2
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] xenomor@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Once again, Democrats. Always too little, too late. Never willing to meet the moment. Never able to read the room. No fight, no drive, no spine.

[-] BigBenis@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

More like too nothing.

I have many issues with Pelosi but she seems to have been the only Democrat with any major influence over the party in recent memory who was willing to use the checks at her disposal against blatant corruption. The rest of the Democratic party leadership are proving to be utterly useless and incompetent.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

who was willing to use the checks at her disposal against blatant corruption

Except for the insider trading that she participated in so lucratively. And the one fight that she always prioritized has been to keep the progressives down.

[-] theluckyone@discuss.online 0 points 1 month ago

I talked with a friend of mine from the City, who pointed out that Andrew Cuomo's publicly announced his interest in the position, and apparently polled well (moreso than other options on the poll, at least).

Can't say I'm keen on Cuomo running in a special election and winning. New York's seen enough of him and his.

[-] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Word on yet more of Cuomo, but get this compromised fuckhead Adams right the fuck outta here.

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

The governor removing a mayor from office who has not been convicted of a crime is a bad precedent.

[-] Wade@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Yes, because if there's anything the last 10 years of politics has taught us is that the Democrats need to care more about precedent than holding elected officials accountable

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Is extra judicial punishment ever acceptable? It’s sad how many people on this site seem to think so.

[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If you were being investigated by the FBI for corruption and openly pulled a quid pro quo with a political figure, would you still have a job?

[-] Wade@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Yes? Don't you think Trump should have been removed from office in his first term?

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

Yes, after his first impeachment he should have been removed the difference is Trump had due process and faced an inquiry whereas Adams has not.

we shouldnt be punishing people over allegations no matter how compelling the evidence is.

[-] Wade@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

no matter how compelling the evidence is.

That's where we disagree. If there's plenty of evidence then we can't always wait on our justice system where the rich and powerful can use their resources to stall almost indefinitely. In this case, he will likely serve the remainder of his term without any repercussions.

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

And that disagreement is whether we should follow the rule of law. You are advocating ignoring the law because it would grant you your preferred result and that is never ok.

[-] Wade@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Is the law being more closely followed by letting him remain in office despite taking bribes? I suppose in your opinion Trump is perfectly fine to do whatever he wants now that the "rule of law" says that he can.

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

YES because the law states he must have the opportunity to defend himself against charges. Failing to provide him that opportunity is never acceptable in a society that follows the rules of law.

[-] Wade@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

And who exactly denied him the right to defend himself? IIRC it was Trump that ordered these charges to be dropped, and who knows what Adams got in return. It's not like people are asking the NY govorner to send him to prison. He is a civil servant and there is a legal process already in place to remove corrupt mayors that is not being followed. Why are you licking the boots of the oligarchs so hard?

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

Im not licking anyone’s boots as I have clearly stated I want him to have a legal process which you and several others have suggested is not necessary.

You have made a very pro-authoritarian claim as to how this should be handled

I am making one that we should follow the rule of law.

[-] Wade@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In NYC mayors can't be impeached. The only legal way to remove a mayor in NY is by action of the govorner. You keep acting like we are calling for imprisonment here, but this is literally the correct legal process to remove a corrupt mayor. By not removing him, the govorner is acting against the rule of law you seem to be so concerned about. It is more authoritarian to think he deserves to stay mayor despite betraying his people.

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCcharter/0-0-0-5717

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

And that action requires he be presented with the charges against him and he be provided the opportunity to defend himself.

The governor cannot legally just pull him from office. These procedures need to be followed.

[-] Wade@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Did you forget he was presented with charges and the opportunity to defend himself before Trump ordered the case dismissed?

[-] theluckyone@discuss.online 0 points 1 month ago
[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

“The chief executive officer of every city and the chief or commissioner of police, commissioner or director of public safety or other chief executive officer of the police force by whatever title he may be designated, of every city may be removed by the governor after giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. The power of removal provided for in this subdivision shall be deemed to be in addition to the power of removal provided for in any other law. The provisions of this subdivision shall apply notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of any general, special or local law, ordinance or city charte”

I added emphasis to a critical bit you missed. He needs to be able to defend himself against the charges presented. Everyone here is pushing for her to remove him without this. It’s a bad precedent.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

He needs to be able to defend himself against the charges presented.

He gets to respond to the charges. But it's not a trial or any kind of judicial proceedings. It is solely a political process, as is impeachment.

[-] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

It is not only acceptable but is required when the judicial system is compromised how it is.

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

So you don’t believe rule of law is important? If you believe what you claim you cannot support any form of a just government.

[-] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

The rule of law is important, that's the entire point. It's being flouted openly in all corners or our government. I can support a just government, but we do not have one, and we do not stand a chance of instating one without removing the openly corrupt one that we have in place. Simple as that.

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If you believe the rule of law is important than you need to actually follow the laws you have on record. We don’t want to make it acceptable for a governor to remove a mayor because they feel like it.

You advocate for an unjust action so do you really believe in a just government and rule of law? You are willing to flout them in this case.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 0 points 1 month ago

We don’t want to make it acceptable for a governor to remove a mayor because they feel like it.

"Because they feel like it?" Are you unaware of the charges against him or something? This isn't based on feelings it's based on the crimes he's committed while in office that he and Trump are trying to sweep under the rug.

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

The notion that he should be removed without a trial or opportunity to defend himself is in fact illegal. Hochul has to let Adams defend himself against the charges.

The "they feel like it" would be for the next time not this situation. This is why it is important to nit create bad precedents like this

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 0 points 1 month ago

The "they feel like it" would be for the next time not this situation. This is why it is important to nit create bad precedents like this

Considering the GOP is so good about following "precedent?" How absurd. This law is specific to NY so what other states are you referring to when you claim that other governors might do this too?

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

Do you think rule of law should only be maintained when both of the two major parties supports it?

Do you think Hochul is going to win reelection? Do you think she will never be replaced? The precedent is for the NY governors that follow her. Wasn't that obvious?

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 0 points 1 month ago

This literally is the rule of law and Adams has been breaking the rule of law. Jesus christ

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

Removing him without the opportunity to defend himself is NOT the rule of law.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 0 points 1 month ago

There's literally nothing stopping him from defending himself. What are you even talking about?

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago

He needs to be provided that opportunity before being removed as the law states. He isn't defending himself in the press. There needs to be some form of inquiry or trial.

How is this so hard for people to figure out? If you get accused of something you have the right to defend yourself.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

So you don’t believe rule of law is important?

The Supreme Court is compromised. The Federal courts are partially in the hands of MAGA placeholders. Trump is attempting to nullify the constitution by executive order. There is no rule of law.

It's justice outside the formal system or no justice at all. Standing by idly and allowing elite impunity is not an acceptable approach.

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

The thing is if you want to maintain rule of law then you need to follow those rules. You can’t just decide to ignore it when you want to but then pretend you have any legitimacy. That would make you no different than any other dictator.

[-] GeeDubHayduke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

"They go low, we go high" has been so extremely useful in the last 10 years or so.

[-] chloroken@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

Precedent is a tool of the weak. In government, law and enforcement is what matters.

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

Well that is certainly the totalitarian perspective for sure.

this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2025
2 points (100.0% liked)

News

28317 readers
2403 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS