The auto-pen scandal is going to be massive

[essentialsaltes]

it's the Republicans against the Democrats. And if the Republicans win, do you think the Democrats will accept the verdict of being guilty

Verdicts come from juries and trials, not some sort of us-vs-them political process you're talking about.

 

[Servus]

Verdicts come from juries and trials, not some sort of us-vs-them political process you're talking about.

Trials are all about us vs them. Plaintiff vs Defendant.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Trials are all about us vs them. Plaintiff vs Defendant.

That's a lawsuit, maybe. If we're talking guilty, that's criminal.

It would be weaponizing DOJ if the DOJ is 'the Republicans' and it's "Republicans against the Democrats" as you said.

 

[Servus]

That's a lawsuit, maybe. If we're talking guilty, that's criminal.

It would be weaponizing DOJ if the DOJ is 'the Republicans' and it's "Republicans against the Democrats" as you said.

It's late, I'm tired. I should have said the Prosecution VS Defendant. In criminal trials it's the United States, or the State of, or the County of, or the City of VS whomever. The State of Illinois VS Acme Chemicals. And in this case it's going to be the Republicans bringing charges against the Democrats. If it ever gets that far.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And in this case it's going to be the Republicans bringing charges against the Democrats. If it ever gets that far.

So you're content that the Republicans are weaponizing the criminal justice system.

 

[Servus]

So you're content that the Republicans are weaponizing the criminal justice system.

Those who perpetrated the crime are going to be government members of the US democrat party. Those who seek prosecution are going to be government members of the US Republican party. Because it's unlikely the US democrat party are going to go after themselves. If it happens it's going to be the US government vs US government members. Which would have nothing in of itself to do with weaponizing the criminal justice system.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Those who perpetrated the crime are going to be government members of the US democrat party. Those who seek prosecution are going to be government members of the US Republican party.

You can't even see how much you're confessing. Yes, unlike previous presidents, Trump has been purging the DOJ of political dissent.

Sure, the political leaders like the Attorney General are the president's handpicked choices, but the rank and file prosecutors should not be required to have political litmus tests to serve We The People.

If it happens it's going to be the US government vs US government members. Which would have nothing in of itself to do with weaponizing the criminal justice system.

It is weaponizing when you've conflated (as you explicitly have) "the US government" with "the president's party".

 

[Servus]

You can't even see how much you're confessing. Yes, unlike previous presidents, Trump has been purging the DOJ of political dissent.

Sure, the political leaders like the Attorney General are the president's handpicked choices, but the rank and file prosecutors should not be required to have political litmus tests to serve We The People.



It is weaponizing when you've conflated (as you explicitly have) "the US government" with "the president's party".

Okay how is it supposed to play out if the auto-pen scandal turns out to be true?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Okay how is it supposed to play out if the auto-pen scandal turns out to be true?

Suppose evidence of a crime is evaluated by the DOJ public corruption task force (or whatever) and they secure an indictment from a grand jury. Some prosecutor with experience in public corruption cases should be assigned to prosecute the case.

 

[Servus]

Suppose evidence of a crime is evaluated by the DOJ public corruption task force (or whatever) and they secure an indictment from a grand jury. Some prosecutor with experience in public corruption cases should be assigned to prosecute the case.

Assigned by whom? Wouldn't a senate investigation committee be involved in a case of internal government subversion?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Assigned by whom?

Iunno. Maybe Pam Bondi. But possibly to avoid the specter of weaponization, a special prosecutor might be assigned for a delicate political case like this.

Wouldn't a senate investigation committee be involved in a case of internal government subversion?

Not necessarily. But since it exists, if they ever actually find any evidence, they would refer the matter to the DOJ.

 

[Servus]

Iunno. Maybe Pam Bondi. But possibly to avoid the specter of weaponization, a special prosecutor might be assigned for a delicate political case like this.


Not necessarily. But since it exists, if they ever actually find any evidence, they would refer the matter to the DOJ.

On second thought, it's actually going to be the house oversight committee who refers it to the DOJ. Unless It's supposed to given to the OIG. So whoever the members of the house oversight committee investigating this are, they're going to spearhead the frying of whoever is guilty of misusing the auto-pen.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So whoever is part of the house oversight committee investigating this is going to spearhead the frying

Oh, you mean bloviating on rightwing news? Yes, we've already seen plenty of that.

of whoever is guilty of misusing the auto-pen.

No, that will be decided in a court of law.

 

[Servus]

Oh, you mean bloviating on rightwing news? Yes, we've already seen plenty of that.


No, that will be decided in a court of law.

I really have no idea where you've been going with this. I'm trying to have an objective discussion about the nuts and bolts of it and you're going on with "bloviating on rightwing news", "purging the DOJ of political dissent", "you can't even see how much you're confessing" etc. I give up.

 

[SimplyMe]

I really have no idea where you've been going with this. I'm trying to have an objective discussion about the nuts and bolts of it and you're going on with "bloviating on rightwing news", "purging the DOJ of political dissent", "you can't even see how much you're confessing" etc. I give up.

No, you have already decided there was a crime -- yet there is not yet any evidence that any crime occurred. The House investigation is something of a political fishing expedition, since there is no actual evidence and they are going to go looking for a crime. The issue is, even if Biden had times when he couldn't think clearly (or whatever dementia symptoms you want to talk about), he wasn't always that way. As was mentioned, at least part of what some claim that Biden was okay during most of the day but "faded" as he got tired. As such, there is a strong possibility that Biden did knowingly (when he was thinking clearly) approve of every use of the auto-pen -- even if the signing was delayed by a day or so sometimes.

I believe the reason he is talking of "bloviating on rightwing news" is the idea that Biden didn't approve anything, that he had no clue what was going on, and that people were just using the autopen to push their own agenda without consulting Biden. There is zero evidence that it occurred and evidence suggests that Biden was able to understand most of the time -- even if he reduced hours (based on White House schedules) to allow him more rest to keep him mentally sharp.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, you have already decided there was a crime -- yet there is not yet any evidence that any crime occurred. The House investigation is something of a political fishing expedition, since there is no actual evidence and they are going to go looking for a crime. The issue is, even if Biden had times when he couldn't think clearly (or whatever dementia symptoms you want to talk about), he wasn't always that way. As was mentioned, at least part of what some claim that Biden was okay during most of the day but "faded" as he got tired. As such, there is a strong possibility that Biden did knowingly (when he was thinking clearly) approve of every use of the auto-pen -- even if the signing was delayed by a day or so sometimes.

I believe the reason he is talking of "bloviating on rightwing news" is the idea that Biden didn't approve anything, that he had no clue what was going on, and that people were just using the autopen to push their own agenda without consulting Biden. There is zero evidence that it occurred and evidence suggests that Biden was able to understand most of the time -- even if he reduced hours (based on White House schedules) to allow him more rest to keep him mentally sharp.

We're really glad that he could understand most of the time.
Maybe that should be what he is remembered.for;
Joe Biden, the president who understood what was going on most of the time

 

[Bradskii]

Joe Biden, the president who understood what was going on most of the time

Is there such a thing as 'As opposed to-ism'?

 

[BPPLEE]

Is there such a thing as 'As opposed to-ism'?

Schoolyard argument

 

[Bradskii]

Schoolyard argument

Then I won't use it.

 

[Servus]

No, you have already decided there was a crime -- yet there is not yet any evidence that any crime occurred. The House investigation is something of a political fishing expedition, since there is no actual evidence and they are going to go looking for a crime. The issue is, even if Biden had times when he couldn't think clearly (or whatever dementia symptoms you want to talk about), he wasn't always that way. As was mentioned, at least part of what some claim that Biden was okay during most of the day but "faded" as he got tired. As such, there is a strong possibility that Biden did knowingly (when he was thinking clearly) approve of every use of the auto-pen -- even if the signing was delayed by a day or so sometimes.

I believe the reason he is talking of "bloviating on rightwing news" is the idea that Biden didn't approve anything, that he had no clue what was going on, and that people were just using the autopen to push their own agenda without consulting Biden. There is zero evidence that it occurred and evidence suggests that Biden was able to understand most of the time -- even if he reduced hours (based on White House schedules) to allow him more rest to keep him mentally sharp.

I was just trying to discuss how it would play out if it was true. That's all.