- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Why are people around this dude are falling like flies, except him? What kind of wizardry is he doing to avoid prison? Or is our system just that fucked?
It’s not wizardry, it’s that our political/legal system has been avoiding the question of “Can you indict a President (current or former)?” ever since Nixon.
We avoided it when it came to Bush & Cheney’s actually verified war crimes, and we’re ignoring it for Trump, because the government desperately does not want to set precedent where people might actually be, you know, held accountable for being giant grifting pieces of shit.
This has been going on a long time and they only started prosecuting Trump because he wasn’t willing to do the whole “handshake and give the classified documents back” deal. They literally started the classified documents case because he was being so belligerently criminal. Former Presidents “played the game” so to speak and gave back documents with a “slap on the wrist” outcome, because “but they gave them back!” They tried to give Trump the opportunity to do the same but he just can’t help being a criminal scumfuck.
They’re slow walking every single case because they still don’t want this question answered, period. They want it to hang as a question eternally, so Presidents can essentially have immunity while hiding behind “Well we don’t know if they do or not because there is no legal case as a basis.”
It’s literally just that he’s a former President. He’s stolen plenty of money from other rich people, which is usually the fast way to end up in prison, stealing from other rich people.
It’s not wizardry, it’s that our political/legal system has been avoiding the question of “Can you indict a President (current or former)?” ever since Nixon.
I believe we answered this question back in the 1770’s when we sent our king a letter telling him to fuck off, then beat his army and sent them packing. Then we re-answered this question in 1812 when we fought off the Brits again and Canada, who burnt down our original white house, but ultimately told the king to fuck off again ans sent his army and allies packing again. Then we told Jefferson Davis and his supporters fuck off when he tried to take over as the unelected “President”, aka King/Tyrant/Despot/Dictator, although with all of the Confederate “heritage”, flags, statues, and terrorist groups (KKK) that still exist it doesn’t seem like we told the Confederates to fuck off hard enough, we probably should have let Sherman tell each and every one of them “fuck off” in person.
Anyway, my point is that we’ve already had this discussion three times and the answer to every King and wannabe King has been “fuck off” followed by a lot of killing, I’m not so sure we should be going for a forth time, especially not for an orange diaper wearing nepo baby traitor.
I believe we answered this question back in the 1770’s
It has been answered endlessly. Power doesn’t care, it just wants power. The fact that the entire political establishment including both parties has been taking this path for literally fifty fucking years (Nixon stepped down in '74) really speaks to the idea that they want to play a game and pretend this question hasn’t been answered before.
We need to look forward, not backward.
Obligatory “Thanks, Obama.”
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely
Lord Acton (1887)
The full quote is pretty poignant as well:
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”
Lord Acton had some pretty good bangers on this topic:
“Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”
And:
“Authority that does not exist for Liberty is not authority but force.”
Also:
“Everybody likes to get as much power as circumstances allow, and nobody will vote for a self-denying ordinance.”
Lastly:
“Absolute power demoralizes.”
The tree of liberty and all…
We have no memory.
This has been going on a long time and they only started prosecuting Trump because he wasn’t willing to do the whole “handshake and give the classified documents back” deal. They literally started the classified documents case because he was being so belligerently criminal. Former Presidents “played the game” so to speak and gave back documents with a “slap on the wrist” outcome, because “but they gave them back!” They tried to give Trump the opportunity to do the same but he just can’t help being a criminal scumfuck.
This one is more egregious even than that, I think. I’m not aware of any prior case where a president was trying to hold onto classified documents and got caught. Compare it to, say, the current Biden thing: Biden found classified info in his home library that got moved there from his files in the WH after he left the VP slot. He notified the government, handed the stuff over, and supported a review of the rest of his home files where they found some more (if I understand correctly, not marked classified, which isn’t super unusual).
Contrast with Trump where the government became aware that a number of classified documents were missing, they asked and were told no, he doesn’t have them, got lawyers to testify that he didn’t have any, he moved them around when there started to be scrutiny, and the FBI eventually raided the place and found them. So for some reason, he clearly really wanted to hold onto those documents when it was made clear he shouldn’t have them, which should make everyone wonder what his motivation was - what he expected to gain.
It’s not just that Trump made a criminal mistake, he was actively committing crimes knowingly.
Oh, I understand how much more egregious Trump’s crimes were, but the reality is we’ve had a history of elected officials playing fast and loose with classified information, but it’s usually handwaved away for people in positions of power. Sure, it can be argued in the past these people made mistakes and gave the documents back because there wasn’t ill intent.
The problem is that’s still a different level of scrutiny than the average person is put under for similar mistakes.
A low-level Army security jockey’s life could be ruined by making mistakes with these documents, but when it comes to elected officials, they can make as many mistakes as they need, and its always forgiven. This differing attitude toward the elite is part of why they refuse to go after Trump seriously, despite how egregious his crimes have been.
A low-level Army security jockey’s life could be ruined by making mistakes with these documents, but when it comes to elected officials, they can make as many mistakes as they need, and its always forgiven. This differing attitude toward the elite is part of why they refuse to go after Trump seriously, despite how egregious his crimes have been.
That’s of course a possibility, but really not how it works. When there’s a data breach at any level, they really do look at intent. If a low level person makes an honest mistake, as long as they weren’t being negligently careless, they’re most likely going to get a warning. If it happens again, yeah, they’re not likely going to be able to keep their access.
Data leaks do happen, and they happen without ending peoples’ careers. That’s much different from actual espionage.
Or is our system just that fucked?
The short version is, yes. It is.
He’s a useful puppet for American oligarchs. The rest, are not.
Soooooo why did the SEC allow the acquisition to take place?
You know why.
its like anyone willing to work with trump is some kind of sewer pervert.
Ooh ooh do Congress next!
