4 ms·

> "If a cop follows you for 500 miles, you’re going to get a ticket." There's a lot of nuance here. Again, we don't know whats in the indictment, but the 500

> "If a cop follows you for 500 miles, you’re going to get a ticket." There's a lot of nuance here. Again, we don't know whats in the indictment, but the 500 laws I break today probably are going to be minor or non-felonies. This isn't a matter of "well everyone breaks the law", this is a matter of "some people break major laws and they aren't being held accountable". > For example, something as simple and normal as taking some work docs home or discussing work with a spouse could lead to breaking serious federal laws. And that's why intent is included when considering whether someone has broken the law. > Clinton's private email server is a perfect example of this, she committed a clear crime here but Comey chose to not prosecute. And I believe that if there was a case that could have been brought against Clinton there should have been. I don't think that's a get out of jail card for others, I think that was a failure of justice. I wouldn't have had one moment of poor sleep over her going to jail. > We are witnessing a departure from practices established centuries ago in common law tradition. That tradition has led to a place where obvious criminality isn't punished. There appears to be no respect for the law from the leadership. If this is a departure, it's a good one.

pc_edwin 4y ago
We'll I suppose we are somewhat at an impasse. I Believe you understand why it is prudent for the judicial branch to refrain from prosecuting key figures from both political parties if the crime committed is just a minor technicality such as not paying a parking ticket or accidentally using non-secure lines of comms. I think we disagree on whether what Trump is rumoured to be charged on falls under the category of "reasonable to refrain from prosecuting". I think this is a politically biased DA, going out of his way to use a technicality to charge Trump. In my opinion, this is way outside of what is acceptable. If the rumours are true there is no major nor minor crime committed here, this is at best a technicality and will likely be thrown out. Besides my opinions on the specific case, I think we also disagree on how much leeway these key political figures and officials should be given before the justice department gets involved. I personally believe we should give much more affordances. I despise the modern idea of the "civil servant". Its a sort of neutering of what should be very revered roles. Everything from the laughable law salaries which are earned by 20 something kids in silicon valley or wall street. To little things like the secret service being able to veto the president on what he/she wants do etc. It just seems so unamerican to me. In a very short timeframe, we have lost so much of the reverence and weight given to these roles. Anyways, I can go on a very long tangent here, so I'll stop myself.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  If the charges do turn out to be minor I too will agree he shouldn't be prosecuted. We just don't know. At the moment I think it's disingenous and diminishing to assume it's something like a parking ticket. > I personally believe we should give much more affordances. Yeah, totally at an impasse here. I'm not American, but it seems very un-American to me to consider political leaders part of an untouchable special class. I'm fairly certain one of the founding ideals of America was that there should be no kings. I agree that they should be respected, but that requires holding them to a higher standard. You don't become senator or president and then can do whatever you want. A country can only ever be as good as its leaders.

pc_edwin 4y ago

We'll I suppose we are somewhat at an impasse. I Believe you understand why it is prudent for the judicial branch to refrain from prosecuting key figures from both political parties if the crime committed is just a minor technicality such as not paying a parking ticket or accidentally using non-secure lines of comms. I think we disagree on whether what Trump is rumoured to be charged on falls under the category of "reasonable to refrain from prosecuting". I think this is a politically biased DA, going out of his way to use a technicality to charge Trump. In my opinion, this is way outside of what is acceptable. If the rumours are true there is no major nor minor crime committed here, this is at best a technicality and will likely be thrown out. Besides my opinions on the specific case, I think we also disagree on how much leeway these key political figures and officials should be given before the justice department gets involved. I personally believe we should give much more affordances. I despise the modern idea of the "civil servant". Its a sort of neutering of what should be very revered roles. Everything from the laughable law salaries which are earned by 20 something kids in silicon valley or wall street. To little things like the secret service being able to veto the president on what he/she wants do etc. It just seems so unamerican to me. In a very short timeframe, we have lost so much of the reverence and weight given to these roles. Anyways, I can go on a very long tangent here, so I'll stop myself.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
If the charges do turn out to be minor I too will agree he shouldn't be prosecuted. We just don't know. At the moment I think it's disingenous and diminishing to assume it's something like a parking ticket. > I personally believe we should give much more affordances. Yeah, totally at an impasse here. I'm not American, but it seems very un-American to me to consider political leaders part of an untouchable special class. I'm fairly certain one of the founding ideals of America was that there should be no kings. I agree that they should be respected, but that requires holding them to a higher standard. You don't become senator or president and then can do whatever you want. A country can only ever be as good as its leaders.