146
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
146 points (91.0% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2071 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Except they don’t lol
Sure, maybe not, but are you positive? Is Biden/his family infallible for some reason?
If there might be weird ties to money, what’s wrong with investigating and getting their official statements? It could be political BS, but would you really rather just brush it off and dismiss it so quickly?
I’m not positive, no. But you’d think if they said “we’re releasing the evidence” so many times now… that one of the releases would have that evidence, right?
Sure, but look at the Jack Smith case against trump, are we getting evidence put out by his team? Not really (there have been leaks), and I’m glad. Build your case, make it solid, then present it.
I also hope anyone using this as a political weapon faces legal repercussions as well if it can be proven.
Are you referring to the unsealed indictments?
Maybe the “leak” you’re thinking of is the audio where Trump confesses that he’s showing off classified docs? Y’know, a felony?
An indictment is not evidence. Oxford: “a formal charge or accusation of a serious crime.” Yes enough evidence was presented to a grand jury to get the indictment, but the indictment itself is not evidence, it’s the accusations.
So similarly, if there is evidence that there is illegal things happening for Biden or anyone in his family, I hope the evidence is presented to a grand jury and if they believe there’s just cause, an indictment should be issued for the individual.
Would you at least agree that if there is something nefarious going on, with any politician, regardless of party affiliation, it should at least be investigated?
I think they should take the lead from Gym Jordan and not show up. Be honest, did you come online and argue with republicans on ‘doing the right thing’? Hoe committed where you then?
And please, do us all a favor and try avoiding ‘be better’ or some nonsense like that.
I’m very happy trump is seeing his day in court soon, and by all accounts, it appears they have a lot on him to put him away. Good, GREAT!. I want any politician doing something illegal to see their day in court. They should be held to a higher standard than any individual after swearing an oath to the public. In fact for trump, it seems from what’s out there he’s not alone, go after them too, PLEASE!
It’s funny seeing the polarized response here to if a politician may have done something wrong, they should be investigated.
The difference here is that this ‘investigation’ was called for by republicans before they even knew what to investigate. And on top of that, even admitting they have no evidence to present (suspicions is not evidence) yet claim to have evidence. Witnesses they claim to have seem to be lost somehow and cannot be produced for investigation.
And based on this obviously flimsy, if not outright lies, you want to be ‘reasonable’?
I distrust your honesty
Great, and as I said, whatever they have should go in front of a grand jury for indictment if it’s worthwhile. If it’s nothing, should be no indictment. Simple. If they have something plausible, indict him. Again simple.
For now, they have a suspicion. Investigate it. If there is a hint at an issue, let’s get statements for the record.
Let’s take Clarance Thompson for example. There’s some pretty good suspicions there that some sort of payments/“gifts” have taken place. Let’s investigate him for wrong doing. We should also subpoena him (if possible) to get his official statements on things. Not sure why this is hard to agree on.
And I fail to understand you not being able to make a distinction on having a reasonable concern and investigating vs creating a platform of accusations based on a ‘desire’. This so called investigation is used as a tool to hammer someone, just because.
Indeed, take Clarence Thomas as an example. People disagree and abhor his political stance. It was not that what drove the current calls for investigation. It is based on records which became available and an admission he took those ‘gifts’.
Your failure to understand this make me doubt you know what you are talking about. Your suggesting a methodology we know all to well. It’s what was used to accuse ‘witches’, just because someone yelled ‘witch!’
As I said previously:
“I also hope anyone using this as a political weapon faces legal repercussions as well if it can be proven.”
I can read.
Again, we know this methodology and the way to prove you are not a witch is being thrown in a pool and drown. To bad you are dead but hey, your innocent and surely the prosecutors will get their comeuppance!
Your method relies on people being held to account after you have proven to be innocent on charges brought up with the motivation to destroy you or your reputation. Damage is done already.
I wonder, what rule of law you support. It sure as heck isn’t based on a fair and reasonable case being brought forward. You are promoting a kangaroo court style of law and I am absolutely not on board with that.
At what point then would you say you are allowed to investigate someone of something?
For the Clarance Thompson thing (funny my phone keeps trying to write clearance, which makes sense what he’s being accused of), someone had to have a suspicion and dig into it, found something, built a case, then put it out there. I assume you agree with that method?
That’s what I feel should happen here. Again as I said, should gather their evidence, build a case, and get an indictment. Without one, everything they say means nothing. I do disagree with putting it out in the public like this, to me that’s already coming close to, if not already, defamation.
“When you have the facts, pound the facts. When you have no facts, pound the table.”
Facts start a case. This investigation is based on retaliation. They admitted as much and had to grudgingly admit they have none but keep accusing and communicating there are facts. The lie.
We are seeing vindictive children pounding the table.
Why lie though?
You can read the evidence in the indictment though? No idea what you’re going on about.
The indictment only contains the basics of the case and the charges against him. There is said to be over 11 million pages of evidence, the indictment is 45.
Indictment:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
11 million source:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-lawyers-challenge-limits-evidence-sharing-prosecutors-warn-threats-2023-08-11/
Charging and indictments: https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging#:~:text=The%20indictment%20contains%20the%20basic,citizens%20called%20a%20grand%20jury.
You don't think it's weird that they've been wasting so much energy on this and nothing has come out?