losthighway wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:01 pm

Chud Fusk wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 10:08 pm

Geiginni wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 5:56 pm

I think it's partly our fault as liberal voters, that we're more attracted towards milquetoast idealists than hard-nosed managers that have a bit of an authoritarian streak in them. We need some dems that, like LBJ, aren't afraid to intimidate and bully their opponents to get what they want.

Where are these people? I haven't been given any opportunity to vote for any hard-nosed manager besides Cuomo, and it turned out not to be his nose

Is that maybe what Joe Manchin is, only what he wants is so different from what I want that I never noticed?

We definitely don't need more Manchins, Cuomos, Klobuchars, or any other squareasses. When I think of "milquetoast idealists" I guess you mean Beto, Booker, do you mean AOC and squad affiliates too?

I don't even care if these legislators are quixotic if they'd grow a pair and stop sticking their heads in the sand. The Republicans (and their operative, Joe Machine) have shown again and again that nothing is too low.

Curry Pervert wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 3:38 pmI just hope they don't go with the "prosecuting a former president is bad for the nation" BS.

"Prosecuting a former president is bad for the nation" has always struck me as a weak, after-the-fact, high-minded-sounding excuse for failing to reckon with Nixon as should have been done in the mid-'70s (and more broadly the failure to reckon adequately, post-Watergate and post-Vietnam War, with a) the Republican Party and b) law enforcement, with special attention to the FBI). Of course prosecuting a former president is a polarizing and difficult process, but as you point out, when a former president is a criminal, what choice is there, really?

It only sends the message that the president is above the law. Nixon's pardon already established that precedent, though.

susanvp wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:11 pm

Curry Pervert wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 3:38 pmI just hope they don't go with the "prosecuting a former president is bad for the nation" BS.

"Prosecuting a former president is bad for the nation" has always struck me as a weak, after-the-fact, high-minded-sounding excuse for failing to reckon with Nixon as should have been done in the mid-'70s (and more broadly the failure to reckon adequately, post-Watergate and post-Vietnam War, with a) the Republican Party and b) law enforcement, with special attention to the FBI). Of course prosecuting a former president is a polarizing and difficult process, but as you point out, when a former president is a criminal, what choice is there, really?

I'm kind of split on Nixon. While I agree with what you've said, they were very different times, and he did actually resign. I feel that Vietnam played a big part too and the 'bad for the nation' aspect wouldn't have been felt so much if the country wasn't reeling from what a disaster Vietnam had been.

Having said that, I wasn't a cognisant adult back then so this is all through the perspective of historical presentation.

I'm finding the erased text messages on Secret Service and now DHS officials phones from January 6, to be an interesting detail. Maybe a smoking gun in there but can they ever recover them?

Curry Pervert wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 4:52 pm

susanvp wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:11 pm

Curry Pervert wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 3:38 pmI just hope they don't go with the "prosecuting a former president is bad for the nation" BS.

"Prosecuting a former president is bad for the nation" has always struck me as a weak, after-the-fact, high-minded-sounding excuse for failing to reckon with Nixon as should have been done in the mid-'70s (and more broadly the failure to reckon adequately, post-Watergate and post-Vietnam War, with a) the Republican Party and b) law enforcement, with special attention to the FBI). Of course prosecuting a former president is a polarizing and difficult process, but as you point out, when a former president is a criminal, what choice is there, really?

I'm kind of split on Nixon. While I agree with what you've said, they were very different times, and he did actually resign. I feel that Vietnam played a big part too and the 'bad for the nation' aspect wouldn't have been felt so much if the country wasn't reeling from what a disaster Vietnam had been.

Having said that, I wasn't a cognisant adult back then so this is all through the perspective of historical presentation.

I wasn't a cognizant adult either circa Watergate, but I was old enough to take some note. I recall hearing on TV news, around the time of Nixon's resignation in 1974, the idea that he had "been punished enough," as if the sheer disgrace and ignominy of his downfall themselves constituted part of the "punishment," and as if (further) prosecution would be excessive. IIRC he lived for another 25 or so years in relative peace and comfort, and even saw some rehabilitation of his reputation before his death; and in 1974 there was never any serious talk, as far as I know, of reconfiguring or limiting the powers of the presidency in the wake of the abuses of the immediate past.

susanvp wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 3:01 am IIRC he lived for another 25 or so years in relative peace and comfort, and even saw some rehabilitation of his reputation before his death

Yeah he wrote something like 10 books and did ok for himself financially. It's weird how all presidents, regardless of what they did or how the public feel about them when leaving office, seem to be 'rehabilitated' at some point. That whole thing not so long back with Dubya and Ellen was quite odd. Feels like part of the subtle propagandisation of the public by the media.

susanvp wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:13 pm

jfv wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:16 pm ^ If Trump is never president again, it is a win.

Quite -- not, by itself, enough of what is needed, IMO (two words: President DeSantis), but certainly a worthy , and necessary, result.

Speaking of Democrats, this Justice Department seems awfully slow to prosecute anything that may not be a fully guaranteed-in-advance, open-and-shut win, e.g. alleged child sex trafficker Matt Gaetz. "It is important that we only bring cases to court we know we can win, you see. We must keep our win/loss records at 100%, you see, for optics." *steeples fingers thoughtfully*

I’d say more likely is President Dan Crenshaw and the there will be no one to blame other than the DNC.

Does anybody think that Alex Jones' texts will have any bearing on the procedures? And not to digress, but perhaps someone more learned than I can succinctly explain that whole development to me. It appears like a big fuck-up on Alex Jones' lawyers part. How can that not be used as a reason to declare incompetence resulting in a mistrial. I know I'm missing something basic, but can't figure out what it is.