3 ms·
I am not making any argument about his corruption or lack thereof. We're talking about two specific very bad legal cases using novel legal theories that should
by Amezarak 1y ago
I am not making any argument about his corruption or lack thereof. We're talking about two specific very bad legal cases using novel legal theories that should have never been brought, with people like CNN's legal correspondent agreeing, not Trump fanactics.
"Trump corrupt" !=> "this case was sound."
I also provided an example of the Mackey case, where the DoJ was weaponized to go after Trump supporters on Twitter.
- pstuart 1y agoYou keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I don't like the twitter case and think it was a mistake. Not as bad as the case that drove Aaron Swartz to suicide (under the Obama admin). But to lecture on the propriety of the prosecution and declare that it was "weaponized" is a stretch. The feds have made plenty of bad decisions across both sides of the aisle, and their intentions should always be worthy of scrutiny. The DOJ (and every other federal agency) is being gutted of anyone who does not swear fealty to Donald Trump (the person, not the office) -- that's weaponization. I'm happy to call out each and every mistake the Biden admin does, but it's almost quaint in comparison to what his successor is doing. We've moved well past the "both sides" debate -- what is happening now is fascism and un-American to it's core. So yeah, boo hoo about the twitter case.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- BrenBarn 1y agoBut that is the problem. It's pointless to talk about the details of individual cases when the entire system is 100% broken. It's like arguing about what color shoes match your shirt when you're running from a burning house.