it comes to that. The stakes for the country are that important.

  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

So you are saying using the Sedition act against your political enemies isn't the same as threatening to put a political enemy in jail?

And, I guess this is different because Trump is guilty?

Kamala Harris Says DOJ Would Prosecute Trump If She’s Elected https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/kamala-harris-prosecuting-donald-trump?srsltid=AfmBOooxmIKVj-Z15s048sXtCQb7LBdmPL67e2VLq-sdr0qgIdfErSZa
While Democrats in Congress are at loggerheads over whether to begin impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, Democrats on the campaign trail have been less constrained in their opinion that the president has committed crimes—and should be charged as soon as he is out of office. Jumping on the Lock Him Up bandwagon is California senator Kamala Harris, who told the NPR Politics Podcast in an interview that aired Wednesday that the Department of Justice would have “no choice” but to prosecute Trump once he is no longer president.

What about the political opponents who threatened to criminally prosecute Harry S. Truman for war crimes for his use of the atomic bomb in Japan. And Oppenheimer wasn't criminally charged but he was threatened with criminal charges. How is that different?

And who the fuck cares about this point - It doesn't change the fact that pardoning Fausi sets a dangerous precedent.

Why do you think it doesn't? Because Trump sucks as a person? I don't get your reasoning.

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/gore-lays-out-a-compelling-indictment-of-bush-actions/

But even after discounting for political motivations, it seems to me that Gore has done a service by laying out the case as clearly and copiously as he has done. His overall charge is that Bush has systematically broken the laws and bent the Constitution by his actions in the national security and domestic anti-terrorism areas. He is not the first to make that complaint. My e-mail has included many messages from people who have leaped far ahead of the evidence and concluded that Bush should be impeached and removed from office for actions they deem to be illegal.

Gore stops well short of that point and contents himself with citing the cases that cause many others concern. The first – and, to my mind, weakest – instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein’s military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did – and so did other governments in the Western alliance.

It is a reach to attempt to make a crime of a policy misjudgment.

But the other cases cited by Gore are more troubling. The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, for which only low-level military personnel have been punished, traces back through higher and untouched levels of command to the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House, all of which failed in their duties to assure that the occupation forces were adhering to recognized international standards for the treatment of prisoners.

Similarly, the administration’s resistance to setting and enforcing clear prohibitions on torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in the war on terrorism raises legitimate questions about its willingness to adhere to the rule of law. From the first days after 9/11, Bush has appeared to believe that he is essentially unconstrained. His oddly equivocal recent signing statement on John McCain’s legislation banning such tactics seemed to say he could ignore the plain terms of the law.

If Judge Samuel Alito is right that “no one is above the law,” then Bush’s supposition deserves to be challenged.

Gore’s final example – on which he has lots of company among legal scholars – is the contention that Bush broke the law in ordering the National Security Agency to monitor domestic phone calls without a warrant from the court Congress had created to supervise all such wiretapping. If – as the Justice Department and the White House insist – the president can flout that law, then it is hard to imagine what power he cannot assert.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has summoned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to a hearing on the warrantless wiretap issue, and that hearing should be the occasion for a broad exploration of the willingness of this administration to be constrained by the Constitution and the laws.

The committee should keep the attorney general on the witness stand as long as it takes – as long as it spent examining the qualifications of Judge Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, if it comes to that. The stakes for the country are that important.

IMG_3981.jpeg.ade3ace93501482fb5a21b2214a7361c.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent about 90 seconds with Google and don’t understand the extent of legal protection provided by these “preemptive pardons.” Is Fauci protected from nonsense technicalities that could get him convicted via perjury, or is it a true blank check like if it turned out he killed 5 hookers at Johns Hopkins? Only for things that occurred prior to the pardon, or during Biden’s presidency, or anything he does today forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

I spent about 90 seconds with Google and don’t understand the extent of legal protection provided by these “preemptive pardons.” Is Fauci protected from nonsense technicalities that could get him convicted via perjury, or is it a true blank check like if it turned out he killed 5 hookers at Johns Hopkins? Only for things that occurred prior to the pardon, or during Biden’s presidency, or anything he does today forward?

Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anastasis said:

LOL. Political death spiral is real and has been trademarked since at least 2016. 

Yet we're still here and world keeps spinning. But you'll keep looking for that political purity. It's like the sun rising every morning until it no longer does. I love you, brother. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

See how this works out for you and everyone else. 

Yes, I'm sure that, in 4 years' time, we'll all be lamenting and regretting the time that the dude who has already been through lord knows how many Senate hearings and inquiries was pardoned for not committing any crimes.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aggie08 said:

Yes, I'm sure that, in 4 years' time, we'll all be lamenting and regretting the time that the dude who has already been through lord knows how many Senate hearings and inquiries was pardoned for not committing any crimes.

He dissembled and lied under oath in those hearings.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

He dissembled and lied under oath in those hearings.   

Not in a way that's convictable.  Too much grey area on it.

Aaand placed in context of the 1600 January 6 pardons, which included the most violent offenders, duly convicted by a jury of their peers. This doesn't even scratch the surface.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not in a way that's convictable.  Too much grey area on it.

Aaand placed in context of the 1600 January 6 pardons, which included the most violent offenders, duly convicted by a jury of their peers. This doesn't even scratch the surface.

Nonserious post by a nonserious poster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Rename thread- The Politics of Covid.

Origins. Well it is simple. The Rand Corporation, and Space Nazis got together at Faucci's house one night. Damn Reverse Vampires brought some out of date cream cheese dip.

It's better than the wet bat theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Aaand placed in context of the 1600 January 6 pardons, which included the most violent offenders, duly convicted by a jury of their peers. This doesn't even scratch the surface.

Also horrible politically motivated pardons. Do you see anybody here defending them? Or is this just whataboutism? Now imagine how much worse those pardons would be if they were also pre-emptive, broad, and post dated to cover actions back to 2014. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

pre-emptive pardons stink to high heaven as they provide cover to commit crimes at the pleasure of the President.

However, I am not saying the Fauci pre-emptive pardon is unwarranted unfortunately (or several others issued by Biden). The hand of government, steered by political players with less than pure intentions, has the power to destroy the life of a person who for most seem to believe were just doing their job.

re: Cheney, Kinzinger

 

I mean at some point do we need to have a discussion about the Justice Department needing to be severed from the Executive Branch.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, when the government criminally prosecutes someone, it is absolutely the most acute pitting of the government against the individual, and the power imbalance is enormous.

I think that's the way it should be seen and why we have a presumption of innocence and various other procedural safeguards available (at least to those with the savvy, lawyers, and finances to assert them).

When an incoming administration has sworn to prosecute people ahead of any criminal investigation and without serious regard to their actual guilt, but because of their political opposition, or even more petty reasons (making Trump look bad), I can't really argue with a pardon to preempt that.

Among Biden's pardons, Hunter's is certainly worse, as he was investigated, tried, and found guilty.  When the facts are as bad as they were against Hunter, the notion of a prosecution being "political" kind of loses any significance.

The same is also true of Trump's criminal charges.

I am a big fan of pardons, more specifically commutations of sentences.  The justice machine reaches some really draconian results in too many cases.  But, that has little bearing on this.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

The way I see it, when the government criminally prosecutes someone, it is absolutely the most acute pitting of the government against the individual, and the power imbalance is enormous.

I think that's the way it should be seen and why we have a presumption of innocence and various other procedural safeguards available (at least to those with the savvy, lawyers, and finances to assert them).

When an incoming administration has sworn to prosecute people ahead of any criminal investigation and without serious regard to their actual guilt, but because of their political opposition, or even more petty reasons (making Trump look bad), I can't really argue with a pardon to preempt that.

Among Biden's pardons, Hunter's is certainly worse, as he was investigated, tried, and found guilty.  When the facts are as bad as they were against Hunter, the notion of a prosecution being "political" kind of loses any significance.

what about pardoning the mastermind of an international illegal drug trade who was convicted by a jury, upheld by the 2nd circuit, and denied cert by the supreme court? why not go ahead and throw el chapo a pardon as well? wait, he's not white and from westlake. my bad.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Can you please unpack what this is supposed to mean?

*copy paste* 

Oh, I think it's clear.

*begin the deliberate derail*

Just kidding! Here's the point-

You're a libertarian asshole who offers no solutions to problems. You just bitch about the natural consequences of the political environment that is way more to your preferences than mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, regarding Woodrow Wilson and Eugene Debs.

Many prosecutions have some political elements to them, sure.  No argument there.

And the Alien and Sedition Acts have a sorry history of attempting to criminalize dissident, but not criminal speech.

The Debs prosecution was a pretty shameful episode in our history, both for the law applied and the way the prosecution was conducted, although Debs was his own worst enemy there.  And we already knew Wilson was a piece of shit.

Also Debs ran for President from prison.  Obviously, he was not elected, but a precedent for Trump.  His sentence was commuted by Harding, which I find highly appropriate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sidis said:

what about pardoning the mastermind of an international illegal drug trade who was convicted by a jury, upheld by the 2nd circuit, and denied cert by the supreme court? why not go ahead and throw el chapo a pardon as well? wait, he's not white and from westlake. my bad.

I think his sentence is overlong.  I would favor a commutation of all but maybe 10-15 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sidis said:

what about pardoning the mastermind of an international illegal drug trade who was convicted by a jury, upheld by the 2nd circuit, and denied cert by the supreme court? why not go ahead and throw el chapo a pardon as well? wait, he's not white and from westlake. my bad.

A pardon for Chapo is there for the taking.

All he has to do is find a way to funnel some of his many millions to Trumpco.  He should instruct his fellas to buy a shitload of Trump memecoins and NFTs, and let Trump know about it.  He'll have his pardon within a week.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

*copy paste* 

Oh, I think it's clear.

*begin the deliberate derail*

Just kidding! Here's the point-

You're a libertarian asshole who offers no solutions to problems. You just bitch about the natural consequences of the political environment that is way more to your preferences than mine.

Right, so just a waste of oxygen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2025 at 2:09 PM, Bevo said:

 

The weaponization of the Department of Justice has happened but because it is inherently political people will disagree based on their political leanings. And congressmen have absolutely threatened criminal prosecution of their political enemies. Shit, right now Chuck Schumer announced that he and other Senate Democrats will work to advance legislation to strip former President Trump of the immunity he was granted under a recent Supreme Court ruling protecting a president’s official acts from criminal prosecution. And Congressman Bennie Thompson filed a federal suit against Trump. And six Democratic members of Congress sued Bush maintaining that only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war. And Tulsi Gabbard sued Hillary Clinton over defamation. And those were actual lawsuits, not just threats.

Congress can do what it wants with its own powers - investigatory and passing laws, that’s checks and balances  - the weaponization of the DOJ is something that largely really hasn’t happened outside of Trump’s attempts term 1 or his threats pre term 2. There have been plenty of special prosecutors but those by design are removed from the chain of command to precisely avoid interference. Unfortunately, the independence of the DOJ only exists to the extent the president and the AG respect the institution. 4 years accusing Biden of weaponization so the public is desensitized when Trump actually does it. It’s FAFO time. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, troph said:

Congress can do what it wants with its own powers - investigatory and passing laws, that’s checks and balances  - the weaponization of the DOJ is something that largely really hasn’t happened outside of Trump’s attempts term 1 or his threats pre term 2. There have been plenty of special prosecutors but those by design are removed from the chain of command to precisely avoid interference. Unfortunately, the independence of the DOJ only exists to the extent the president and the AG respect the institution. 4 years accusing Biden of weaponization so the public is desensitized when Trump actually does it. It’s FAFO time. 

Yes, please.  Special Counsel or Special Prosecutors are not special because they have any special powers, really.

They are appointed when there is a conflict of interest between the "line" Department of Justice and the defendant or target of the investigation, usually also part of the Executive, or the interests of the Attorney General, or a Deputy, or the President, for example.

People have this persistent idea that Special Counsel are some kind of "Uber prosecutor" appointed when we're super srs about some crime.  That's not it at all.

They are special in the sense that they usually have just one job, as opposed to the many things pulling on US Attorneys, and their "jurisdiction" is not somewhat geographically limited in the same way as US Attorneys.  And they tend to be very good prosecutors.  But other than that, they're not so special.

Garland did not appoint Smith because he finally got serious about Trump, it was because Trump declared his candidacy against the sitting President, nominal head of DOJ, making the conflict of interest more real and less theoretical.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...