2023 Impeachments

[O Really]

It's not easy stuffing Pandora back in her box.

[billy.pilgrim]

It's not easy stuffing Pandora back in her box.

Probably right, but it mostly started with Pelosi and Obama holding politicians above the law when they refused to enforce the prosecutions of bush and many others for war crimes and so much looking the other way at oil and gas day to day ignoring public health and ignoring crucial environmental law and policy while pretending to make a big deal out of shiny object topics like Keystone.

Burger when to jail for sneaking out 1 document and Clinton was impeached for lying under oath over a bs question.

Then along comes Obama and his look the other way policies toward big business, oil companies, war crimes before and during his administration and his ridiculous refusals to stand up to McConnell, all leading to zero acceptance of law by the trump administration and dems freaking out over trump breaking laws. No wonder the repugs didn't want to lock him up.

Well so far gutless merrick has only seen fit to marginally go after trump until after the republicans take the House and gosh damn if it looks like trump was right about ignoringthe laws about classified documents, "everybody does it".

There's no way that we can ever close Pandora's box, or stop the free falling destruction of our country by going after the other side until after we clean up our side. Until we prove that we put country over party, we deserve what the far more ruthless repugs give us.

Impeach and prosecute Biden now. Show the country and the world that democracy and the rule of law are to be enforced.
Do it as soon as possible this year so we still have a year before elections and maybe we ride above Biden's contempt for our laws at the election. At least the other side can't say, "you did it too."

[O Really]

There's no way ever that we stop the free falling destruction of our country by going after the other side until after we clean up our side. Until we prove that we put country over party, we deserve what the far more ruthless repugs give us.

Well, you're right of course - on one level. But your love of wildlife might be put aside if the dingo is about to eat yo baby. Some might argue that doing whatever is necessary to defeat the repugs IS putting country first - no matter the distasteful process necessary to do it.

[billy.pilgrim]

There's no way ever that we stop the free falling destruction of our country by going after the other side until after we clean up our side. Until we prove that we put country over party, we deserve what the far more ruthless repugs give us.

Well, you're right of course - on one level. But your love of wildlife might be put aside if the dingo is about to eat yo baby. Some might argue that doing whatever is necessary to defeat the repugs IS putting country first - no matter the distasteful process necessary to do it.

Our side started this by not prosecuting fucking War Crimes.
We'll never win by going after the republicans.

[O Really]

Enlighten me if I'm hopelessly ignorant, but IMNVHO prosecuting Bush et. al. for war crimes would have been unsuccessful and fruitless. The alleged crimes are too vague, the defenses (excuses) too many, and the demand for such prosecution too weak. Not to say he wasn't indeed a war criminal.

[Vrede too]

... Burger when to jail for sneaking out 1 document and Clinton was impeached for lying under oath over a bs question.

... Well so far gutless merrick has only seen fit to marginally go after trump until after the republicans take the House and gosh damn if it looks like trump was right about ignoring the laws about classified documents, "everybody does it".

There's no way that we can ever close Pandora's box, or stop the free falling destruction of our country by going after the other side until after we clean up our side. Until we prove that we put country over party, we deserve what the far more ruthless repugs give us.

Impeach and prosecute Biden now. Show the country and the world that democracy and the rule of law are to be enforced.
Do it as soon as possible this year so we still have a year before elections and maybe we ride above Biden's contempt for our laws at the election. At least the other side can't say, "you did it too."

I get your point. However, and I'm striving to be nonpartisan about it, should impeachment be reserved for actions while POTUS? AFAIK, Biden's doc theft and sloppiness came when he was Sen and VP.

At least Bill lied when he was POTUS, though Starr's "investigation" covered many years before that.

Enlighten me if I'm hopelessly ignorant, but IMNVHO prosecuting Bush et. al. for war crimes would have been unsuccessful and fruitless. The alleged crimes are too vague, the defenses (excuses) too many, and the demand for such prosecution too weak. Not to say he wasn't indeed a war criminal.

"unsuccessful" maybe, but I'm not sure that attempting to enforce a principle is "fruitless".

IMO an invasion and occupation based on hundreds of lies IS a war crime. This was not an "Oops". Then, add on rendition, torture and civilian casualties.

[O Really]

"unsuccessful" maybe, but I'm not sure that attempting to enforce a principle is "fruitless".
Don Quixote would agree with you.

IMO an invasion and occupation based on hundreds of lies IS a war crime. This was not an "Oops". Then, add on rendition, torture and civilian casualties.

I think "invasion and occupation based on hundreds of lies" pretty much describes most wars in history, though not necessarily applicable to all parties.

[Vrede too]

Don Quixote would agree with you.

I think "invasion and occupation based on hundreds of lies" pretty much describes most wars in history, though not necessarily applicable to all parties.

Prosecution can lead to future restraint, even if no penalties are imposed.

In theory, "wars of aggression" are war crimes, but there are no war crimes if no one ever attempts to enforce US and international law.

We've had no compunction about prosecuting Saddam and al Qaeda.

[O Really]

Prosecution can lead to future restraint, even if no penalties are imposed.

That's a very Trumpian approach. Sue 'em as intimidation, even if you know you're going to lose, and maybe you'll get something out of it.

[Vrede too]

That's a very Trumpian approach. Sue 'em as intimidation, even if you know you're going to lose, and maybe you'll get something out of it.

"know you're going to lose" is very Trumpian unfounded bravado.

[O Really]

That's a very Trumpian approach. Sue 'em as intimidation, even if you know you're going to lose, and maybe you'll get something out of it.

"know you're going to lose" is very Trumpian unfounded bravado.

Yes, but the point is Trump uses lawsuits as a weapon where the goal isn't necessarily "winning" the case itself. If he can scare somebody off or intimidate them or make them use a bunch of money to defend or whatever, he has "won." Your suggestion that pursuing prosecution without likely possibility of an actual win can still be a win follows the same trumpian principle. Prosecutors every day know that their guy is guilty but don't have sufficient proof to prevail in court so they don't prosecute. Seeing a guilty guy go skipping out of court waving the finger doesn't do much deterrence.

[Vrede too]

That's a very Trumpian approach. Sue 'em as intimidation, even if you know you're going to lose, and maybe you'll get something out of it.

"know you're going to lose" is very Trumpian unfounded bravado.

Yes, but the point is Trump uses lawsuits as a weapon where the goal isn't necessarily "winning" the case itself. If he can scare somebody off or intimidate them or make them use a bunch of money to defend or whatever, he has "won." Your suggestion that pursuing prosecution without likely possibility of an actual win can still be a win follows the same trumpian principle. Prosecutors every day know that their guy is guilty but don't have sufficient proof to prevail in court so they don't prosecute. Seeing a guilty guy go skipping out of court waving the finger doesn't do much deterrence.

I never posted, "prosecution without likely possibility of an actual win". That is YOUR feeling. I merely said that there would be tangible value even in not winning. That is VERY different from what Dolt .45 does.

IMO there's a strong case to be made that Iraq, rendition and torture were all war crimes, but I don't know the odds of success.

I think that decision to not prosecute was more political than legal, and billy.pilgrim and I disagree with that political calculus. The MIC shuns accountability.

We may also be seeing with Biden/Garland that no POTUS wants to see a former POTUS held criminally liable for what they did in office.

[O Really]

I think if Trump had just given the docs back when asked, there wouldn't be any talk of criminal charges. The issue with him isn't that he was careless with records, but that he was obstructing and defying a lawful request and court order.

[Vrede too]

I think if Trump had just given the docs back when asked, there wouldn't be any talk of criminal charges. The issue with him isn't that he was careless with records, but that he was obstructing and defying a lawful request and court order.

Probably true. Biden's lapses sure complicate things given that they went on for years even if there were no request and orders, though.

I'm more disappointed that DoJ's J6 investigation was delayed so long and that there may be no prosecution at all. Then, what happened to the 2016 campaign finance felonies that sent Cohen to prison and that he would be thrilled to testify against TRE45QN about?

[GoCubsGo]

I think if Trump had just given the docs back when asked, there wouldn't be any talk of criminal charges. The issue with him isn't that he was careless with records, but that he was obstructing and defying a lawful request and court order.

Probably true. Biden's lapses sure complicate things given that they went on for years even if there were no request and orders, though.

I'm more disappointed that DoJ's J6 investigation was delayed so long and that there may be no prosecution at all. Then, what happened to the 2016 campaign finance felonies that sent Cohen to prison and that he would be thrilled to testify against TRE45QN about?

I know the wheels of justice turn exceedingly slow, like WTH does it take 16 months to charge Alec Baldwin?

But the longer Merrick gets from Jan 6 the less likely indictments seem, Jack Smith aside.

I was really expecting movement after the midterms. What else could they possibly need?

[O Really]

I was really expecting movement after the midterms. What else could they possibly need?

Backbones? Guts? Yellow streak erasers?

[billy.pilgrim]

Don Quixote would agree with you.

I think "invasion and occupation based on hundreds of lies" pretty much describes most wars in history, though not necessarily applicable to all parties.

Prosecution can lead to future restraint, even if no penalties are imposed.

In theory, "wars of aggression" are war crimes, but there are no war crimes if no one ever attempts to enforce US and international law.

We've had no compunction about prosecuting Saddam and al Qaeda.

Or the Japanese, death for torture including waterboarding.

[billy.pilgrim]

Prosecution can lead to future restraint, even if no penalties are imposed.

That's a very Trumpian approach. Sue 'em as intimidation, even if you know you're going to lose, and maybe you'll get something out of it.

The "something" could be respect. To turn away only opens more doors for more crimes.

[billy.pilgrim]

That's a very Trumpian approach. Sue 'em as intimidation, even if you know you're going to lose, and maybe you'll get something out of it.

"know you're going to lose" is very Trumpian unfounded bravado.

Yes, but the point is Trump uses lawsuits as a weapon where the goal isn't necessarily "winning" the case itself. If he can scare somebody off or intimidate them or make them use a bunch of money to defend or whatever, he has "won." Your suggestion that pursuing prosecution without likely possibility of an actual win can still be a win follows the same trumpian principle. Prosecutors every day know that their guy is guilty but don't have sufficient proof to prevail in court so they don't prosecute. Seeing a guilty guy go skipping out of court waving the finger doesn't do much deterrence.

I disagree

[billy.pilgrim]

I think if Trump had just given the docs back when asked, there wouldn't be any talk of criminal charges. The issue with him isn't that he was careless with records, but that he was obstructing and defying a lawful request and court order.

Trump broke a lot more laws than just the documents. The documents have been used as just another shiny object of distraction. No one is interested any longer in the prosecution of other crimes.