LogFAQs > #941978372

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Trump commuted Roger Stone's sentence.
Zeus 07/11/20 3:15:40 PM #37:	Nichtcrawler X posted... Wikipedia Somebody try and explain to me how this is not textbook corruption... Overlooking that the originating investigation revolved around a knowingly false allegation (and thus was illegitimate), the charges you cite are inordinately broad (thus open to massive amounts of room for interpretation -- thus leading them to be used punitively) and arbitrarily applied. Compare that to actual textbook corruption which involves something concrete. And bear in mind that many Trump associates had earlier been investigated and charged with things that were political norms, such as meeting with foreign diplomats before the incoming president took office -- something that Obama's staffers did, I believe GWB's staffers did, and Clinton's staffers did, among others. The real corruption is the perversion of the justice system to pursue partisan (ie, political) agendas, yet you're unlikely to ever see convictions there. And bear in mind that the whole campaign, Trump had complained that the FBI had been tapping his phones and spying on him, a claim that everybody laughed at... which turned out to be 100% true. He also complained that the FBI had acted unprofessionally in their pursuit of him, a claim that was also laughed off... until texts and emails emerged that revealed a very strong partisan bias among agents, some of whom were later fired (but no charges were filed against them). And, on a moderately related note, given this heavy surveillance, if there was any actual substance to the Russia investigation, the FBI would have had it yet we saw nothing. chlc3d posted... I'm curious -- do you think this wasn't an abuse of power? It seems clear that Trump extended the pardon to reward Comey's loyalty to him. I think the most similar case to me is Marc Rich, where similarly there's a very clear abuse of power but I'm not sure what kind of case you'd make if you were to try the president for impeachment. Given the overall handling and partisan nature of these "investigations", the connected arrests all seem politically motivated so it's unsurprising that many of the convictions lack strong justification. And if you knew for a fact that somebody was wrongly convicted and had the power to at least partially undo their sentence, wouldn't you be morally obligated to do so? --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:941978372] in Trump comm... [t:78838587]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler X posted... </cite> <quote>Wikipedia Somebody try and explain to me how this is not textbook corruption...</quote> Overlooking that the originating investigation revolved around a knowingly false allegation (and thus was illegitimate), the charges you cite are inordinately broad (thus open to massive amounts of room for interpretation -- thus leading them to be used punitively) and arbitrarily applied. Compare that to actual textbook corruption which involves something concrete. And bear in mind that many Trump associates had earlier been investigated and charged with things that were political norms, such as meeting with foreign diplomats before the incoming president took office -- something that Obama's staffers did, I believe GWB's staffers did, and Clinton's staffers did, among others. The real corruption is the perversion of the justice system to pursue partisan (ie, political) agendas, yet you're unlikely to ever see convictions there. And bear in mind that the whole campaign, Trump had complained that the FBI had been tapping his phones and spying on him, a claim that everybody laughed at... which turned out to be 100% true. He also complained that the FBI had acted unprofessionally in their pursuit of him, a claim that was also laughed off... until texts and emails emerged that revealed a very strong partisan bias among agents, some of whom were later fired (but no charges were filed against them). And, on a moderately related note, given this heavy surveillance, if there was any actual substance to the Russia investigation, the FBI would have had it yet we saw nothing. chlc3d posted... </cite> <quote>I'm curious -- do you think this wasn't an abuse of power? It seems clear that Trump extended the pardon to reward Comey's loyalty to him. I think the most similar case to me is Marc Rich, where similarly there's a very clear abuse of power but I'm not sure what kind of case you'd make if you were to try the president for impeachment.</quote> Given the overall handling and partisan nature of these "investigations", the connected arrests all seem politically motivated so it's unsurprising that many of the convictions lack strong justification. And if you knew for a fact that somebody was wrongly convicted and had the power to at least partially undo their sentence, wouldn't you be morally obligated to do so? --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1