Capitol Insurrection / rebellion thread

[Bodakane]

Blaming Biden for not forcing the DoJ to prosecute a former president is also kinda weird. It’s basically blaming him for not being Trump who was constantly pressuring the DoJ to do things. I don’t want a president who is directly involved in our judicial process. I actually believe that separation of executive, legislative, and judicial power is important.

I addressed how it’s different than what Trump did. Trump wanted Sessions to do things outside of his job. This isn’t that.

Again you guys are railing against a potential action that a President is allowed to take but traditionally doesn’t. Pressuring an AG to do the actual job of being an AG, is not unreasonable, wrong, illegal or out of line.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a terrible argument.

No President should have the capacity to apply pressure to the Department of Justice, regarding its proceedings.

And the DoJ should not be wary and cautious about charging sitting politicians with their crimes.

There should be no immunity to prosecutions for any political figure.

If justice is bent by politics, it is no longer justice.

And before anyone says "that would never work", that's how it literally is here in Canada. Any member of Parliament who gets charged with a crime (not convicted, just officially charged) is immediately removed from office, and a special election gets arranged to replace them. This is true even if it's the Prime Minister. Not in a "you have three weeks to settle your affairs" sense, but in a "we'll give you 5 minutes to give a farewell statement before we cuff you" sense.

100,000% this ^

[Edge-]

I addressed how it’s different than what Trump did. Trump wanted Sessions to do things outside of his job. This isn’t that.

Trump wanted Sessions to do stuff that was not part of the office of the AG

Like what? You didn't cite what Trump wanted Sessions to do that was not part of the AG's office.

Pressuring an AG to do the actual job of being an AG, is not unreasonable, wrong, illegal or out of line.

The actual job according to whom?

[Bodakane]

Like what? You didn't cite what Trump wanted Sessions to do that was not part of the AG's office.



The actual job according to whom?

Trump wanted Sessions to obstruct justice. I’m saying if there’s evidence to convict over the insurrection stuff, and they don’t then that’s the opposite of what Trump wanted…because the AGs job is to seek justice. Not play politics.

[Edge-]

I’m saying if there’s evidence to convict over the insurrection stuff, and they don’t then that’s the opposite of what Trump wanted…because the AGs job is to seek justice. Not play politics.

Ok, but you keep coming as if you know this evidence exists and failure to prosecute would be a failure on Biden, rather than a simple lack of evidence for a formal investigation or charges.

Because while we KNOW Trump and others were wrong, it may not rise to the level of actual criminal behavior under current law. Even if we all believe that it absolutely should.

[Bodakane]

Ok, but you keep coming as if you know this evidence exists and failure to prosecute would be a failure on Biden, rather than a simple lack of evidence for a formal investigation or charges.

Because while we KNOW Trump and others were wrong, it may not rise to the level of actual criminal behavior under current law. Even if we all believe that it absolutely should.

I have not given that impression at all. I have over and over and over and over that this hypothetical and an if. Cmon, you’re better than this

[PhaelixWW]

You did when you asked the question in the context it was asked in. There’s literally no need to ask that question unless you think they are comparable.

No, see, people always get this wrong. Two things don't need to be the same thing to be compared. In fact, there's no point in comparing things that are the exact same. You can, however, compare things in part based on partial similarity.

In this case, both examples were cases where people do things that they know they shouldn't do, simply because they think that "justice" is more important than principle.

You came back with the fact that planting evidence is illegal.

Okay, then, what about gerrymandering? Are you okay with gerrymandering? It's not illegal, but it's wrong. The people who do it would say that it's necessary to prevent their political viewpoint from being voted out, so in their mind, it's justified. But trying to maintain political relevance by essentially cheating, regardless of whether or not it's illegal to do so, is wrong.

The ends don't always justify the means, even if the means are not illegal.

[Bodakane]

No, see, people always get this wrong. Two things don't need to be the same thing to be compared. In fact, there's no point in comparing things that are the exact same. You can, however, compare things in part based on partial similarity.

In this case, both examples were cases where people do things that they know they shouldn't do, simply because they think that "justice" is more important than principle.

You came back with the fact that planting evidence is illegal.

Okay, then, what about gerrymandering? Are you okay with gerrymandering? It's not illegal, but it's wrong. The people who do it would say that it's necessary to prevent their political viewpoint from being voted out, so in their mind, it's justified. But trying to maintain political relevance by essentially cheating, regardless of whether or not it's illegal to do so, is wrong.

The ends don't always justify the means, even if the means are not illegal.

No the comparison is bad and it’s irrelevant.

Theres nothing inherently wrong about what I’m proposing.

[PhaelixWW]

No the comparison is bad and it’s irrelevant.

Theres nothing inherently wrong about what I’m proposing.

No, your argument is horribad, and I win the internet forever.





Did I do that right? Because that's what you sound like right now: a 6-year-old.

[Bodakane]

No, your argument is horribad, and I win the internet forever.





Did I do that right? Because that's what you sound like right now: a 6-year-old.

Again this is dumb and that’s not what I’ve done.

The POTUS hires the AG and the POTUS is the one that can remove the AG. That is fact and it is legal and allowed.

[beanman12345]

AG is appointed by POTUS and hired by Congress. Similarly AG can be fired by both.

[Edge-]

The POTUS hires the AG and the POTUS is the one that can remove the AG. That is fact and it is legal and allowed.

POTUS nominates the AG, who is confirmed by the Senate. They aren't hired, they're approved by the Legislature. Yes, the POTUS can then fire the AG and have an acting AG while a replacement is being nominated and confirmed, but the AG isn't designed as or supposed to be under the total control of the POTUS.

The AG can also be impeached and removed by the Legislature via impeachment (which has never happened, but is a political mechanism to remove them), so they can also be removed absent the direction of the POTUS.

[PhaelixWW]

Because that's what you sound like right now: a 6-year-old.

Again this is dumb and that’s not what I’ve done.

/biggest-eyeroll-ever

Case. In. Point.

[cubby]

No, your argument is horribad, and I win the internet forever.

Did I do that right? Because that's what you sound like right now: a 6-year-old.

Yeah, he must have not gone to sleep last night. He's still doing the "i'm never wrong even though documents I cited proved me wrong" thing, so we'll just have to wait it out.

Meanwhile, in reality, we see that Biden is going to be hands off with regards to criminal investigations from the DoJ. Garland is untouchable politically because his retirement is secured (govt pension), and if he resigns he would easily pick up an equity partnership in any one of a dozen major international law firms.

So Boda's point is entirely wrong. Still.

[beanman12345]

/biggest-eyeroll-ever

Case. In. Point.

misquote =P

[PhaelixWW]

misquote =P

Ah, yes, must have misclicked your post initially. Was wondering why the line was missing; I ended up copy/pasted it instead. Should have just restarted the whole response.

Fixed now.

[Bodakane]

/biggest-eyeroll-ever

Case. In. Point.

Calling your dumb point dumb doesn't;t make me a child. You thinking it made sense however......

Once again, explain to me why a POTUS pressuring an AG to uphold the law is wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, he must have not gone to sleep last night. He's still doing the "i'm never wrong even though documents I cited proved me wrong" thing, so we'll just have to wait it out.

Meanwhile, in reality, we see that Biden is going to be hands off with regards to criminal investigations from the DoJ. Garland is untouchable politically because his retirement is secured (govt pension), and if he resigns he would easily pick up an equity partnership in any one of a dozen major international law firms.

So Boda's point is entirely wrong. Still.

#1. You can talk to me, you know.
#2. The articles in question didn't in anyway disprove a single thing I said. Nothing. All they said was that Biden says he won't interfere. I said two things:

A) If there's sufficient evidence to prosecute and the AG doesn't, it will be because Biden told him not too.
OR
B) If there's sufficient evidence to prosecute and the AG doesn't, it will be because Biden doesn't interfere and force him too.

Please, Counselor, in detail explain how any article you're carrying on about proves 1 or 2 wrong.

Not only do your articles not contradict A or B, but also, since when is a person saying they won't do something proof they won't do that thing? For fuck's sake, if a person saying he won't do something is proof they won't do that thing, why the fuck do we have courts, lawyers, etc?

#3. Garland is not untouchable politically. Having a job waiting for him in the private sector, doesn'tmake someone untouchable politically. That's an incredibly wrongheaded take.

#4. If you think you've said or provided a single thing that disproves my argument then, I've either given you waaaaayyyyyyyyy too much credit in the past or you just flat out don't even know what my argument is and are just reacting because its me saying something unflattering about Biden. The only way to show which is true is for you to tell me what you think my point is.

- - - Updated - - -

POTUS nominates the AG, who is confirmed by the Senate. They aren't hired, they're approved by the Legislature. Yes, the POTUS can then fire the AG and have an acting AG while a replacement is being nominated and confirmed, but the AG isn't designed as or supposed to be under the total control of the POTUS.

The AG can also be impeached and removed by the Legislature via impeachment (which has never happened, but is a political mechanism to remove them), so they can also be removed absent the direction of the POTUS.

Yes....and?????

[PhaelixWW]

Calling your dumb point dumb doesn't;t make me a child. You thinking it made sense however......

Oh, I see. You're rubber and I'm glue, so what I say bounces off you and sticks to me. Got it.

Once again, explain to me why a POTUS pressuring an AG to uphold the law is wrong.

Because:

Harvard LPR: The Attorney General Should Be Separate

The Office of the Attorney General was established in 1789 as part of The Judiciary Act of 1789. The Act, among other things, established the makeup of the Supreme Court and its exclusive jurisdiction and also the lower court structure. One of the powers the Act gave to the Supreme Court, writs of mandamus, was the subject of the famous Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison. The Judiciary Act of 1789 also established the Office of the Attorney General.

Given recent actions of the current Attorney General, William Barr, as well as the inherent conflicts we have seen in past administrations, we must revisit the independence of the Office of the Attorney General and its location within the executive branch. The states’ model for an independent Attorney General is a good one to replicate, and would return the position to what the Founding Fathers intended. An Attorney General beholden to the President in any Administration is a recipe for partisanship and protecting the President instead of acting as an independent law enforcement official ensuring the laws are faithfully executed.

The Judiciary Act of 1789

As noted, the Act established the Office of the Attorney General. Specifically, Section 35 of the Act provides:

And there shall also be appointed a meet person, learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States, who shall be sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of his office, whose duty it shall be to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments . . . .

However, the original drafts of the Act contemplated that the Supreme Court would appoint the Attorney General, as noted by Charles Warren in his Harvard Law Review article, New Light on the History of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789.

The language that eventually emerged in Section 35 was not definitive on the President appointing the Attorney General; rather, it was silent. As history writer David Tollen wrote on the site, Pints of History:

The Framers of the Constitution did not consciously grant the President authority to hire and fire the Attorney General. . . . [T]he first drafts of the Judiciary Act of 1789, written by several of the Framers, said the Supreme Court would appoint the Attorney General. The act’s final draft, on the other hand, said nothing about who would hire or fire these lawyers.

The early Presidents just stepped into the void and made government attorneys part of their administrations.

There is no reason that the office needs to remain as part of the United States executive branch.

States as Potential Models

As Tollen noted, “Forty-eight of our state governors cannot fire their AG at will, so they can’t avoid justice through control of state prosecutors.” Forty-three states elect their attorney generals.

A typical format is found in Illinois. The position is created pursuant to the state constitution, currently at Article V, Section 1 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution. The original Illinois Constitution, adopted in 1818, “authorized the General Assembly to appoint an Attorney General and to regulate his duties by law.” The Illinois Attorney General role was “[a]dapted constitutionally and legislatively over the years to meet the needs of a growing State.” But whether appointed or elected, the Illinois Attorney General has always been independent from, and not beholden to, the Illinois Governor.

[Bodakane]

Oh, I see. You're rubber and I'm glue, so what I say bounces off you and sticks to me. Got it.





Because:

Harvard LPR: The Attorney General Should Be Separate

Its literally what you did.


Awesome.

Yet, the President gets the person the job and is the only person that can directly fire the AG. That's power over the position. You are literally arguing that if an AG gets the job and does literally nothing, the POTUS shouldn't be allowed to remove that person even though they can. Think about your argument.

[DarkTZeratul]

Yet, the President gets the person the job and is the only person that can directly fire the AG. That's power over the position. You are literally arguing that if an AG gets the job and does literally nothing, the POTUS shouldn't be allowed to remove that person even though they can. Think about your argument.

Wow, I haven't seen that big a strawman since Hallow's End.

No, that's not his argument. His argument is that the President should get out of the way and let the AG do his damn job, not pressure them into acting a certain way on certain cases.

[Bodakane]

Wow, I haven't seen that big a strawman since Hallow's End.

No, that's not his argument. His argument is that the President should get out of the way and let the AG do his damn job, not pressure them into acting a certain way on certain cases.

Its not a strawman at all. We aren't talking about anything nebulous or generalized.

We are and have been talking about a specific hypothetical scenario. In that scenario, the AG would be presented with sufficient evidence to prosecute Trump and congressmen/women and chose not to follow through with prosecution. That's the AG not doing his job. The president is, by law, allowed to step in and pressure/fire an AG for not doing their job.

So not a strawman at all. It is however, either terrible reading comprehension on your part or a cautionary tale on the perils of skimming.