You must log in or register to comment.
There goes the trust in US institutions for even more people.
That’s the point. If you make everything clearly shit enough, there will not be resistance to people saying “this is all shit let’s rip it up and just make a mess”, because that’s how you make the most grotesque profits, because profit is made through exploitation.
This is spot fucking on.
Whoever the downvote was is an ignorant patsy of the billionaire cult.
Thanks! I’m on an instance where I can’t see downvotes. I’m also on an account where I block bad faith posters, so I don’t see those for long, either. I recommend it.
As outsider, following events happening in US, its never been more obvious that if you’re rich/powerful you cant be touched.
Trump has made this so hard to refute, that many of his followers are literally embracing fascism. It’s very bad news.
It really seems like not only can’t they be touched, but everyone else is also so jaded by the situation that no one is even fucking trying.
Let’s just pick a day. Everyone punches the richest person they can get their hands on.
Can it be every day?
Like, seriously, are these people new here?
Best game ever.
It’s he even being fined, though?
He is paying for lawyers to prevent him from ever seeing any consequences. That is a “fine”
wage theft is always worth it for the boss
stealing from work never is worth it for the worker though
Land of the robber barons! What the founders would have intended.
Merrick Garland needs to be removed and replaced by someone who cares about the rule of law.
He ain’t it. He’s asleep at the wheel.
He’s so terrified of anything appearing to be “political“, he will absolutely do nothing as long as the criminal is in some way politically connected.
He would have made a decent Supreme Court justice but he’s just not cut out to be attorney-general.
His cowardly inability to pursue justice fairly forces me to disagree with you here. He may have been better than the alternatives, but that hardly makes him any good at all.
You do not need to “pursue justice” as a judge. You just need to allow others to pursue justice through you and possess an ability to apply the law. There are no political repercussions for judges that can harm their career. He acts the way he does because he doesn’t want political backlash about it. If he’s a judge, he has the ability to not care about others’ opinions of his rulings.
The position of attorney-general requires a different skillset and mindset. An effective attorney-general is willing to take risks to pursue justice. Judges play a more passive role. That’s why he’s not a good attorney-general, but I still maintain he’d be a very good judge.
Lemmy has the tendency to think that because a person is bad in one aspect, they must be bad in every related aspect as well. Of course, nobody will admit they think like that, but I pray you don’t.
I cannot and do not, in any way, support - not agree with - your defense of this man.
The only fair application of justice is to be blind to anything but the facts of the crime and to properly adjudicate them in accordance with the law. No person who is too scared (or corrupt) to do the job of the top criminal prosecutor in this country should never hold the position.
Garlands inability to execute the duties of his current job don’t indicate to me he would have been a inadequate as a Justice. It’s a different job with different duties and by all indications he would have likely performed fine.
Your position and view towards the law is admirable and very worthy of respect, but you are holding him to a standard that is not applicable within a legal system based on the traditions English common law, like the American one. You’re describing the role of a judge in an inquisitorial system, not an adversarial system.
The role of a judge in an inquisitorial system is to answer the questions “Did they do it? Do they deserve to be punished?”
In the traditional English system, the is the role of the jury. The judge is just there to ensure everyone is playing by the rules of the court.
Of course, it is impossible for anyone to be truly divested from personal opinion and bias. We are all human, after all. The guiding design principle of an inquisitorial system is that judges are expected to be as neutral as possible, and then the legal system presumed they succeeded. An adversarial system, on the other hand, is aware of the inherent biases of mankind and attempts to design around them.
Which approach is more valid is a long-running topic of debate in philosophy.
I just can’t countenance your open and blatant endorsement of cravenness and corruption running the DoJ. Oh, and your patronizing tone is nothing short of insulting.
If your best argument is that there’s no legal requirement to do this correct and just thing - the moral and ethical thing - you’ve only made yourself look as inept and corrupt as Gorsuch.
Genuinely the most catastrophically idiotic appointment of the entire Biden administration.
Every time I see a picture of him he looks terrified
Another confirmation that this is a plutocracy … or an oligarchy
A plutocratic oligarchy
“Potato potatoe”. Debating over whether it’s an oligarchy, plutocracy, corporatocracy, kakistocracy, etc is splitting hairs. All that matters is the masses understand that voting does not equal democracy when who you can vote for — your choices — are predetermined entirely by wealth and campaign financing; that what we have is not “democracy”.
I consider what we have to be a neo-feudalist fusion of all of them, so it’s best to think of it like the Kings and Queens of old. There are always significant power plays amongst them, and the US election is merely one of many. The only major difference is that they’ve had to maintain the illusion of freedom and choice, and make a more educated peasant believe they have super-duper for realz democracy. They use to only have to indoctrinate everyone with religion, then associate the feudalists with the cult, saying they are “chosen to god”.
What Trump and MAGA represent is a reversion to the religious level of indoctrination — the cult like indoctrination of China, Russia, or NK —where they can remove the entire system that would enable legitimate democracy (if our options weren’t predetermined by wealth), while maintaining the belief of freedom™️ and democracy™️… with thunderous applause.
Even though the federal Department for Justice has a standing policy against prosecuting election-related offences within two months of an election, there’s still the possibility that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania can prosecute him for offences committed under Pennsylvania’s state election law.
The governor of Pennsylvania has expressed some openness to this happening.
So when you commit a crime, do they like, arrest your ass prompty and shove you in the legal system for potentially years or do they express some openness to it happening.
Only if you’re not rich.
Well, you see, that depends on whether you have a team of highly-paid defence lawyers that can get you off if the prosecution makes even the slightest mistake in their case.
Or by making no mistake at all and taking advantage of the legal system, or worse the presidency…
It still makes the point of the article and it absolutely shouldn’t be this way.
I feel like this headline is like The Onions’ “No Way To Prevent This”; they can just keep on reusing it.
This is where a citizen’s arrest would come in handy.
It generally only applies to active crimes that disturb the peace (violent crimes).
That’s a matter of time.
?
too bad the cops can’t arrest him badly and tase him while he aready has a knee pressing down his neck and get a full gun unloaded at him after an acorn hits a cybertruck, setting it on fire.
And the cops execute the warrant at the wrong address, unloading all their rounds into him because he’s wearing a hoodie while playing with a toy gun in a public park in Cleveland.
he’s wearing a hoodie while playing with a toy gun in a public park in Cleveland.
The weird thing is… this is something that I could see him doing.
The feel of a battleground text spam is well crafted. By Elon. The subsequent Harris spam today was “meh” at best.
I’m already voting for Harris but this text spam from MAGA absolutely will hit chords with folks. The latest one made a claim then linked to an article that said as much. Sort of. But if you’re only reading the headline and the first line it’s a real gotcha. Theirs has pictures. Hers is a single run on sentence.
More “we’re not going back” would resonate better, but it’s just not there. And today was the first Harris text that didn’t ask for money.
If you are still being swayed, on October 28th, by MAGA spam texts, then you can fuck off.
Read the post, don’t just skim over key words and react. They’re effective texts, probably, it’s an observation.
They said they are voting for Harris, and are offering feedback that the Harris texts could be done differently to make them more effective. It’s not the same as being “swayed”
I’ll play the advocate here. What good would persecution do now? They wouldn’t stop him in time. All that would do is allow Trump and Musk to claim political persecution.
And if they did start an investigation, would it be complete before the election? What if they filed charges before? So what.
Smart play is to wait. Win. Prosecute with four years of time ahead.
Basically… maybe they will do something still?
There are three decisions a leader can make: Yes, no, not right now.
It would, bare minimum, let people know the equivalent of “if you come for the king you better not miss”
But getting an injunction for something as blatant as this would be a day or two in front of a judge, at most.
news at 11
The nation is so close to being an anagram of the onion I almost didn’t eat it.
