4 ms·

How was the Trump/Adams quid pro quo not corruption? 7 DoJ prosecutors resigned rather than sign the dismissal, because the corruption case against Adams is a s

How was the Trump/Adams quid pro quo not corruption? 7 DoJ prosecutors resigned rather than sign the dismissal, because the corruption case against Adams is a slam dunk and absolutely should proceed. Who eventually signed it? A just-appointed official whose former job was one of Trump's personal lawyers. How is Trump using executive orders to punish law firms he doesn't like not corruption? Open your eyes, man.

gadders 2y ago
Adams only began to be investigated when he came out against Biden immigration policies. It's another example of lawfare, the same as the bogus Trump investigations. The law firms he's going after are the ones that knowingly lied and generated the whole "Russia Collusion" conspiracy theory. If they are willing to sell their integrity so cheaply, they deserve be barred.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  Look at the actual facts of the Adams case. Regardless of policy, politics, party, whatever - it's blatant corruption that approaches sending an email saying "hell yeah we would like to do that illegal thing! let's go!" It deserved to be charged, and it deserves to be prosecuted fully. I do not accept corruption from government officials regardless of the letter after their name on the ballot. We have an adversarial legal system. Law firms take up a variety of positions for a variety of reasons. Even the most despicable criminal deserves a vigorous defense at trial. If they did something illegal, charge and prosecute them. Executive orders are entirely the wrong vehicle. It's wielding presidential authority like a mob boss. Keep drinking that kool-aid. https://i.redd.it/koriqrcwv2qe1.jpeg https://i.redd.it/koriqrcwv2qe1.jpeg
  - gadders 2y ago
    >> We have an adversarial legal system. Law firms take up a variety of positions for a variety of reasons. Granted, but bad faith lying for political reasons should not be included in that.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
      If they did something illegal, charge and prosecute them. If you think what they did should be illegal but isn't now, work with congress to pass legislation that makes it illegal. The rule of law is critical to the American system. The EOs targeting law firms are extrajudicial nonsense, and frankly impeachment worthy.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  > The law firms he's going after are the ones that knowingly lied and generated the whole "Russia Collusion" conspiracy theory. Where's the lie? It's a fact Trump's 2016 campaign held a meeting in his home with a Russian spy to discuss an exchange of relaxed relations for dirt on Clinton. It's a fact Russia hacked the DNC and Trump helped disseminate the content of that hack. It's also a fact that Trump's campaign manager exchanged internal campaign data with a Russian intelligence officer, while the GRU was waging an influence campaign on social media targeting Americans to sway the election. How is that not collusion?
  - gadders 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
      https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mueller-i-did-not-clear-trump-of-obstruction-of-justice https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mueller-i-did-not-clea...
      - gadders 2y ago
        That says "Obstruction of Justice" not "Colluding with Russia".
        sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        There's a few things you're slamming together that are better understood when teased apart. There were actions that Russia took during the 2016 election season to support the election of Trump. This is a well documented fact. There was a meeting between a Russian intelligence connected lawyer and Trump campaign personnel including Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort. In this meeting, the Trump campaign was offered information to use against the Clinton campaign. This is a well documented fact. After thorough investigation, it was concluded that there was not substantial explicit collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. But that same evidence showed they were extremely aligned in their goals. Trump was clearly Russia's preferred candidate and Russia was spending time, money, and effort to support his candidacy in a number of ways. That investigation was impeded by Trump, as Mueller found in his report and testified to Congress. Trump and his acolytes like to take "Trump did not explicitly collude with Russia" to mean "There is nothing whatsoever to the idea that Russia wanted Trump to win and took actions to support that outcome." And that's just not the case. That's putting some extreme interpretations on the actual facts of the matter.

gadders 2y ago

Adams only began to be investigated when he came out against Biden immigration policies. It's another example of lawfare, the same as the bogus Trump investigations. The law firms he's going after are the ones that knowingly lied and generated the whole "Russia Collusion" conspiracy theory. If they are willing to sell their integrity so cheaply, they deserve be barred.

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
Look at the actual facts of the Adams case. Regardless of policy, politics, party, whatever - it's blatant corruption that approaches sending an email saying "hell yeah we would like to do that illegal thing! let's go!" It deserved to be charged, and it deserves to be prosecuted fully. I do not accept corruption from government officials regardless of the letter after their name on the ballot. We have an adversarial legal system. Law firms take up a variety of positions for a variety of reasons. Even the most despicable criminal deserves a vigorous defense at trial. If they did something illegal, charge and prosecute them. Executive orders are entirely the wrong vehicle. It's wielding presidential authority like a mob boss. Keep drinking that kool-aid. https://i.redd.it/koriqrcwv2qe1.jpeg https://i.redd.it/koriqrcwv2qe1.jpeg
- gadders 2y ago
  >> We have an adversarial legal system. Law firms take up a variety of positions for a variety of reasons. Granted, but bad faith lying for political reasons should not be included in that.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
    If they did something illegal, charge and prosecute them. If you think what they did should be illegal but isn't now, work with congress to pass legislation that makes it illegal. The rule of law is critical to the American system. The EOs targeting law firms are extrajudicial nonsense, and frankly impeachment worthy.
ModernMech 2y ago
> The law firms he's going after are the ones that knowingly lied and generated the whole "Russia Collusion" conspiracy theory. Where's the lie? It's a fact Trump's 2016 campaign held a meeting in his home with a Russian spy to discuss an exchange of relaxed relations for dirt on Clinton. It's a fact Russia hacked the DNC and Trump helped disseminate the content of that hack. It's also a fact that Trump's campaign manager exchanged internal campaign data with a Russian intelligence officer, while the GRU was waging an influence campaign on social media targeting Americans to sway the election. How is that not collusion?
- gadders 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mueller-i-did-not-clear-trump-of-obstruction-of-justice https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mueller-i-did-not-clea...
    - gadders 2y ago
      That says "Obstruction of Justice" not "Colluding with Russia".
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        There's a few things you're slamming together that are better understood when teased apart. There were actions that Russia took during the 2016 election season to support the election of Trump. This is a well documented fact. There was a meeting between a Russian intelligence connected lawyer and Trump campaign personnel including Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort. In this meeting, the Trump campaign was offered information to use against the Clinton campaign. This is a well documented fact. After thorough investigation, it was concluded that there was not substantial explicit collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. But that same evidence showed they were extremely aligned in their goals. Trump was clearly Russia's preferred candidate and Russia was spending time, money, and effort to support his candidacy in a number of ways. That investigation was impeded by Trump, as Mueller found in his report and testified to Congress. Trump and his acolytes like to take "Trump did not explicitly collude with Russia" to mean "There is nothing whatsoever to the idea that Russia wanted Trump to win and took actions to support that outcome." And that's just not the case. That's putting some extreme interpretations on the actual facts of the matter.