1. #5081
    Quote Originally Posted by TEHPALLYTANK View Post
    Wait, why are you placing all of blame on Biden if it is Garland who fails to act? Why would Garland failing to do his job properly be Biden's fault?

    In the scenario of Garland failing to act, it is on Garland for failing to act. Biden doesn't have some mind-control chip that dictates whether or not Garland takes action or not. Biden could reasonably be faulted for appointing Garland, but it is completely unreasonable to place 100% of the blame on Biden if Garland fails to take appropriate action.
    I literally explained it clearly.

    Biden could pressure Garland to act.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  2. #5082
    I am Murloc! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    5,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    That's not the same fucking thing at all. Jesus.
    You seem confused. Who said it was the same thing?


    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    I'm not asking for any laws to be broken.
    Do laws have to be broken for a thing to be wrong?


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  3. #5083
    Immortal TEHPALLYTANK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Texas(I wish it were CO)
    Posts
    7,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    I literally explained it clearly.

    Biden could pressure Garland to act.
    And how exactly does that make it Biden's responsibility instead of Garland's? That is the part you've neglected to explain. Why wouldn't it be Garland's fault if Garland failed to prosecute when he had sufficient evidence to do so?

    You're absolving Garland of all responsibility with your statements, and I'm asking why you're doing that. I don't understand your insistence that Garland not be held accountable for his own actions, or lack of action.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigbamboozal View Post
    Intelligence is like four wheel drive, it's not going to make you unstoppable, it just sort of tends to get you stuck in more remote places.
    Quote Originally Posted by MerinPally View Post
    If you want to be disgusted, next time you kiss someone remember you've got your mouth on the end of a tube which has shit at the other end, held back by a couple of valves.

  4. #5084
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Berenstein Timeline
    Posts
    55,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    I literally explained it clearly.

    Biden could pressure Garland to act.
    Tbh I'd rather Garland take the opposite tack and kill unitary executive theory once and for all; namely by rescinding that DOJ memo about prosecuting sitting Presidents.
    Every heartwarming human interest story in America is like "he raised $20,000 to keep 200 orphans from being crushed in the orphan-crushing machine" and then never asks why an orphan-crushing machine exists or why you'd need to pay to prevent it from being used.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    so ? Teacher is about teaching, not education.

  5. #5085
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    I literally explained it clearly.

    Biden could pressure Garland to act.
    Let me pose a hypothetical. Say Biden does pressure Garland but the DoJ still doesn’t prosecute. What then?

  6. #5086
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    You seem confused. Who said it was the same thing?



    Do laws have to be broken for a thing to be wrong?
    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 laws dont have to be broken for something to be wrong. For example, not prosecuting someone who happened to be president if there’s real evidence he fomented an insurrection that got people killed is not illegal, is wrong.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by TEHPALLYTANK View Post
    And how exactly does that make it Biden's responsibility instead of Garland's? That is the part you've neglected to explain. Why wouldn't it be Garland's fault if Garland failed to prosecute when he had sufficient evidence to do so?

    You're absolving Garland of all responsibility with your statements, and I'm asking why you're doing that. I don't understand your insistence that Garland not be held accountable for his own actions, or lack of action.
    I’m not saying it wouldn’t reflect poorly on Garland at all. I’m saying if there’s evidence and Garland doesn’t go for it, then he isn’t doing his job. Guess who can remove him for not doing his job?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Tbh I'd rather Garland take the opposite tack and kill unitary executive theory once and for all; namely by rescinding that DOJ memo about prosecuting sitting Presidents.
    Sure do that too.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Let me pose a hypothetical. Say Biden does pressure Garland but the DoJ still doesn’t prosecute. What then?
    Then he removes him from office for not doing his job and replaces him. I understand no one likes the optics if that because of Trump. But there’s a major difference here, Trump wanted Sessions to do stuff that was not part of the office of the AG, whereas in this hypothetical Garland would be removed for not doing his job.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  7. #5087
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    I’m not saying it wouldn’t reflect poorly on Garland at all. I’m saying if there’s evidence and Garland doesn’t go for it, then he isn’t doing his job. Guess who can remove him for not doing his job?
    Garland needs more than just evidence to prosecute Trump. He needs to know there is a high probability of Trump being found guilty. The absolute worst thing would be to have some big circus trial (and you KNOW it will be a circus) and then Trump be found innocent. That is a judgment call that the Attorney General needs to make, not armchair quarterbacks on internet forums.

  8. #5088
    Quote Originally Posted by solinari6 View Post
    Garland needs more than just evidence to prosecute Trump. He needs to know there is a high probability of Trump being found guilty. The absolute worst thing would be to have some big circus trial (and you KNOW it will be a circus) and then Trump be found innocent. That is a judgment call that the Attorney General needs to make, not armchair quarterbacks on internet forums.
    To me that line of thinking is part of the problem. That’s politics over justice. Wrong is wrong.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  9. #5089
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    To me that line of thinking is part of the problem. That’s politics over justice. Wrong is wrong.
    You want prosecutors to bring cases with flimsy evidence when they know it isn't enough for a conviction? that's kinda crazy

  10. #5090
    Quote Originally Posted by solinari6 View Post
    You want prosecutors to bring cases with flimsy evidence when they know it isn't enough for a conviction? that's kinda crazy
    Sigh. I have made real effort to consistently qualify that in the hypothetical that there’s evidence to prosecute. So either you didn’t read it or you’re arguing in bad faith.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  11. #5091
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    Sigh. I have made real effort to consistently qualify that in the hypothetical that there’s evidence to prosecute. So either you didn’t read it or you’re arguing in bad faith.
    But "there's evidence to prosecute" is always a judgement call. SOMEONE has to make that judgement. And it's not YOU. And it's not Biden either, he isn't a prosecutor! That's why he hires people with experience that he can trust
    Last edited by solinari6; 2021-08-04 at 02:54 PM.

  12. #5092
    Quote Originally Posted by solinari6 View Post
    But "there's evidence to prosecute" is always a judgement call. SOMEONE has to make that judgement. And it's not YOU
    This is stupid.

    I never once said I should be the one to make the call. I mean what the fuck are you even arguing at this point?

    You think politics and optics are more important than justice. You’re part of the problem.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  13. #5093
    This all just sounds like a desperate need to blame Biden for something.

    I'm sure there are other things he can actually be blamed for right now.

  14. #5094
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    This all just sounds like a desperate need to blame Biden for something.

    I'm sure there are other things he can actually be blamed for right now.
    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.

  15. #5095
    It's also such a weird take, that Biden, based off his vast knowledge of not being a prosecutor, decides there's enough evidence to convict, he would overrule his attorney general, who he picked because he was certain he had the experience to do the job ...

    I mean, in the hypothetical, if Biden wanted to get involved in who gets prosecuted for what, who do you think he would go to to ask if there was enough evidence to convict?

  16. #5096
    Quote Originally Posted by solinari6 View Post
    It's also such a weird take, that Biden, based off his vast knowledge of not being a prosecutor, decides there's enough evidence to convict, he would overrule his attorney general, who he picked because he was certain he had the experience to do the job ...

    I mean, in the hypothetical, if Biden wanted to get involved in who gets prosecuted for what, who do you think he would go to to ask if there was enough evidence to convict?
    An AG who SHOULD be sitting on the Supreme Court no less. It’s 6D chess apparently.

  17. #5097
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    This all just sounds like a desperate need to blame Biden for something.

    I'm sure there are other things he can actually be blamed for right now.
    It’s not desperate at all.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  18. #5098
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,867
    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.


  19. #5099
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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 ^
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  20. #5100
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    I addressed how it’s different than what Trump did. Trump wanted Sessions to do things outside of his job. This isn’t that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    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?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •