I gotta wonder if Garland is hoping tRump will pass away or be diagnosed with dementia.

[Silent3]

97. So, whatever the DoJ has decided to prosecute (or not) in the past...

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?

You opined with contempt for 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 lack of faith in certain institutions, which is subjective by any measure

Your overweening faith is likewise subjective, not a privileged, default position.

You didn't merely question Garland and the DOJ, you presumed them to be biased and/or incompetent

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.