Capitol Insurrection / rebellion thread

[Bodakane]

No, I don't agree with you. AT ALL. And as usual you throw an olive branch right back into someone's face. So, forget it. I rescind my previous suggestion.

You are dead wrong. 100%. And you've already admitted it. Which is hysterical.

Not only are you wrong, and admitted to being wrong, you told us all you read articles showing you were wrong, but cast them aside for your *feels*. Let us know when you resolve all that and come back to reality.

Meanwhile, outside of Body's Bizzaro World, we see that Biden will have no influence or say on criminal matters. Here's another saying U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland vows to operate free of political influence. Biden won't have influence over Garland's criminal pursuits as the AG. Period.

You. Are. Dead. Fucking. Wrong.

There's plenty more, but who cares, right? Even if you read them, you won't believe them, because Body is into Stage 3 of his daily debating routine - lashing out with irrational statements and refusing to admit he's wrong, even when he's already admitted to being so. I guess we can all just wait until tomorrow when Body-Hyde is back with us.

Good night Jekyll!

What the fuck ever.

You are just being absurd about this.

You admitted Biden could pressure the DoJ. Edge admitted Biden could pressure the DoJ. I'm saying Biden could pressure the DoJ.

We are all in agreement with that.

You just think he shouldn't pressure them no matter what. I think that's dumb.

That's all there is to the argument. No article you post or link to saying he won't pressure them, changes anything about the goddamned argument.

I'm saying if he doesn't pressure them if there's evidence, that is wrong. That's it. For crying out loud, you're being ridiculous about this. You just want to lose your shit because its me and I said something potentially negative about Biden.

[PhaelixWW]

I'm saying if he doesn't pressure them if there's evidence, that is wrong. That's it.

Except... it's not wrong. So...

[Bodakane]

Except... it's not wrong. So...

It is.

Again....if there's evidence and Garland loses his nerve, then Biden should 100% pressure him. If not, you're saying procedure is more important than justice.

If a POTUS was never meant to pressure the DoJ, then there'd be no way for him too or there'd be law with teeth to prevent it.

I am not saying pressure the DoJ to invent evidence.
I am not saying pressure the DoJ to go forward without sufficient evidence.

I am saying if the evidence is there, and the DoJ doesn't go for it, it will be because either Biden pressured them to drop it or Garland lost his nerve and Biden didn't pressure them to go for it. Either way, if there's evidence and no pursuit, it is 100% on Biden.

[PhaelixWW]

Again....if there's evidence and Garland loses his nerve, then Biden should 100% pressure him. If not, you're saying procedure is more important than justice.

Should cops plant evidence when they know the guy is guilty?

[Bodakane]

Should cops plant evidence when they know the guy is guilty?

That's not the same fucking thing at all. Jesus.

I'm not asking for any laws to be broken.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

It is.

Again....if there's evidence and Garland loses his nerve, then Biden should 100% pressure him. If not, you're saying procedure is more important than justice.

If a POTUS was never meant to pressure the DoJ, then there'd be no way for him too or there'd be law with teeth to prevent it.

I am not saying pressure the DoJ to invent evidence.
I am not saying pressure the DoJ to go forward without sufficient evidence.

I am saying if the evidence is there, and the DoJ doesn't go for it, it will be because either Biden pressured them to drop it or Garland lost his nerve and Biden didn't pressure them to go for it. Either way, if there's evidence and no pursuit, it is 100% on Biden.

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.

[Bodakane]

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.

[PhaelixWW]

That's not the same fucking thing at all. Jesus.

You seem confused. Who said it was the same thing?

I'm not asking for any laws to be broken.

Do laws have to be broken for a thing to be wrong?

[TEHPALLYTANK]

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.

[Elegiac]

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.

[Bodakane]

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 - - -

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 - - -

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 - - -

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.

[solinari6]

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.

[Bodakane]

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.

[solinari6]

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

[Bodakane]

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.

[solinari6]

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

[Bodakane]

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.

[solinari6]

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?

[Bodakane]

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.

[Endus]

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.