General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
I gotta wonder if Garland is hoping tRump will pass away or be diagnosed with dementia.
Just so he doesn’t have to indict the orange anus. An indictment of the orange anus is an indictment also of the entire repukelian crime organization.
These mobsters all know what has occurred and their culpability in it. Once the orange anus feels the ‘cuffs’ click on his wrists he will burn down all his alleged supporters in an effort to save himself.
It’s intensely frustrating to see our Justice dept operate like a bunch of quivering sissies. It seems clear they don’t want to set the precedent of indicting a president, sitting or otherwise. I suspect though that if it was Obama they would already have him in prison…or worse.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Blues Heron
(8,837 posts)Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Upholding ethical standards is a punt?
Where would this country be without such punters and back benchers?
gab13by13
(32,318 posts)but Garland did not have to appoint Jack Smith, DOJ was quite capable of handling everything.
I must ask, Garland wants to appear nonpartisan, to whom? I do not doubt for a second Garland's integrity, so who does he feel the need to go out of his way?
There is only one political party that was complicit with 1/6. When Garland says he won't be partisan, isn't that being partisan?
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 1, 2023, 12:31 PM - Edit history (1)
It was about eliminating accusations of partiality from the process, which had the potential to obfuscate, deflect, and even derail the whole thing.
W_HAMILTON
(10,333 posts)
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)
48656c6c6f20
(7,638 posts)There once was a man named Jack,
Who thought he was a mighty lion, in fact,
But every time he let out a roar,
It sounded more like a cat's mew, oh what a bore!
He roamed the savannah with grace and pride,
But all the animals just looked askance and sighed,
For Jack's roar was anything but strong,
It was cute, it was funny, and most definitely wrong!
But Jack didn't care, he was still king of the land,
With a mane as golden as sunshine, he'd stand,
And even if his roar was just a meow,
He was still the top cat, as far as he knew!
So if you ever hear a strange noise one day,
And think it's a lion, don't you be afraid,
For it might just be Jack, with his meowing roar,
Adding a little humor to the Washington, DC's savannah's roar!
bigtree
(94,261 posts)'Tis hard to say, if greater want of skill
Appear in writing or in judging ill;
But, of the two, less dang'rous is th' offence
To tire our patience, than mislead our sense.
Some few in that, but numbers err in this,
Ten censure wrong for one who writes amiss;
A fool might once himself alone expose,
Now one in verse makes many more in prose.
'Tis with our judgments as our watches, none
Go just alike, yet each believes his own.
In poets as true genius is but rare,
True taste as seldom is the critic's share;
Both must alike from Heav'n derive their light,
These born to judge, as well as those to write.
Let such teach others who themselves excel,
And censure freely who have written well.
Authors are partial to their wit, 'tis true,
But are not critics to their judgment too?
Yet if we look more closely we shall find
Most have the seeds of judgment in their mind;
Nature affords at least a glimm'ring light;
The lines, tho' touch'd but faintly, are drawn right.
But as the slightest sketch, if justly trac'd,
Is by ill colouring but the more disgrac'd,
So by false learning is good sense defac'd;
Some are bewilder'd in the maze of schools,
And some made coxcombs Nature meant but fools.
In search of wit these lose their common sense,
And then turn critics in their own defence:
Each burns alike, who can, or cannot write,
Or with a rival's, or an eunuch's spite.
All fools have still an itching to deride,
And fain would be upon the laughing side.
If Mævius scribble in Apollo's spite,
There are, who judge still worse than he can write.
Some have at first for wits, then poets pass'd,
Turn'd critics next, and prov'd plain fools at last;
Some neither can for wits nor critics pass,
As heavy mules are neither horse nor ass.
Those half-learn'd witlings, num'rous in our isle
As half-form'd insects on the banks of Nile;
Unfinish'd things, one knows not what to call,
Their generation's so equivocal:
To tell 'em, would a hundred tongues require,
Or one vain wit's, that might a hundred tire.
But you who seek to give and merit fame,
And justly bear a critic's noble name,
Be sure your self and your own reach to know,
How far your genius, taste, and learning go;
Launch not beyond your depth, but be discreet,
And mark that point where sense and dulness meet.
-Alexander Pope
Hekate
(100,133 posts)Is that all that matters? The theater of righteous wrath?
I recall that the whole period of time after he wrecked his knee in an accident certain people here were demanding to know why he “wasn’t working.” He was in the hospital. He was in recovery. He had to do some rehab. He couldn’t travel. (I had a total knee replacement a couple of years ago and it is no picnic.)
And yet, the whole time, certain DUers wanted him to be loaded on a jet plane, on a stretcher if necessary, and returned to the US Right Effing Now. Because it was clear in their minds that he was malingering and not getting any work done while in recovery. As though no one in the 21st century is capable of receiving files, either by courier or electronically, and of working on them outside of Washington DC.
“Back bencher.” This is embarrassing. Way to go, DU.
Cha
(319,067 posts)some reality. It's not healthy to just throw ridiculous insults out there into cyber space.
Sorry about your knee replacement crisis. I hope it's okay now and that's behind you.
As I do for Jack Smith.
Thanks for telling me about your post
Hekate
(100,133 posts)TY for the good wishes, and I am really glad I finally had it done. I was in the last group of elective surgeries before the hospital stopped to do nothing but COVID. My knee was “wrecked” by the process of aging — plain old osteoarthritis let go until I couldn’t bear it. When I was done with the post-op and rehab and physical therapy, my god what a difference it made in my life.
Be well, sistah. 
Cha
(319,067 posts)for your knee.. it's not easy getting older and dealing with everything that springs up.. High Maintenance!
You be Well, too.. Mahalo!
bucolic_frolic
(55,129 posts)No one knows what TFG's got on anybody. 40 years of gathered private intel? Perhaps Putin's access to KGB intel to back him up? Everyone wishes the problem would just go away, quietly. And even if you nail TFG, it's the next generation of MAGAts you have to worry about. TFG's shot his load. Securing American democracy and jurisprudence is the higher calling.
dem4decades
(14,054 posts)Silent3
(15,909 posts)You don't know what's going on at the DoJ! This isn't an episode of Law and Order!
Even though the DoJ has historically been bad at holding the rich, powerful, and well-connected to account, don't you know you owe them every benefit of the doubt that they're diligently working day and night in super-secret complicated ways that you couldn't possibly understand in order to make sure Justice Is Done.... err, someday!?
!!!
Emile
(42,283 posts)and stuff.
gab13by13
(32,318 posts)not to give the appearance of being partisan to a political party that was complicit in the insurrection.
I asked this question upstream, who is it that Garland feels the need to show he is impartial? Well, it didn't work, the appointment of Jack Smith was blasted by Magats as being partisan. Magats are still calling Garland a Democrat stooge.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)He needs to show that he is fully capable of doing his job as his job requires him to do. Neglecting to show impartiality makes him ineffective and, eventually, useless, if not malicious. Just look at Barr.
gab13by13
(32,318 posts)because I am a part of "the nation" and I didn't need Garland to step aside to prove that he is impartial.
Who is Garland showing that he is impartial? Most of the nation already believed he was impartial. Appointing Jack Smith to show his impartiality didn't work with a big part of the nation who no matter what Garland does it will accuse him of being partisan.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)But it's not just for the sake of his own legacy. It's to strengthen the office of the Attorney General.
triron
(22,240 posts)What is this in reference to?
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Do these things not take time?
Do you know what's going on at DOJ?
Is this an episode of law and order?
Do you have any inside information on how dilligent or how secret DOJ is?
Can you predict with any degree of certainty how complicated an unprecedented criminal investigation?
Are you claiming to understand these complicated ways?
How familiar are you with the process of justice being done?
Your sarcasm presumes your significant awareness of all of the above to the degree that allows you to get sarcastic about it. By all means, enlighten me of your superior knowledge in these areas. And watch out for the backfire.
Emile
(42,283 posts)Why in hell is it taking Garland so long to arrest Trump?
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)It is not even a matter of the amount of time it took. It's a matter of the arrests ever happening.
'And you are comparing this to arresting bad cops?
Clearly, laying a path to setting a precedent in our system of justice is far more complicated and, more importantly, consequential to the future of the entire nation, than following a tried and tested routine.
PufPuf23
(9,852 posts)What about the other pols that are involved that are still in office?
What about the financial and power backers and beneficiaries?
The precedents already set are what make the DOJ and AG look bad and what many perceive is a replay of the fired and tested routine where GOP benefits and skates from major crimes.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)And what about the other pols and financial backers? Are they to be treated differently than nearly a dozen indicted and/or convicted seditious conspirators? Do the same burdens of proof and and protections under the law not apply to them? Are you saying they are being treated differently than Tarrio and Rhodes? Surely these are not the precedents DOJ and AG look bad! No, in light of these precedents, as well as nearly 1000 other indictments and/or convictions, DOJ and Garland look like superheroes!
And if your account of precedents are more than anecdotal, does anyone keep track of them? If so, where can I find them?
PufPuf23
(9,852 posts)for a start; to me, this implies knowledge of their own guilt.
The precedents I refer to are the GOP crimes that eluded full recognition and punishment in my 50 plus years of voting exclusively for Democratic candidates (except for John Anderson to slow Reagan in the 1980 CA GOP POTUS primary). Isn't that obvious that I referred to history?
You are well spoken but often wrong and discouraging and insulting to others at DU.
Pretty certain I will die staying the course and losing ground. alas.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)It implies that full recognition of crimes and punishments lies, at least in part, outside the confines of our legal system, and the principle of innocent until proven guilty is optional and elusive.
That turns my understanding of America's legal system, in which a crime is not a crime until and unless it is fully recognized beyond reasonable doubt and the punishment dispensed with accordingly in a court of law, upside down.
I don't mean to be discouraging, or insulting, or even well spoken, but I just can't accept this as a conceptual, let alone historic, reference. It goes against everything that keeps me in this country. Please tell me that I misunderstood the meaning of your post.
PufPuf23
(9,852 posts)Civil War
Businessman's Plot
Watergate and other Nixon dirty tricks like sabotaging Vietnam peace talks
Iran-Contra and BCCI
Church Committee
Financial collapses in late 1986 and 2007 conveniently at the end of long GOP POTUS terms.
2000 election stole by a corrupt USSC and some of the same actors and similar tactics to 1/6 (Roger Stone and Brooks Bro Riot).
Lies to support aggressive war in Iraq and then we tortured and the War Criminals walked.
Fitzmas
Mueller Investigation
1/6 is pending and some of the perps do not appear seriously threatened by consequences.
All shifted power and wealth to privileged classes by coincidence.
Call me a Democratic partisan if you like.
The legal system and law profession in the USA on the whole looks better at kicking the can down the road and preserving privilege than equality. Can you seriously believe that there is a fair legal system in the USA?
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)While significant in themselves, the events you listed as precedents for your mistrust of Garland and/or DOJ have precious little or nothing to do with Garland and/or DOJ.
Civil War: DOJ did not exist at the time, and Edward Bates the AG during the war, had zero impact on it
Businessman's Plot: A single congressional committee was formed to investigate the plot. The various conclusions of the committee ranged from categorizing the evidence as unreliable to it being a hoax. There was no DOJ involvement in investigating the plot.
Watergate: Nixon resigned before articles of impeachment were issued and pardoned shortly thereafter, making DOJ's or AG's role in the investigation irrelevant before it had a chance to take place
Iran-Contra: 13 people were indicted in the case, including four members of Bush's cabinet and other high ranking officials, indicating a major prosecutorial victory.
Church Committee:As the name suggests, it was a congressional committee. They investigated CIA abuses. CIA was not, and is not now, part of DOJ. The only executive action that resulted from the Committee's report was Gerald Ford's Executive Order 11905 banning political assassinations.
Financial collapses: Not sure how such broad category can be viewed as a precedent for passing judgement on a single governmental department
2000 election By your own description, it was stolen by the Supreme Court. Unconfirmed accusations aside, how is this a reflection on DOJ?
Lies to support aggressive war in Iraq: Did those lies constitute violations of US laws? On whose authority?
Mueller's investigation: Was sabotaged by Trump's AG Barr, a uniquely partisan AG.
Fitzmas: reflects more on people with unreasonable expectations of DOJ than being a legitimate precedent for negatively judging DOJ.
1/6 is pending: A pending investigation being used as precedent for negatively judging that same pending investigation? That's funny.
PufPuf23
(9,852 posts)My list is not specific to the DOJ, current or past. If you look at my posting history, here is scant Garland bashing.
This is the summary heart of my "not very impressive at all list".
"All shifted power and wealth to privileged classes by coincidence.
Call me a Democratic partisan if you like.
The legal system and law profession in the USA on the whole looks better at kicking the can down the road and preserving privilege than equality. Can you seriously believe that there is a fair legal system in the USA?"
Is there a single one of the items on the list the punishment did not approach the gain or projected gains. Some people were punished and Nixon even resigned but nothing close to equitable. Most were job programs for attorneys and bankers.
Please answer the question bolded.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)"The precedents already set are what make the DOJ and AG look bad and what many perceive is a replay of the fired and tested routine where GOP benefits and skates from major crimes.". The quote unambiguously ties the precedents, presumably those you later listed at my request, are what makes DOJ look bad and create a perception of DOJ replaying the routine you described. You made your mention of precedents specific to DOJ and/or AG. This is not spin, these are your words taken as literally as context permits.
On examination, the overwhelming majority of the precedents you listed in evidence of your assertion turned out to not even be related to DOJ and, as such, could not possibly make the DOJ and AG look bad or be perceived by anyone as DOJ replaying the fired and tested routine you mentioned. To propose what you proposed would be like proposing that the precedents set by sharks make camels look bad and, based on these precedents, many people are entitled to perceive camels to be replaying the routines used by sharks. Or, to put it more simply, it would amount to proposing that a shark's past conduct sets a legitimate precedent to pre-judge a camel's conduct yet to take place.
Now, since you expressed interest in my opinion, let me address the bolded part of your post. It is more complicated than you make it out to be. I find it impossible to address it all in a single sweeping response that would cover the entirety of the bolded portion. To begin with, I must note that it doesn't just contain a question. It starts with a statement that makes certain presumptions, and ends with the question that takes the accuracy of those presumptions for granted.
The statement: The legal system and law profession in the USA on the whole looks better at kicking the can down the road and preserving privilege than equality.. My reply is no, I do not agree with the premise that the legal system or the law profession in general create the perception of kicking the can down the road. Depending on what part of the vast and multifaceted legal system you are talking about, its perception and, more importantly, its manifestation in reality, varies greatly. The US constitution, for instance, unquestionably doesn't give such perception. The Federal legislation apparatus may give such perception on rare occasions, but the process of democratically elected federal legislators mitigates this perception in the long run. The Federal judiciary has been known to be partisan on occasion but not as a general rule. And the DOJ is so regulated by rules and regulations outside of its own design and control that any perception of it passing the buck falls apart on closer examination. One only needs to be open and willing to undertake a critical examination of DOJ. Likewise, I don't see similar criticisms of the legal system being accurate. Being professionals fully aware of the consequences for misconduct, corruption among judges, prosecutors and legal counsels is rare in these circles and is punished severely when discovered. It is easy to confuse access to qualified legal experts, or lack thereof, as inequality in applying justice. But in its core, it is financial inequality in obtaining legal expertise that is at the core of the (false) perception of justice being applied unequally. It is simply the case of more money buying greater legal competence, not the laxer application of the law. The law stays the same for everyone.
So it all comes down to what you choose to focus on, rule or exceptions. If you choose to focus on exceptions alone, you may claim certain appearances being evident. But that would be failing to see the forest from the trees.
gab13by13
(32,318 posts)My gripe is the same gripe that Nicolle Wallace asks every day, why did DOJ wait so long to go after Trump and his inner circle?
The evidence is there to support this claim. No, DOJ doesn't leak, but we find out don't we? We found out right away what Jack Smith was doing, who and what he was subpoenaing.
Your post is true, it takes at least 3 1/2 years to get Trump before a jury which puts a Trump trial into 2026. Democrats had better win the presidency in 2024 and 2028.
Trump's delay strategy doesn't have as much of an effect in state prosecutions. Go get em Faani, Letitia, Alvin, and E. Jean Carroll.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)The reason for my sarcasm, stated unsarcastically now for clarity, is that the DoJ has not historically earned the benefit of the doubt for those things that I do not know, and it has earned skepticism and cynicism when it comes to how vigorously it will pursue accountability for the rich, powerful, and well-connected.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Your post just presumed its existence. It lists certain assumptions and presents them as historical fact. And, since we are talking seriously now, even if you can provide historical data (which I find conspicuously absent in this whole debate but would love to see) that confirm your assumptions , your sarcasm still targets the specifics of Garland's investigation without addressing the ways they are bound to lead to history repeating itself, not even in theory.
This doesn't signify the absence of benefit of doubt on your part, it signifies your certainty of the fallaciousness you presume, without explanation, to exist in each specific instance you are being sarcastic about.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)What about Reagan for dodging around the law to fund the Contras? What about Kissinger, who really should be considered a war criminal for his dirty dealings with right wing dictatorships? What about Bush Jr. for lying our way into a pointless war in Iraq?
Was FDR (who I consider a pretty great president for the most part) or anyone in his administration punished for the Japanese interment?
I have no obligation to simply assume that Garland magically has improved this long-standing culture of letting resignation or loss of an election be considered "enough", or deciding we "just need to move on", when they pay attention to high-level crimes at all.
I haven't gone back and re-researched all of the history than has given me this negative impression of justice in this country. But what pops up off the top of my head is bad enough.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Let's forget that Agnew was indicted and plead no contest, receiving the punishment commensurate with the crime he was charged for which included a sentence of three years' probation. Let's forget that Reagan was also never subject of DOJ investigation. Let's forget that it is the International Court, not DOJ who deal with war crimes. Let's forget that "lying our way" into something or out of something is not a prosecutable offense. Let's forget that Congress ratified Roosevelt's suspension of the Constitution throughout WW2.
The justification for your sarcasm claims that, and I quote, " the DoJ has not historically earned the benefit of the doubt for those things that I do not know,", yet your rhetoric does not live up to this justification. Your rhetoric, as I mentioned before, doesn't signify the absence of benefit of doubt, it signifies the presence of certainty in your assumption of Garland's failure to do his job.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...rather the International Court exists because it's not a uniquely American problem that countries can't be counted on to penalize the politicians and generals who commit war crimes. If a country doesn't lose a war, it's war criminals usually go free -- even if it shouldn't be that way.
"Let's forget that Reagan was also never subject of DOJ investigation"
Let's not forget that. My point is that he should have been, if the DoJ had been doing its job.
"Let's forget that 'lying our way' into something or out of something is not a prosecutable offense."
If lying a country into a war isn't a prosecutable offense, that's a big problem, and part of the same culture of unequal justice that makes me so cynical about the DoJ, even if the DoJ itself can't do anything in such specific circumstances.
Same problem with Nixon. Yes, Ford's pardon put him out of reach, so we might never know what the DoJ might have done with him, but how many people at the DoJ do you think cursed "the bastard's getting away with it!", and how many do you think breathed a sign of relief that Nixon wasn't something they had to worry about anymore?
Three years of probation "commensurate with the crime" in Agnew's case? People have spent longer in jail for stealing a car, not parole, jail, and that's both for an item of less value than the money involved in Agnew's crimes, and without it being a violation of a public trust.
How many people were investigated, indicted, and jailed for the financial fraud that led to the 2008 financial collapse? Nearly all of those people continued to live rich, comfortable lives while the riffraff lost homes and jobs and life savings.
When the DoJ itself, and other law enforcement agencies, don't fall down on the job, the rich and powerful have made sure the laws that we do have, even if enforced, will be harder to prove in court and have sentences totally disconnected from the monetary damage or other damage caused (like environmental pollution) when compared to the crimes that send so many poor black men to prison.
Response to Silent3 (Reply #44)
Beastly Boy This message was self-deleted by its author.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)I made an offer to forget all the false equivalencies you made in your post, because none of them as much as hint at the validity of projecting on Garland the culture, as you describe it, "of letting resignation or loss of an election be considered "enough". As I showed, you misrepresented many of the facts related to the events you cited, and neither the events themselves, nor your misrepresentation of them, help define these events as a "culture" which you then imagine Garland to be part of as a default condition requiring no rationale.
So sure, let's waste some more time mulling over some faulty arguments that offer neither the justification nor resolution:
-War crimes don't *have to be* (I wonder what the asterisks are supposed to represent since I never suggested they have to) handled by the International Court, but they routinely are. And I have yet to hear of DOJ "handling" a war crime. There is a good reason for it which, you may be disappointed to learn, doesn't involve foul play. It has to do with the concept of separation of powers, and whether it should or shouldn't be the case is, as with many other examples you cite, besides the point. It's in the Constitution. Congress, the legislative branch of the government, is in charge of waging wars and making treaties. DOJ attempting to prosecute a war crime would constitute the executive branch interfering with the legislative branch, creating conditions for a constitutional crisis. That's why I suggested the International Court as a proper venue to prosecute international war crimes.
- In all of the Iran-Contra investigations, no grounds were found to prosecute Reagan. There is no reason to believe that DOJ would have arrived at a different conclusion. Any feeling to the contrary, absent the grounds to validate them, should not create a sense of obligation on DOJ's part. You are not suggesting that they engage in frivolous prosecutions, are you?
-Lying is a big problem but it is not a prosecutable offense. This doesn't make justice unequal, though. You may find it ironic, but lies remaining unprosecuted despite selective objections to some but not others, no matter their magnitude, or who tells them and under what circumstances, is a sure indicator of equal justice being applied under the law. And, may I remind you, DOJ is all about administering justice under the law without deference to random opinions. As Garland put it, "without fear or favor".
-Presuming that DOJ should have been prosecuting Nixon is nonsense which ignores the entire history of the Watergate scandal. Congress took it upon itself to impeach Nixon, a constitutionally prescribed method of removing a president. Nixon resigned before articles of impeachment were filed and was pardoned by Ford shortly thereafter. The mere suggestion that DOJ should have interfered with the impeachment process or a pardon is completely without merit. Again, law prevails over sentiment.
-Agnew's three years of probation and a $10,000 fine is absolutely commensurate with the crime he was convicted of. You don't get twenty to life for failing to pay income tax on $29,500 of income. Nobody does. Equal justice under the law, baby!
-The events of 2008 amounted to a global financial crisis. Who in your opinion should have been convicted for it and on what charges? BTW, looking up the topic, I came up with a pretty descriptive term: pessimism porn. I see some of it proliferating lately here on DU (hint, hint).
And, at the end, in view of complete lack of evidence that DOJ was at any point falling down on its job, if you are still not satisfied with the laws currently in place, this is not DOJ's problem. Make sure you elect people who will pass more equitable laws. And make sure there are enough of them to change the laws to your satisfaction. Sure beats complaining about perceived offenses by DOJ on an anonymous board.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)First of all, it's not like I have claimed to be making absolute assessments of the DoJ, Merrick Garland, or anyone else. I'm stating my reasons for a lack of faith in the legal process in general when it comes to holding the wealthy, the powerful, and the well-connected equal before the law.
If you think I shouldn't feel that way, you show me the dazzling history of equal justice in this country.
I have nothing to prove about the DoJ in particular being part of the history and culture of unequal justice. If you think I should be more optimistic about the DoJ eagerly pursuing justice against the upper echelons of the 1/6 coup attempt, you show me how the DoJ has a long, solid history of being a pinnacle of meting out equal justice.
When lies endanger people (like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire) that's a crime. When lies swindle people out of money, that's fraud, which is a crime. What causes more unjustified death and swindles more money out of the treasury than lying a country into war? I don't know for a fact, but I'd bet a sufficiently motivated DoJ that really cared about holding the powerful to account could come of with a way to prosecute that based on existing law.
As for Agnew, he was guilty of much more than failure to pay to pay taxes on $29,500. He'd been using his position to steer government contracts into the hands of friends for kickbacks for years before becoming VP, and he carried on like that as VP. No one had the appetite to push much further on any of that, however, as long as Agnew resigned.
Now, if you're all about wearing rose-colored glasses and handing out benefit-of-the-doubt like Halloween candy, go for it. But don't act like, given the lackluster history of equal justice in this country, other people should have to have iron-clad proof that Trump will escape justice (forever, or just for far too long) simply because they don't jump on The Good Ship Lollipop with you.
In fact, as far as I'm concerned, Trump has already escaped justice far too long.
It's not at all unprecedented that imminent danger changes procedural norms, and it is not a violation of good legal practice to jail dangerous people before trial. Not all expediency, when done with reasonable cause, is a slippery slope into legal chaos and arbitrary justice.
It was only sheer luck that we caught a reprieve from a second Trump term and a must faster decline of America democracy. Just a few shifts of a tiny percentage of the vote here and there was all that Trump needed to win the electoral vote count in the last election, the popular will of the people be damned.
I mad as hell more people aren't treating the situation we're in as an imminent threat, as if maintaining appearances or increasing chances of conviction from 95% to 99% percent is worth leaving dangerous people running free to scheme and plot and further undermine our system of government.
Even though the midterms turned out better than we'd have hoped, the slow speed of holding higher-up insurrectionist to account has put some of the insurrectionists themselves in charge of the House.
You'll have a damned hard time convincing me, or many others here on DU, that whatever is to be gained in higher chances of conviction or mere appearances of careful, apolitical justice is worth even the loss of what Biden could have done with both Houses of Congress over the next two years, not even counting the cost of leaving our democracy in continuing peril.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)So it is not at all surprising that you reject any attempt to remind you where it lies in the American justice system and, to no one's surprise, it is evident in the above post as well.
-You presume that Agnew was guilty, beyond doubt, of crimes he was not convicted of
-You cite the dictum of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater in your assumption that lying is a crime, while in fact it merely removes 1st amendment protections from certain types of speech. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater)
- You confuse your individual notion of imminent danger with its definition under the law (https://dictionary.thelaw.com/imminent-danger/#:~:text=IMMINENT%20DANGER%20TheLaw.com%20Law%20Dictionary%20%26%20Black%27s%20Law,of%20others%20or%20the%20protection%20of%20the%20law.) and insist that your definition prevails in administering justice.
-You make no distinction between people who are jailed upon being arrested and those who are jailed upon conviction, while making vague and misplaced references to slippery slope and arbitrary justice, and likely confusing reasonable cause with probable cause, apparently unaware of how the term "imminent danger" is applied in the legal profession or that its existence doesn't change procedural norms, only procedures to be followed within the defined norms.
-You appear to put a presumed possible outcome of properly held and binding election results into the category of imminent danger - in a similar way the Jan 6 rioters found justification of their actions.
And that's from just one of your posts.
And then, you invite me to dissuade you of your notion that your poorly reasoned and emotionally charged fear of things to come takes precedent over the rule of law. No, thank you, I will not put myself between your anxieties and your apparent disdain for the rule of law. That's your problem, not mine (just so you know, while I share your anxieties to a small degree, it doesn't interfere with my drama-free acceptance of America's justice system as the singularly most significant institution that defends and preserves democracy).
You have no obligation whatsoever to prove anything, and I have never asked you to do so. But when you take it upon yourself to cite sources in defense of your claims, you better make sure your claims are accurate and your sources are relevant. If you don't, I have every right to point this out.
As far as the dazzling history of equal justice in this country: while it will take volumes of overwhelming evidence to truly appreciate the merits of our justice system, let me refer you to a relatively short list of SCOTUS decisions through the years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States . Without picking and choosing and discarding the rest, tell me how this list is not dazzling IN ITS TOTALITY. And if your beef is with how justice is being applied in practical terms, let me remind you: any perceived discrepancy in outcomes is not a legal issue, it is an economic issue. Money buys superior competence in practicing law, and that, not the absolute equality of justice under the law, is what leads to different outcomes in similar circumstances. If you were to make all the changes you wish to the justice system tomorrow, the rich will still have this advantage and will get away with murder. Conversely, if everyone had uncounted shitloads of money, everyone would be able to exploit every obscure loophole allowed under the law. Because everyone is, indeed, equal UNDER THE LAW. At least have the sense to direct your wrath where it belongs.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)Reversing Roe. v Wade?
Citizen's United?
Giving guns more rights than people?
Yes, just stellar.
You've offered nothing that helps justify optimism about justice against the powerful... in fact you mainly tried to shift the blame to economic matters rather than cultural or procedural problems (as if those problems aren't interrelated anyway).
As for "poorly reasoned and emotionally charged fear of things to come"... what, you think all calm, rational people think democracy in the United States is sitting pretty, under no major threats?
Whether the chief problem of justice in this country "is not a legal issue, it is an economic issue" doesn't make a whit of difference to the end result: good reason to doubt Trump and his cronies will be held to account, especially that, if anything happens at all, it will be fast enough to make a difference, or more than (compared to the magnitude of wrong-doing) a slap on the wrist.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)"Without picking and choosing and discarding the rest, tell me how this list is not dazzling IN ITS TOTALITY. "
Which part of this sentence was insufficiently capitalized?
Ok, let's rpeat this again, this time sufficiently capitalized, bolded and underlined, shall we?
WITHOUT PICKING AND CHOOSING and DISCARDING THE REST, tell me how this list is not dazzling IN ITS TOTALITY.
Is this clear enough? Wanna borrow a magnifying glass?
Silent3
(15,909 posts)No way I was going to going through all of that long list to deal with a missing-the-point point you were trying to make.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)You are not going through a long list of clear evidence that destroys your criticism. Because, let me guess: it destroys your criticism!
Not to be impolite, but I I get a feeling that you are just messing with me. I suggest that you either present some credible arguments or quit while you are behind.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)You're barking up a completely wrong tree when it comes to facing the excessive leniency of our legal system toward privileged classes.
In that long list of cases there's probably some occasional condemnation, and attempt at correction, for the excessive harshness against the least privileged, but do I really need to dig up sources for evidence of well-known problems like how black people on average get longer sentences than white people, are arrested more frequently, are killed by police disproportionately, etc?
Even if MLK was correct to say, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice," it sure isn't bending in the right direction quickly enough to dispel well-earned cynicism about how current cases like Trump's crimes are going to be handled.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)You ARE messing with me!
YOU challenged ME to show you the "the dazzling history of equal justice in this country." I replied by saying that "it will take volumes of overwhelming evidence to truly appreciate the merits of our justice system" and invited you to examine but a small part of the evidence you asked for: the history of the decisions made by the Supreme Court. You flatly rejected my invitation, but not before you picked and chose a handful of cases out of hundreds that are atypical to the overall record of demonstrably dazzling history of equal justice in this country.
And now you are proposing to measure equality of justice exclusively by the cases whose merits have never been tested in an institution whose sole purpose is to administer justice, at the expense of the cases that have been tested there? Your premise presumes your nebulous ill-defined interpretation of what equal justice is to be superior to that of the one clearly defined by law. You are saying, quite literally, that the history of equal justice in America has nothing to do with its history of equal justice under the law.
That's self-contradictory and absurd on its face.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 7, 2023, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)
...is largely about what cases end up in court and which don't?
Yes, there's also the matter how stiff the penalties are for the elites, and how much more difficult it can be to get a guilty (or liable, in a civil case) verdict, but a good portion of us here on DU are feeling very cynical (and rightfully so) about whether charges will ever be brought against Trump and his upper-echelon cronies at all.
If you have some narrow view of "justice" that is completely limited to how cases brought to court, and only those which are brought to court, are decided, that's totally at odds with what most of us here are talking about: the Department of Justice, and similar state and local Executive Branch institutions, and how reliable they are at bringing cases against privileged elites.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)What I don't get is the insistence that anxiety drives justice. If this were the case, justice would have always taken the side of the most anxious among us. Is this your idea of equal justice under the law? And if you insist that equality in dispensing justice is not possible within the confines of my too narrow for your taste view of justice being dispensed under the law, what other option are you willing to entertain? Bingo cards? Pulling verdicts out of the hat? Distributing random convictions equally among general population?
While you continue to express disdain for the rule of law, and while you keep ranting about how unjust the dispensation of punishment is under the law, you are not proposing any instrument outside the rule of law that may remotely resemble it, let alone insure equal justice.
Everybody is an effin' critic...
Silent3
(15,909 posts)That's just a weird thing to say.
Who is saying anxiety drives justice? It's anxiety about whether or not justice will be carried out.
No, that's not what I said. You tried (in Gish Gallop fashion) to use an exceedingly long list of court decisions as some kind of evidence that our justice system is just peachy, nothing to be anxious about, totally missing that court decisions aren't the be all and end all of justice.
The Department of Justice is an executive branch function, just as all decisions on whether or not a law is enforced is an executive branch function. It's right there in the name of the DoJ that this function, which comes before courts have any chance to get involved, is a major component of justice.
This is a much looser, much less regulated part of our justice system. There might be internal policies (including some of very debatable merit, like not prosecuting sitting Presidents) and procedures, maybe in some cases laws that compel prosecution, but there's a lot of subjective, and even possibly corruptible decision making that goes into what gets investigated and who gets indicted.
You list of court decisions doesn't come close to addressing all that can impede fair and equal justice in the executive branch.
Even giving you a fair amount of latitude for satire, that's a totally bizarre take on anything I've said or suggested.
As for "Everybody is an effin' critic"... If you live in a town that suffers frequent floods, and you know there's a big storm coming, it's totally justified to worry about another flood. Being worried is not contingent on being an expert on civil engineering who could propose a better flood control system. Saying the authorities should do better is not equivalent to proposing randomly placed levees and dykes.
Even having some possible capacity to be part of the solution, by protesting, organizing fellow citizens, or being one vote for electing better people to fix such problems, doesn't mean you shouldn't worry about the very next storm on the horizon. The best your anti-flood activism is going to do is maybe, just maybe, help your town be safer in the future.
Short term, worry, anxiety, and skepticism the threat will be properly address is utterly justified.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)you have failed to define, what would you call it?
...Oh wait, you're absolutely right! It is not your anxiety that drives justice. That's not possible, since you never defined what you mean by justice. Truly, your anxiety is all about doubts over whether or not something you have yet to define will be carried out. Got it. That is so inconsistent with anxiety being projected onto the blank canvas of your notion of justice! Weird indeed.
I cautioned you that it it will take volumes of available overwhelming evidence to truly appreciate the merits of our justice system. I gave you just a small sample to consider. A single link to the history of SCOTUS decisions. You flatly refused to consider even this small sample. It is beyond me how a single source can possible turn into a gish gallop, but your intolerance for acknowledging evidence you yourself asked for does not create in me an obligation to abridge SCOTUS history for your convenience. It is what it is. Whether you look into my link to educate yourself, or whether you frantically gish gallop through it overwhelming yourself with perfectly well structured content (a task which appears to be exceedingly easy to accomplish), or whether you pick a tiny sample from it and fluff it up out of all proportion, or whether you dismiss it entirely on the grounds of it being exceedingly long, is up to you. It is your credibility, dispense with it as you wish. The list of SCOTUS decisions will remain unmoved in indisputable evidence, and as the end result of, fair and equal justice being applied under the law throughout our justice system. And if you ever bother to examine it, it might appear pretty peachy to you too. But obviously, I digress into musing about the impossible.
I can't help but laugh at your proposition that DOJ is a much looser, much less regulated part of our justice system. If you think that the history of SCOTUS decisions is taxing on your patience, try to spend a few months on going through all the rules that govern DOJ, not that I expect you to do anything of the sort. And that's just for starters. In addition to that, DOJ must go through that pesky court system to get any results at all. Not IN PLACE of the court system, but IN ADDITION to their other rules. It is the court system that seats grand juries, conducts trials, reaches verdicts and dispenses punishments. It doesn't occur to you that our justice system, both as an executive and a judiciary function, is designed to prevent unfair and unequal dispensation of justice. Must I really go into how this leads to a fair and equal justice? Really?
The problem with your position is that you don't suggest anything other than DOJ is the source of your anxiety. And to remain constantly anxious, you must imagine flaws in DOJ. The flaws you imagine are inevitably hypothetical, while your anxiety appears to be real. That's a glitch in the normal interplay between cause and effect. To continue on this path, which appears to be the end goal of your game, you must reject all evidence that points to your anxieties not being grounded in fact, and insist that your hypotheticals, not the facts, control the narrative.
If you continue to insist that the moon is made of cheese because it looks like it's made of cheese, who am I to keep intruding on your reality? I tried, but it appears that the moon still looks like cheese to you.
Pleasant dreams!
Silent3
(15,909 posts)You have a bizarre way of making this way more complicated than it needs to be, and then citing every problem you have with your strange take on things as problems I have to solve.
It's pretty damned clear that, when it comes to Trump and his fellow coup plotters, nearly everyone here on DU, whether they feel good about how the DoJ is handling things or not, thinks justice would mean Trump being in jail for the rest of his life, and varying amounts of jail up to the rest of their lives too for his various cronies.
If you think this discussion of why a lot of people are concerned about whether or not this kind of justice will happen can't be accomplished without some deep technical discussion on the meaning of "justice", I can't help you. You're from a completely different planet that I can't get through to.
Green cheese, indeed.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Citing "just about everyone on DU" as your legal authority of choice is absurd. Regardless of the accuracy of whether or not "nearly everyone here on DU... thinks justice would mean Trump being in jail for the rest of his life", it is by no means a valid description of justice taking its due course. In fact, it is the absolute opposite of equal justice under the law. It demands a verdict before the the establishment of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, a standard which, while you appear to flatly reject it, is the only means to insure equal justice under the law.
Sure, there are less complicated ways to reach a verdict and administer punishment. A lynch mob, for example. Or secret tribunals. Or show trials. Or surveys on DU. But for some inexplicable reason, the US committed itself in its Constitution to bizarrely make things more complicated than they need to be. And, like it or not, we all have to accept the fact that the US Constitution prevails over DU surveys, no matter how bizarre the concept may appear to you.
However, if you want to engage in endless discussions about why a lot of people are concerned about whether or not this kind of justice may not happen, knock yourself out. They are not based on known facts, they are based on what a lot of people are concerned about, duh. And the prevailing narrative of such discussions changes with your concerns, not with the facts on the ground. It's a circular argument: your anxieties are based on your unfounded (having no grounds in either facts or the law) fears that DOJ will not indict Trump, and, since your unfounded fears compel you to predict DOJ's failure to indict Trump, your fears of DOJ not indicting Trump become amplified despite not getting any more founded. Rinse and repeat.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...there's a pretty clear common meaning of the idea of justice -- people receiving punishments fitting their bad actions.
Yes, I'm quite well aware that, in the real world, deciding who should be punished and in what way requires a very complicated system.
And no, by "common meaning of the idea" I don't mean "whatever people commonly want to happen to perceived bad actors would be justice".
I really shouldn't have to explain this. There's an argumentative concept called "the principle of charity", of which you are completely bereft.
If you are really trying to understand what someone is saying, rather than look for "gotchas" to win a fight, you try to interpret what they say in a manner that would make the most sense, NOT use the most uncharitable interpretation you can dream up and then try to score points.
If at any point during this conversation you ever imagined that I was saying something to the effect that justice was whatever most people wanted to happen to a bad guy, you were never, ever engaging in an honest, sensible way. You were looking for the most stupid interpretation you could think of and then arguing against that.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)But it is not the meaning you give it. It is accepted by most legal scholars, including Garland, and it is neither technical nor complicated. It is expressed in a single short sentence:
FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR.
That's it. The rest is commentary. How much simpler can it possibly get? The system is complicated to insure the proper use of the rule of law, no more, no less.
Yet, you summarily reject it.
You chide me for not interpreting your statements in the best light possible. This is not the principle of charity. The principle of charity is a philosophical concept, not a legal one, and it involves RATIONAL interpretation of your statements in the best light possible. Something you explicitly and repeatedly denied Garland. But I see precious little rationality in your narrative. What I see instead is active resistance to all things rational. You finally managed to articulate your idea of justice, and I am underwhelmed. Your definition, to put it charitably, is, like the principle of charity, a philosophical one, however flawed, and it is ill fitted for using it to decond-guess the legal implications of justice being done.
If you want to divert to the philosophical discourse on justice, you must first admit your failure to make your case from a legal perspective, and admit your failure to give legitimate grounds for pre-judging DOJ from a legal perspective, as you repeatedly did. After all, Garland is a damn prosecutor, not a philosopher.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)I can go along with that. And I see a lot of fear to go after powerful and well-connected people ("If you shoot at the king, don't miss!" ) and favor toward such people. I'm hardly the only one.
Yet, you summarily reject it.
No, I accept that it should work that way, and hardly eschew that by nature it's going to be complicated. I'm rightfully very suspicious that it does, if fact, actually work that way, and have no obligation to give the DoJ the benefit of the doubt in this matter.
I can't fail at what I'm not trying to do. I'm not trying to put the DoJ on trial for who the DoJ puts on trial, and I'm not trying to put Trump and his cronies on trial either.
And this is where your lack of "charity" (in the argumentative sense comes in). You keep trying to turn a simple matter of lack of faith in government institutions, and the reasons why many of us (hardly just me) lack such faith, into something bizarre that's much easier to poke holes into.
You act as if, before I dare question Garland and the DoJ, I'd better have a legally-provable case for fearing they'll fail, and my own fully-detailed plan for how I'd differently implement the DoJ myself, otherwise I apparently have to bow to the idea that Garland and the DoJ must be doing the best possible job imaginable.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)but not its practice. I guess this is progress, but let me remind you that a short while ago you took several exceptions to following the rule of law, despite your lack of standing to presume any degree of competence in the matter:
You opined with contempt for the rule of law:
-"My point is that he [Nixon] should have been [subject of DOJ investigation], if the DoJ had been doing its job."
You assigned guilt in disregard for the rule of law:
-"Three years of probation "commensurate with the crime" in Agnew's case? People have spent longer in jail for stealing a car, not parole, jail, and that's both for an item of less value than the money involved in Agnew's crimes, and without it being a violation of a public trust...... As for Agnew, he was guilty of much more than failure to pay to pay taxes on $29,500"
You misconstrued the rule of law:
-"It's not at all unprecedented that imminent danger changes procedural norms, and it is not a violation of good legal practice to jail dangerous people before trial."
You showed disdain for the history of rule of law:
-"I didn't miss anything, I just didn't care. No way I was going to going through all of that long list [of SCOTUS decisions] to deal with a missing-the-point point you were trying to make"
And that's just in this thread.
You didn't merely question Garland and the DOJ, you presumed them to be biased and/or incompetent based entirely on your anxieties and the laughably inadequate record of precedents. Your lack of faith in certain institutions, which is subjective by any measure, does not permit you to presume foul play on their part. If you intended to merely question their ability to do their job right, you would have expressed doubts in their competence, not, as you did, certainty of its absence. And yes, I am acting as if you need to have some basis for your presumptions because you do. Nothing complicated, just something that goes beyond a bunch of arbitrary notions popping into your head.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 10, 2023, 12:15 AM - Edit history (1)
...and the outcome of all US court decisions must be taken as the gold standard for justice, presumed the best possible outcome and the most proud and upright example of The Rule of Law?
No, I opined with contempt about how poorly the institutions responsible for maintaining the rule of law sometimes do their jobs. That seems to be a distinction that you are either unwilling or incapable of grasping.
Hint: The ideal of the rule of law, and the real-life practice of the rule of law, aren't the same thing. Although I doubt you'll give up deliberately acting like I'm criticizing and lacking faith in the former, I'm clearly discussing the latter.
From now on, for God's sake, at least consider that that's what my words mean before you create any more convenient straw men by taking things the other way.
It's "arbitrary" to say that Agnew deserved a whole lot more than three years probation? Read some history! He's quite well known (as was Al Capone) for being morally, if not convictably, guilty of a bit more than tax problems.
Do you think historians should write as if Al Capone did nothing wrong other than cheat on his taxes?
Our legal system is based on the idea that it is "better that ten guilty persons go free than that one innocent person be convicted". Given that concept, it's perfectly valid to worry that guilty people are going to get away a lot.
It's not a startling, wild, crazy idea to further note that this willingness to let some guilty people go free tends to work out disproportionately for the elites, nor note that it almost runs in reverse for some of the underprivileged.
Your overweening faith is likewise subjective, not a privileged, default position.
I merely do not grant that there is impartiality and competence by default. That's a very different thing than an accusation or presumption of those problems.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)In the absence of a more golden standard, whatever the DOJ has decided to prosecute (or not) in the past and the outcome of all US court decisions ARE the de-facto gold standard, whether you take them as such or not. These standards, however, are not examples of the rule of law. They are examples of APPLYING the rule of law in administering justice. So if you wish to talk about justice in the legal sense, you must at least be aware of this gold standard rather than outright dismissing it.
Which goes directly to you opining with contempt on how poorly the institutions responsible for maintaining the rule of law sometimes do their jobs. You cannot possibly gauge how poorly the institutions are doing their jobs without being aware of what the standards are. Otherwise you are doomed to comparing a perceived quantity to an unknown quantity. A totally useless exercise, in my humble opinion. And I must admit, I am incapable of grasping the merits of engaging in useless exercises.
And guess what, I am completely on your side about the difference between the rule of law and its real-life practice, but something tells me you ain't gonna like it. Because your challenges to how the rule of law is being applied are antithetical to the established definition of the rule of law. This is exactly what constitutes contempt for the rule of law, and I thank you for demonstrating this with the above examples, in which you are repeatedly comparing the non-events of your speculations with events that exemplify the real rule-based practice of law.
Couldn't have done it better myself.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...because he was never convicted for that in a court of law?
If that's not what you're calling a "non-event", what is? Every prosecution or conviction that never happened is a "non-event", for which no one should fret that the enforcement of justice might have failed?
The "real rule-based practice of law", if that's as good as it gets, is not a very inspiring standard. Rules do get bent, broken, and ignored. Discretionary decisions, not totally bound by strict rules, can be and are sometimes poorly or corruptly made.
And, as if it needs emphasis again, those failures overwhelmingly favor the elite, eroding equality before the law for all people.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)In the context of rule of law and its applications, it IS a non-event. Because, take a bow, he was never convicted for anything other than tax evasion in a court of law. Well done! Likewise, there is no such thing as a prosecution never happening. An event that never happened is not an event, and fretting over something that didn't occur is the non-event taking place in your mind alone that I was referring to. Historians are perfectly entitled to the descriptive narrative of events which is common to their profession, but they don't have to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. So if you ever need a lawyer, my advice is, don't hire a historian.
Rule of law is not meant to inspire you. It is meant to stop the discretionary decisions you are talking about. Your disagreements with how the rule of law has been applied on specific occasions are also discretionary, but not limited by the rule of law, and you can go as absurd as you wish with your criticism of its practitioners. But you wouldn't want overly discretionary prosecutors and judges in charge of your trial, would ya?
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...the general public should have been quite content for him to go free, no matter how many witnesses he intimidated, cops he paid off, people he killed or had killed... because, well, anything that could have bypassed the effects of all of that corruption and/or incompetence in catching him would have been a slippery slope into madness?
No one should ever have felt anxiety all those years before Capone was jailed, because, gosh, it would be silly to worry that underperformance of law enforcement had anything to do with that?
You're acting like you think you're being a paragon of rationality, defending a detached but absolutely crucial idealism about the law, but you're actually just weirdly disconnected from normal human concerns about justice, in favor of a bizarre indifference to the real-life failings of law enforcement carried out by flawed and corruptible humans.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)In your humble opinion, should the general public have lynched Al Capone in this hypothetical scenario?
The difference between the reality of this case and the scenario you are pushing is the difference between applying the rule of law and idly speculating with complete disregard for the rule of law. And, thankfully, me being the paragon of reality or you being the paragon of fantasy has no effect on following the rule of law without fear or favor. And if your idealism conflicts with the rule of law, guess which one I will defend?
Silent3
(15,909 posts)Where did you extract from my words, "In your humble opinion, should the general public have lynched Al Capone in this hypothetical scenario?"
Similarly, the lack of faith that the DoJ will properly go after Trump expressed by many here on DU has NO CONNECTION to anyone saying, "well, I guess we're gonna have to lynch Trump ourselves".
What you falsely believe is rationality is your valiant fight against things which are merely in your own imagination. Attack any windmills lately?
iemanja
(57,757 posts)That in our system the rich and powerful get away with anything. Your excuses—that there was, for example, no investigation of Reagan— only show DOJ has been loathe to hold presidents and other rich and powerful men accountable. Your excuses are precisely proof for what you are arguing against.
You demand fealty to Garland, demand others never question him, and insist they must provide historical evidence to question DOJ, all while your own post is filled with such evidence that shows how little accountability there has been in the past.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)But evidence of what? Certainly not evidence of a rigged justice system or a complicit Attorney General! My excuses are no excuses at all - they are evidence of gross inaccuracies I found in a post. They excuse nothing, and they constitute proof of those inaccuracies and nothing else.
I am not denying that the rich and the powerful are getting away with a lot of shit. What I am denying is that it is a consequence of a rigged justice system. No, it is a consequence of a rigged economic system, and it is critical to always keep this distinction in mind. Wealth and power buys superior competence in legal matters, no more no less. While this may look like a difference without distinction to you, confusing the sources for inequity always leads to failure to address inequity. If you were to reform the legal system to your liking without reforming the economic system, nothing will change. You would still be laying blame where it doesn't belong and ignore the source of the problem.
My demands have nothing to do with fealty to Garland or unconditional reverence of his person. In fact, I demand just the opposite: a rational and reasoned examination of his record, which just happens to be, by all objective standards, exceptional. And I demand that any disagreement with my assessment, which I have no interest in suppressing under any circumstances, is backed by reason and fact. Is this too much to demand?
iemanja
(57,757 posts)So what? I'm not sure what's so exceptional about him, but say I grant you that point. What does that say about an impending indictment?
As for your claim that difference in treatment for the wealthy is the result of the economic system RATHER THAN the justice system, you don't seem to understand that the two work together. Our justice system is a product of our economic and social system, which is precisely why the wealthy get fines or slaps on the wrist while the poor get decades behind bars. To deny that would be dishonest.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)They will tell you what is so exceptional in indicting leaders of an insurrection for seditious conspiracy. Garland's record, by definition, say nothing about impending indictments. It documents past indictments.
As far as justice system vs economic system: cause end effect always go together, but there is a distinction between the two nevertheless. The way you tell the difference between cause and effect is the former predates the latter. Its hard to argue against our economic system predateing our justice system. You admitted as much yourself: "Our justice system is a product of our economic and social system". Of course the two go together, but I don't think you want to argue that it is wealth which buys legal competence and not the other way around.
iemanja
(57,757 posts)An indictment. That’s it. Anything else is reading tea leaves. Your word salad doesn’t change that simple fact, but it is certainly a tortured excuse. One does not need historical proof to fail to give someone the benefit of doubt. That benefit must be earned. And you certain can point to no historical precedent that would suggest DOJ is about to indict Trump.
No one deserves the benefit of the doubt. It is not the responsibility of citizens to make excuses for what govt officials haven’t done. It is our right to make our views known, no matter how determined Garland’s fans are to stomp out all dissent. Why people are so invested in making excuses for him escapes me. You all act like he’s your kin or something.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Without it there is no path to indictment. But a path to indictment is far from being "it". What you are talking about is an illusion. In your statement you completely cast aside the process that makes the evidence even relevant. You appear to equate evidence to indictment, disregarding the arduous process that needs to be completed between the two points. And even when a grand jury is seated and issues the indictment, it is meaningless unless the suspect is successfully prosecuted and found guilty by his peers beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. This is far more difficult than collecting the evidence.
If precedents don't matter, there is no need to make them a central point of your argument. But once you do, as the previous poster did, you better be accurate about them and be prepared for the "word salad" that calls out the BS. On the other hand, if precedents don't matter and no one deserves the benefit of doubt, which I find to be a far more compelling argument, judging DOJ by past precedents becomes meaningless as well. If precedents don't matter, you commit yourself to judging Garland by his own record alone, which is evidently stellar by any objective standard. In this case, the entire genre of Garland bashing flies out the window. The "precedents don't matter" argument is in essence the argument I am advocating and, as disappointing as it may be to you, you may find yourself agreeing with me despite your attempted belligerence.
iemanja
(57,757 posts)and there are none for an indictment of a President. There are MANY for presidents and others at the top not being held accountable for their crimes. Your yourself pointed to them.
Since you know so much, and the "facts" are so clear, when will the indictment be issued?
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Indicting a president is unprecedented as a matter of fact, not a matter of judgement. It is independent of my opinion, or anyone else's. I stated it as a fact that does not signify the degree of importance I may or may not assign to it.
On the other hand, a precedent not being necessary for judging Garland's performance or expertise is an opinion. I took exception to the poster putting past precedents, poorly recalled as they were, at the center of pre-judging Garland. In this context, citing past precedents was not important, and even detrimental to his argument, as you demonstrated later.
I am flattered by the degree of confidence you have in my clairvoyance and my intelligence. But I must disappoint you: I don't know when, or even whether, Garland will succeed in indicting Trump. And I am neither particularly intelligent nor particularly articulate. But I keep trying. Thanks for your words of encouragement.
iemanja
(57,757 posts)It's irrelevant to the point of whether Trump will be indicted. Everything else is distraction.
You wrote: "I don't know when, or even whether, Garland will succeed in indicting Trump."
That what are you arguing about? The frustration of Garland's critics is that there has not yet been an indictment of Trump or any of the top-level coup plotters and they fear they won't be. Now you say you don't know whether they will be an indictment, yet you argue with anyone who says the same thing.
Again, no one cares whether you think Garland the bestest AG ever. It has nothing to do with whether an indictment will be issued.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)No matter how successful Garland is in indicting the insurrectionists, he never gets any credit from the critics. No matter how good it gets, his record is being consistently dismissed in favor of never-ending hand wringing. And Garland's record has everything to do with the likelihood of Trump ever being indicted. There is a hell of a difference between "I don't know when or whether" and "not happening". Garland is not only being presumed incompetent by the nay sayers, he being scapegoated for not achieving something that has never been achieved before. There is a term for it: Pessimism Porn. Look it up.
BTW, Tarrio and Rhodes ARE top level coup plotters. But the nay sayers stopped acknowledging their existence as soon as Garland indicted them. Curious, isn't it?
iemanja
(57,757 posts)They work for us. I don't work for them. That's some bizarre notion of democracy you have.
Tarrio's sentence was 5 months. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/23/politics/proud-boys-enrique-tarrio/index.html
That's what you're so proud of.
You know full well people are talking about the members of the administration and their close contacts at the highest level. But it's the 5 month sentences you prefer.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)People who send student loan cancellation notices are administration officials too. Did it ever occur to you to constantly bash any of them on an anonymous web site for doing their jobs well? Why not? They work for you too!
BTW, Tarrio was sentenced to five months for burning a BLM banner, not seditious conspiracy. Hell yeah, I am proud of it. Just a little bit.
iemanja
(57,757 posts)I'm sorry you find it so repugnant. We clearly don't share the same view of the role of government. Yours scares me.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Remember the never-ending bashing of Hillary for her emails?
Don't tell me you were OK with it.
Lancero
(3,276 posts)The way people act about this it's like they think their is some imminent threat to our democracy thats planning, or has already attempted, a coup.
treestar
(82,383 posts)not want to indict TFG?
gab13by13
(32,318 posts)Garland cares about any possible damage that could occur to our institutions.
I have proof. Why did Garland choose to defend Trump (the office) in the E. Jean Carroll defamation law suit? He defended Trump (the office) was willing to take Trump's place in court because he believed that slandering someone was an official duty of the president. A district court ruled against Garland and now the decision is coming from the Appeals court. If the Appeals court backs Garland and rules that slandering someone is an official duty of the president then Carroll's lawsuit is dead in the water, that is why she filed a 2nd lawsuit.
treestar
(82,383 posts)What damage does he think would occur to our institutions? Is that damage worth worrying about?
You seem to think he is letting Trump get away with a crime by avoiding prosecution of Trump. Or helping Trump in other ways. Why would he do that?
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)At least the conspiracy theories are getting creative.
Initech
(108,772 posts)Fuck Trump, fuck Fox News, fuck that whole damn party! 
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...right now.
What about their deliberative process makes them 'quivering assholes?'
Prosecutors use grand jury proceedings as test-runs for trials, and take a grand jury's perception of the evidence seriously. However, if the prosecutor strongly disagrees with a grand jury, he or she may ignore the decision. But they don't, and should not leapfrog that process to rush to court.
In federal criminal cases, federal grand juries are made up of 16 to 23 members. They decide whether to indict someone who is being investigated, and at least 12 grand jurors need to agree to issue an indictment.
In addition to considering whether individuals may have committed a crime, a grand jury can also be used by a prosecutor as an investigative tool to compel witnesses to testify or turn over documents.
In all felony cases, there must be a “probable cause determination” that a crime has been committed in order for a case to move forward to a trial or a plea. “Probable cause” means that there must be some evidence of each element of the offense.
In the federal system, a grand jury is the body that makes the probable cause determination.
Why in hell would ANY decent prosecutor jump ahead of that deliberative, legitimizing process where the grand jury is expected to determine the probable cause that bolsters their case's credibility in court?
What idiot prosecutor would sidestep that process in seeking convictions against a high profile defendant? Why should these prosecutors go into court with less ammunition? Who wants that?
Just stupid.
(I see 'quivering assholes' was changed into the slur of 'quivering sissies,' as if sissies can't kick ass.)
jalan48
(14,914 posts)of the country" argument.
Response to Augiedog (Original post)
traitorsgalore This message was self-deleted by its author.
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...or more precicely, usually a caracicture of women in an effort to portray what they believe is weakness that is particular to women.
But you do you.
Mad_Machine76
(24,957 posts)if that's what he's doing here (which I doubt)
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)The armchair prosecutors notwithstanding.....
Patton French
(1,824 posts)Initech
(108,772 posts)We have to take action now,. The GOP has gone way too far. Tomorrow may be too late.
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)Cha
(319,067 posts)Hekate
(100,133 posts)I can’t even read it all — my iPad seems to have gone “Tilt!” like pinball machine.
Cha
(319,067 posts)ones.. I especially liked.. ".. at least they're getting more creative in their conspiracy theories."
And, of course, Beastly Boy's. :
Hekate
(100,133 posts)#55
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)for excuses now huh. If we bend over any more we will fall over. Don't mean you personally, mean all of us!
FG has been a criminal for a decade. Even a layman gets that Eventually, since we're scraping the bottom... We must realize justice will not ever happen??
Sad but true.
Prairie_Seagull
(4,688 posts)For you and me sure but for the rich and powerful maybe not so much. In this case with all the different and some potentially dangerous outcomes the DOJ is walking a fine line. This is potentially an explosive moment. I am a let the chips fall where they may guy. The discussion needs to happen. It just does not need to finish happening tomorrow. We should want and need calmer minds to prevail.
Is justice blind? I wish it were but caution in this case dictates lifting the blindfold some. in this case maybe more than some. is this a bad thing?
Sky Jewels
(9,148 posts)I do take issue with your use of the term "quivering sissies." The word "sissy" has been traditionally used as an anti-gay slur.