Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Democrats Are Using Criminal Law to Fight Their Political Battles More

The Democrats Are Using Criminal Law to Fight Their Political Battles

Comments Filter:
  • Nixon aided a criminal enterprise that was trying to compromise an election before it happened. Trump led a criminal enterprise that was trying to overturn an election that had already happened. The trial is yet to happen but the evidence is abundant and clear. Even people from your team - beyond Bill Barr who you are so quick to start criticizing - are accepting that what Trump did was very much outside the boundaries of the law.

    We can all accept that Trump is a moron. However, stupidity is not an
    • > Would you defend Nixon the same way? We have a binary choice. We either have a government serving We The People, or the reverse.

      • We either have a government serving We The People, or the reverse.

        And you are clearly serving your government when you go to such lengths to defend the actions of your leader. He should be tried like any other accused criminal, but you are running interference to suggest that he is somehow exempt from any charges.

        If government serving the people is too antiquated of a concept for you, then so be it.

        • clearly serving your government when you go to such lengths to defend the actions of your leader.

          I've said, and repeat: it's all a wretched farce.

          At this point, I know longer wonder at your reading comprehension.

          I figure that your bullying is some attempt at brainwashing.

          • At this point, I know longer wonder at your reading comprehension.

            You don't know as much about me as you think you do. In another example of you discarding rules that you insist others follow, you are telling me what you want me to feel, and insisting that my own statements to the contrary are wrong.

            I figure that your bullying is some attempt at brainwashing.

            Where is the bullying? Facts should not hurt your feelings. It is fact that your leader broke the law. It is a fact that your leader will be tried in court and will have an opportunity to plead innocence.

            • I figure that your bullying is some attempt at brainwashing.

              Where is the bullying?

              Your arguments have the appearance of pure, bad faith. I apologize if I've misjudged; I simply never, ever open a reply of yours expecting anything other than a relentless, gas-lit, pile-driving experience. If you want to be viewed as other than a pure Richard Cranium figure, then I suggest lightening up a bit.

              Our politics is farce. They all suck. The whole crap cabaret is coming down. Laugh a little. Good for the soul.

              • I figure that your bullying is some attempt at brainwashing.

                Where is the bullying?

                Your arguments have the appearance of pure, bad faith.

                From my vantage point you apply that label only because you disagree with what I say. I have asked you for more information on why you believe what you choose to believe and you dodge the question, every time. You then give yourself credit for things that you cannot be bothered to provide any support for having done (ie your repeated claims to have "refuted" things) and then you make silly little attacks on me as well.

                I apologize if I've misjudged

                I can't force you to take my comments at face value. You are choosing to apply certai

                • I apologize if I've misjudged

                  ...
                  While you show zero tolerance for anything close to that coming back at you.

                  Hardly. Contrast my interactions with you and with fustakrakitch. Copious back-and-forth and substantive disagreement, conducted with a twinkle in the eye.

                  I'm neither correct nor righteous; only God is. But if we don't put forth our opinions with some wiggle room in there for the sheer fallibility of humanity, then we're way off course.

                  I only ask for the facts, and I only want the facts.

                  My observation, a decade on, is that these facts are cherry picked, bound into a rhetorical club, and wielded upon those whom you disdain. Consider lightening up, Francis.

                  • Contrast my interactions with you and with fustakrakitch.

                    Different people ask for different things. He is less concerned with facts. I have repeatedly asked you for facts.

                    I'm neither correct nor righteous;

                    You have claimed many times to be correct, and many other times have claimed a kind of righteousness. I don't care about the latter at all. I care only about the basis for the former. When you claim that your statements are supported by facts, I'm interested in where those facts come from.

                    I only ask for the facts, and I only want the facts.

                    My observation, a decade on, is that these facts are cherry picked

                    I'm asking for the facts you are using to support your arguments and beliefs. I'm not the one picki

                    • I merely want to know why you hold the beliefs you do.

                      I laid out my existential model in the Maslow-3D model => https://slashdot.org/journal/3... [slashdot.org]

                    • I merely want to know why you hold the beliefs you do.

                      I laid out my existential model in the Maslow-3D model => https://slashdot.org/journal/3 [slashdot.org]...

                      Which appears to be a way you want to qualitatively evaluate people. You can use that to justify some of your biases, sure. I do find it interesting that your PDF (the pages available) mentions specifically

                      Becoming insular and immersing oneself in fringe viewpoints would generally be (-).

                      Which seems to be exactly what you and MH42 are doing here.

                      You've laid out an interesting philosophical exercise with it. But as I said, I'm interested in the facts. I would expect that somewhere beneath the assertions that you scream out about stolen elections, cocaine driven conspiracies, and

                    • Which appears to be a way you want to qualitatively evaluate people. You can use that to justify some of your biases, sure.

                      Actually it says quite the opposite. There is no self-justification for anyone, ever.

                      But as I said, I'm interested in the facts.

                      I doubt this. Your interests seem tendentious.

                      best you've done is to link to partisan blogs

                      You claim interest in facts, but label them partisan when shown. *yawn*

                    • But as I said, I'm interested in the facts.

                      I doubt this. Your interests seem tendentious.

                      You haven't tried citing actual facts.

                      best you've done is to link to partisan blogs

                      You claim interest in facts, but label them partisan when shown.

                      If I cited a columnist from Daily Kos as a factual source, would you accept it if they were providing commentary with no cited sources? I would hope not. The partisan blogs you cite do exactly that.

                    • If I cited a columnist from Daily Kos as a factual source

                      As a result of our dialogue, I put Daily Kos in my RSS feed. Which invites the point that "factual" is a spectrum.

                      https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/8/24/2189319/-Trump-Jr-sobs-that-he-was-canceled-by-Fox-News [dailykos.com]

                      It is true that there is a Donald Trump, Jr.

                      It is true that he communicated dismay that Fox wouldn't let him in the spin room after daddy blew off the debate.

                      We basically need to offload all adjectives when seeking facts.

                    • We basically need to offload all adjectives when seeking facts.

                      So no more violent criminals, liberal activists, or other such insulting adjectives that you and your teammates throw in to describe people either?

                    • There is nothing liberal in the classical sense about you, Antifa, or BLM.

                    • There is nothing liberal in the classical sense about you

                      I guess that statement doesn't surprise me coming from you, as you are very intentionally ignorant of what I actually say. If you would start reading what I write instead of substituting your own preferred interpretation of what you want me to say in place of it, you might learn something.

                      Antifa

                      Being as Antifa is "anti-fascism" or "anti-fascist action", and Fascism is a right-wing (ie conservative) movement, antifa should most certainly be a left-wing - ie liberal - movement. I'd have to know what it is that

                    • OK, we'll declare you the winner. I have no regard whatsoever for anything you have said here.
                    • I guess you did establish a while back that you would defend Nixon the same way [slashdot.org] (and presumably for the same partisan reasons) as you have been defending Trump. That still doesn't make anyone a winner here though.

                      I'm a little worried about how far this new "too stupid to know it was illegal" defense strategy might go in the interest of you helping out your team. Unfortunately as your team made the judicial branch subservient to the executive branch, it might well find that your ship of fools is enti
                    • I'm really not interested in seeing "your team" blow up the legal system, but they ain't no stoppin' yo' folly.
                    • Who is going to "blow up the legal system", and how? The criminal charges brought against your dear leader were brought through the same criminal indictment process that would happen for anyone stupid enough to do what he did. He will still get a chance to defend himself in court in whichever way he chooses.

                      I will say though, he is almost right on his claim of a two-tier legal system. Though as ever, he's only right in a wrong way. Indeed he does benefit from a different tier from normal people. An

                    • Who is going to "blow up the legal system", and how?

                      You've got four kangaroo court indictments in circulation. This after a 2016 finding that laws could not be enforced against Her Majesty because such had never been done, i.e., it would have been unprecedented.

                      Your Team does not just violate norms; it nukes them from orbit.

                      The sheer hilarity of having the Citrus Caesar's mug shot get such strong, positive feedback from certain key Democrat demographics cannot be understated. May the nuke prove a boomerang.

                    • Who is going to "blow up the legal system", and how?

                      You've got four kangaroo court indictments in circulation.

                      First of all, that would not "blow up the legal system".

                      Second, I am not aware of any such kangaroo court indictments going on. All four of the indictments of your dear leader have gone through the prescribed grand jury procedures. All four indictments are leading to trials where he will have the right to defend himself. At least one is a trial being overseen by a judge that he himself appointed while he was POTUS.

                      I don't know what kind of strange definition of kangaroo court you're using - and I

                    • All four of the indictments of your dear leader have gone through the prescribed grand jury procedures.

                      Right, which explains why the hearings are all scheduled to affect the campaign.

                      You may be choosing not to notice key facts in the broader mosaic, but it's not clear the voters buy Your Team's lies.

                      Your pious protestations of legitimacy are just some extra Splenda on top.

                    • All four of the indictments of your dear leader have gone through the prescribed grand jury procedures.

                      Right, which explains why the hearings are all scheduled to affect the campaign.

                      There is no law that says your Dear Leader has to start his campaign now. He could wait until later. The legal process moves at its own speed. It's been barely two years since your Dear Leader asked Raffensperger to break the law for him, it took a while to find the depth of the rabbit hole and seat a grand jury.

                      If anything the legal system is moving more slowly to benefit your Dear Leader. His lawyers certainly told him well before now that he fucked up. He's had more time to prepare his defense

                    • Your Team's lies

                      May the best liar win!

                    • If anything the legal system is moving more slowly to benefit your Dear Leader.

                      https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/1116954390/jury-selection-will-start-in-october-for-trump-organization-criminal-trial [npr.org]

                      Your Team's embrace of Maoism is a sight to behold.

                    • If anything the legal system is moving more slowly to benefit your Dear Leader.

                      The article you linked to mentions they were indicted in July 2021. Taking more than two years to go from grand jury indictment to trial jury selection is indeed a long time for a criminal case.

                    • Indeed, the process is the punishment, especially for phony-baloney charges.

                    • Yeah, it's common practice on poor people, usually to get them to plea out and close a case to get a promotion or win an election

                    • Well, it's not as though we give a GIVE about justice, or something.

                    • Yeah, it's a sentiment indicated by the consistent 95% reelection rates

                    • Look, it's not as though those elections were intended to present real issues to informed voters and establish some sort of legitimate consent of the governed...

                    • The article you linked to mentions they were indicted in July 2021. Taking more than two years to go from grand jury indictment to trial jury selection is indeed a long time for a criminal case.

                      Indeed, the process is the punishment, especially for phony-baloney charges.

                      How may sides of your mouth can you speak from in one discussion? First you said this was going to fast. Now you say it's going too slow. What orthogonal adjective will you apply next?

                      Similarly if you think "the process is the punishment" you seem to think that the boogeymen who you believe are running this are simultaneously evil geniuses and complete idiots. The former to be able to take over the government and "weaponize" something while holding no effective power in DC, the latter though if the

                    • That is why people must realize the power comes from within, screw the external bullshit

                    • Driving the press to focus on him 24x7 for two years after his departure would only make him more powerful.

                      :-) Yeah, it's not like you don't do that

                    • If anything, the only way to get rid of your Dear Leader is to ignore him. He's just like any other pitiful, idiot bully. He's massively insecure and thrives off attention. Any time more attention is given to him, he only gets more powerful. Driving the press to focus on him 24x7 for two years after his departure would only make him more powerful.

                      Your theory is not met in any way by reality. Typical for your theories.

                    • Look at you waxing mystical.

                    • He's just like any other pitiful, idiot bully.

                      Your theory is not met in any way by reality. Typical for your theories.

                      Just because he is the new spiritual leader for Your Team doesn't mean he's not a bully, or that he is in any way smarter than a typical 3rd grade student. We've seen his insecurities on display again and again; we've seen him bully employees, colleagues, and even his own family. We've seen him demonstrate repeatedly his below-average level of intellect.

                      If you think he's in any way of above average intellect, please show some reason why you feel that way. If you think he is not massively insecure ab

                    • Do tell!

                    • Your theory is not met in any way by reality.

                      On the contrary, his power does come from your attention. It is the gasoline on his fire, d_r likes fire. Without followers there is no leader.

                    • How can I compete with the sheer omniscience of your mind reading and psychoanalysis? Clearly you're immaculate, and we'll have to fall in behind your expertise.
                    • He's the greatest. Shower him with praise. He be groovin' on that noise.

                    • :-) Trump? or d_r? Or both?

                    • I meant d_r. Megalomania and all, Trump has a chance of being equipped to turn the country around. I doubt that d_r could lead two nuns in one minute of silent prayer.
                    • There's no mind reading required. Look at what he writes. Look at what he does to people he perceives to have wronged him. He's just one plane crash short of his hero Vladimir Putin.

                    • Trump has a chance of being equipped to turn the country around.

                      Oh murrrrder! And you think you're any different from d_r.. that's rich

      • We either have a government serving We The People, or the reverse.

        95% reelection, babe, always split right down the middle. Looks like .gov is serving pretty well

        • Unless and until you embrace the larger predator, the status quo is what you get.

          • the larger predator

            That, is entirely within

            • Wait: that "larger predator" is the voters, whom you otherwise champion.

              • It is the self. You are simply making excuses, trying to externalize the problem, playing the blame game. Choices are always personal, unless of course, free will isn't a thing

                • Shag a blame game. I'm looking for the feedback loop that actually drives the system toward a more stable operating point. But we'll keep looking for your unicorn.

                  • But we'll keep looking for your unicorn.

                    A futile effort.. I have none

                    • A futile effort.. I have none

                      But we have to elect your unicorn to get to the Glorious Future. Or something.

                    • No you don't. You just have to follow your own path, stop following herd, unless you want to of course, your choice, as always

                    • Interestingly, the Amish come as close to (what I perceive as) your ideal, but they accomplish this via some extraordinarily rigid local orthodoxy.

                    • No, the Amish reflect their rigid conditioning, little else, the herding instinct is powerful in them

                    • And what is this 'instinct' of which you speak, if pure rationality reigneth supreme, sir?

                    • if pure rationality reigneth supreme, sir?

                      It doesn't. It is the weak force, most feeble in the face of animal instinct and social conditioning.. The numbers reveal all

                    • Wait wait wait wait wait: the voters were to apply this famous rationality in the magic wand fashion at the ballot box to whisk away all of the corruption!

                    • Each individual has to choose to be rational... "our ships must all sail in the same direction". It may seem difficult for some, but it really isn't

    • It's MUCH worse than Nixon.

      In December 2020, under threat of riots and personal violence against the families of Supreme Court Justices, the Supreme Court *shut down* legitimate investigations into voter fraud in Georgia.

      Those records were never examined as a result- citing that the Trump Campaign had no standing to examine those records. Your discounting of the potential of them finding fraud in Georgia is prejudiced.

      Willis just handed the Trump Campaign the right to examine every vote in Georgia in court

      • legitimate investigations into voter fraud in Georgia.

        Every single allegation of "voter fraud" in Georgia that was brought by the Trump Administration was shown in court to be without merit.

        Every. Single. One.
        br>

        Those records were never examined as a result

        That is not true. The Trump Administration raised lots of completely unsupported allegations and they were found to be completely unsupported. There was not a single request for "records" that was rooted in reality or could be connected to actual records to examine.

        And if fraud is found, her RICO case completely falls apart

        Not at all. Even in some strange fantasy where fraud is found - in spite

        • "Without merit" just means that they refuse to show the public the details of the investigation. And with judges being threatened by Democrat rioters, is it any surprise that they claim that the cases were "without merit"?

          All that proves is that the Democrats used violence to overthrow the election.

          There was no extensive examination, the judges just claimed that the evidence was "without merit" and threw it out. Of course, they could do so again, just to get Trump on the fake RICO charges.

          But that's fine

          • "Without merit" just means that they refuse to show the public the details of the investigation.

            The majority of the cases that were thrown out were presented based on internet hearsay. The remainder were based on bad interpretation of shaky evidence (for example Giuliani's allegation of a thumb drive full of fake votes) and thrown out as well. The evidence was laid out as much as was possible, it is hard to disprove a random 4chan-caliber conspiracy.

            All that proves is that the Democrats used violence to overthrow the election.

            Where? Where was violence, and what election was overthrown? This is news to me, I have not heard of a single election that was overthrown. Nor hav

            • The majority of the cases that were thrown out were presented based on internet hearsay. The remainder were based on bad interpretation of shaky evidence (for example Giuliani's allegation of a thumb drive full of fake votes) and thrown out as well. The evidence was laid out as much as was possible, it is hard to disprove a random 4chan-caliber conspiracy.

              It's easy to disprove it. Have a recorded vote without secrecy, with every vote tied to biometric identification. But you Democrats aren't willing to do

              • no more privacy for any politician

                Even though I agree, you think anybody will take the job? I mean you know the kind of people this business attracts, and the reasons why, right?

              • The majority of the cases that were thrown out were presented based on internet hearsay. The remainder were based on bad interpretation of shaky evidence (for example Giuliani's allegation of a thumb drive full of fake votes) and thrown out as well. The evidence was laid out as much as was possible, it is hard to disprove a random 4chan-caliber conspiracy.

                It's easy to disprove it.

                Not on any existing votes that have already been cast in our country. You went on to propose:

                Have a recorded vote without secrecy, with every vote tied to biometric identification.

                Which is both counter to the principles of our democracy and would do nothing for elections that have already past.

                In other words you have provided no options to use to disprove your existing conspiracies. The best we could do was look in to where they came from; once it was realized that the majority of them were whisper campaigns that were not based on any factual evidence whatsoever, they were discarded

                • Which is both counter to the principles of our democracy and would do nothing for elections that have already past.

                  In other words, you're admitting that your democracy is pre-designed to be corrupt and hackable, and thus the reason Trump lost is because he was trying to follow the rules instead of hacking the system.

                  In other words you have provided no options to use to disprove your existing conspiracies. The best we could do was look in to where they came from; once it was realized that the majority of the

                  • Trump lost is because he was trying to follow the rules instead of hacking the system.

                    Was he not attempting to hack the system when he asked Raffensperger to come up with additional votes for him? Was he not attempting to hack the system when his team tried to install "alternate delegates" that did not reflect the actual votes cast by voters?

                    In other words you have provided no options to use to disprove your existing conspiracies. The best we could do was look in to where they came from; once it was realized that the majority of them were whisper campaigns that were not based on any factual evidence whatsoever, they were discarded as such. That left your friends with nothing.

                    the primary principle being to run utterly corruptable elections.

                    No. The primary principle is to ensure fair elections where voters are not subjected to intimidation. The secret ballot accomplishes this. Particularly in this hyper-partisan atmosphere where violence is endorsed by the right wing of government, ke

                    • The primary principle is to ensure fair elections..

                      Only open primaries can do that. The present system, along with voter registration exists to protect the incumbent Party. We have to remove that advantage

                    • "The primary principle is to ensure fair elections where voters are not subjected to intimidation. The secret ballot accomplishes this. "

                      Not in the 21st century it doesn't. In the 21st century, it just insures that anybody who wants to create extra computer records to adjust a vote any way they want to, can't be caught.

                      George Floyd was just an excuse to prove that liberals will go to any level of violence to get their way.

                      "That is a very strange definition of violent. I want people to have the right to mak

                    • He says he wants "people to have the right to make health care decisions for themselves", but he would rather burn down office buildings [slashdot.org] instead of voting for it. I think d_r did 9/11 because he found an insurance company in the twin towers. Indeed he is violent

      • She just handed the Republicans the right to sue the Democrats out of existence.

        That would end the game, kill the illusion.. eh, looks like we don't need it anymore anyway

        • Please. The Vichy GOP ain't got sack.

          • Heh, the "Vichy GOP" vs. the "Chamberlain DNC" or more correctly, yip & yap. They are a perfect match, like alcohol and guns. What could be more American?

            • A more traditionally American thing would be a decentralized system where the blast radius of the inevitable tyranny is smaller.

              • No, not smaller, just balkanized. Big or small, doesn't matter, the source of corruption and tyranny is still the same and just as obvious

                • Sure, but balkanized implies a smaller blast radius, which is about as much improvement as can be offered, in my opinion.

    • We can all accept that Trump is a moron.

      Endless Circular Circulation [youtube.com]

  • Pfft, why publish or read an op-ed from Yoo, long discredited for authoring the "torture memos" that justified G.W.Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation" techniques like waterboarding. Such evil pure bullshit led to inadmissable evidence, duh. Just this week the confession of a Guantanamo prisoner accused of masterminding the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole was ruled inadmissable. This is the result of John Yoo's specious right-wing reasoning. If he longs for despotic authoritarian government, there's no

Slashdot Top Deals

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)

Close