5 ms·

Just going to drop this here, make of it what you will. "By intentionally obscuring their payments through Perkins Cole and failing to publicly disclose the tr

Just going to drop this here, make of it what you will. "By intentionally obscuring their payments through Perkins Cole and failing to publicly disclose the true purpose of those payments,” the campaign and DNC “were able to avoid publicly reporting on their statutorily required FEC disclosure forms the fact that they were paying Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump with the intent of influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election,” the initial complaint had read." https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93 https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elect... The truth is you could pin a charge on a large percentage of politicians if you were determined to. There's clearly an element of selective prosecution here, regardless of whether the charge is valid. To make a martyr of Trump over small time crimes is not going to be good for the country in the end.

guelo 4y ago
That issue was resolved when the FEC did an investigation and issued a fine. There was accountability. Why should there be no accountability for Trump?
- NullInvictus 4y ago
  It’s just Whataboutism. What the DNC did or did not do is entirely irrelevant to the case, because the DNC is not who was standing before the grand jury. “You could pin this on a large percentage of politicians”. Yes, please. It will in fact be good for the country. I don’t care what party they come from.
  - TheHappyOddish 4y ago
    I'm not sure if you're intentionally being selective here, but I'll assume good intent. GP goes on to say: > There's clearly an element of selective prosecution here, regardless of whether the charge is valid. To make a martyr of Trump over small time crimes is not going to be good for the country in the end. Their point is quite specifically _not_ whataboutism. They use another example to point to what they believe to be selective prosecution, not to ask "why not proscute the others who did this?".
  - meragrin_ 4y ago
    > It’s just Whataboutism. What the DNC did or did not do is entirely irrelevant to the case, because the DNC is not who was standing before the grand jury. No it is not. The DNC was not trying to hide something about their private personal life which would not have had a material affect on the election. She was not paid until the month before the election. There was so much crap that had been spewed about Trump by then, this would have been a drop in the sea. The DNC was trying to actively trying harm an opposing candidate which I would say is far worse.
ModernMech 4y ago
> The truth is you could pin a charge on a large percentage of politicians if you were determined to. I mean... great, let's do that. If they're all committing crimes, let's start arresting them until they stop. That's how they treat us after all.
- calvinmorrison 4y ago
  Yes, but first we should arrest trump, we promise we'll arrest pelosi and the other scoundrels later!
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    Gotta start somewhere... the guy who has been identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in this very crime is as good as any.
    - adamrezich 4y ago
      if we "gotta start somewhere", why are we starting with someone who is an outsider to the bipartisan political in-group? assume this prosecution is successful—are we really to believe that then, thereafter, members of the bipartisan political in-group will somehow receive equal scrutiny? upon what basis should we assume this eventual justice will occur? it should be clear to any sufficiently neutral observer that this is nothing more than making an example out of a problematic political outsider for daring to run for President again. this is not the start of some great wave of justice on behalf of the people, against the entrenched bipartisan political in-group class.
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        He's the former POTUS and defacto leader of the Republican party, commanding the majority of support from the Republicans, and receives pledges of fealty and defense from elected Republicans at all levels of government. Trump is the definition of a political insider.

guelo 4y ago

That issue was resolved when the FEC did an investigation and issued a fine. There was accountability. Why should there be no accountability for Trump?

NullInvictus 4y ago
It’s just Whataboutism. What the DNC did or did not do is entirely irrelevant to the case, because the DNC is not who was standing before the grand jury. “You could pin this on a large percentage of politicians”. Yes, please. It will in fact be good for the country. I don’t care what party they come from.
- TheHappyOddish 4y ago
  I'm not sure if you're intentionally being selective here, but I'll assume good intent. GP goes on to say: > There's clearly an element of selective prosecution here, regardless of whether the charge is valid. To make a martyr of Trump over small time crimes is not going to be good for the country in the end. Their point is quite specifically _not_ whataboutism. They use another example to point to what they believe to be selective prosecution, not to ask "why not proscute the others who did this?".
- meragrin_ 4y ago
  > It’s just Whataboutism. What the DNC did or did not do is entirely irrelevant to the case, because the DNC is not who was standing before the grand jury. No it is not. The DNC was not trying to hide something about their private personal life which would not have had a material affect on the election. She was not paid until the month before the election. There was so much crap that had been spewed about Trump by then, this would have been a drop in the sea. The DNC was trying to actively trying harm an opposing candidate which I would say is far worse.

ModernMech 4y ago

> The truth is you could pin a charge on a large percentage of politicians if you were determined to. I mean... great, let's do that. If they're all committing crimes, let's start arresting them until they stop. That's how they treat us after all.

calvinmorrison 4y ago
Yes, but first we should arrest trump, we promise we'll arrest pelosi and the other scoundrels later!
- ModernMech 4y ago
  Gotta start somewhere... the guy who has been identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in this very crime is as good as any.
  - adamrezich 4y ago
    if we "gotta start somewhere", why are we starting with someone who is an outsider to the bipartisan political in-group? assume this prosecution is successful—are we really to believe that then, thereafter, members of the bipartisan political in-group will somehow receive equal scrutiny? upon what basis should we assume this eventual justice will occur? it should be clear to any sufficiently neutral observer that this is nothing more than making an example out of a problematic political outsider for daring to run for President again. this is not the start of some great wave of justice on behalf of the people, against the entrenched bipartisan political in-group class.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      He's the former POTUS and defacto leader of the Republican party, commanding the majority of support from the Republicans, and receives pledges of fealty and defense from elected Republicans at all levels of government. Trump is the definition of a political insider.