No. of Recommendations: 14
Why would *I* take the word of partisan democrats and give *them* the benefit of the doubt if you're unwilling to do the same in the other direction?
The link wasn't to the Democrat's report. It was to the Republican report. The author's were Trump's appointees to the Commission. The Trump appointees stated that their vote against continued investigation was based on prosecutorial discretion - and did not say that it was based on a conclusion that there wasn't a violation.
There's a reason I keep harping on the Gates of Hell bit. You folks are so convicted that you're right you're skipping past the larger picture - we don't go after the opposition political party for a reason.
There's a reason I keep pushing back on your Gates of Hell bit. We go after politicians all the time when they have committed crimes. We don't refrain from going after the opposition political party just because they are the opposition political party - we just don't go after people when they haven't committed crimes, and most politicians don't engage in provable violations of the law.
Remember all those Obama appointees with tax problems? Would you have liked it if the federal government had thrown the book at each and every one of them?
If they committed provable criminal violations of U.S. tax law? Absolutely! I don't think someone should get a pass on criminally cheating on their taxes just because they're buds with the President.
The machinery you're building isn't going to remain in the democrats' hands forever. You might not like it when inevitably power changes hands in Washington, D.C.
Why not? I don't think people should avoid prosecution just because they're politically powerful. And I don't think that the DOJ is going to start indicting people that haven't done anything wrong just because "power changes hands" in DC, any more than they did during the Trump years or the first two and a half years here under the Biden administration.
I've been trying to understand the "Gates of Hell" argument raised in conservative media. It seems to run along the lines of, "If Democrats can indict a Republican that hasn't done anything wrong, then they'll hate it when Republicans indict Democrats that haven't done anything wrong." The problem with that is that the predicate isn't true. There's little disagreement that Trump falsified his record keeping so that he could falsely record payments to Michael Cohen as "legal services" when they were in fact reimbursements for the personal payments to Daniels. I think most Democrats are fine with the idea that if a local Red State DA has a Democrat dead to rights breaking the law like that, that Democrat should face the music. That's very different from the GOP claim that suddenly every Democrat - innocent or guilty - is now in jeopardy from a precedent that says that powerful politicians that commit crimes can be indicted.
