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.
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.
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.
Yeah, I totally agree with you. Like I said, I have issues with her and I don’t want her back. But she’s also the only example of a leading Democrat in recent memory who’s exercised power to stand up to Trump in any meaningful way. She impeached him twice and withheld a SotU address until he relented in a government shutdown. My point is, why are the other Dems so fucking spineless at a time we need action the more than ever?
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.
Word on yet more of Cuomo, but get this compromised fuckhead Adams right the fuck outta here.
The governor removing a mayor from office who has not been convicted of a crime is a bad precedent.
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
Is extra judicial punishment ever acceptable? It’s sad how many people on this site seem to think so.
It is not only acceptable but is required when the judicial system is compromised how it is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes? Don’t you think Trump should have been removed from office in his first term?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Yes, because in absence of a trial it isn’t legal or appropriate.
The courts don’t remove people from office. That’s a political process.
and that process requires the mayor to be presented charges that he gets to defend himself against. That’s a trial
Not according to NY law, as there is no mention of a trial in the relevant statute.
Yes there is. The mayor is to be presented with the charges against him and he has the opportunity to defend himself. It is linked elsewhere in this thread.
Such a removal would not be extra judicial: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBO/33
“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.
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.
“to be heard in his defense” that’s from the actual law. Im using defense because that was the verb used, whereas you are using respond which means the same thing in this context.
I didn’t miss a damn thing. The governor has a process available to dismiss him. That /\ is the process. Therefore, removing the mayor would not be extra judicial.
Quit moving the goal posts.
edit: mistook you for a different poster
No one has moved goal posts. Everyone else is saying he should be removed and I have said he should not be removed without a trial. Stop trying to misuse logical flaws as away of not addressing the actual argument.
Being removed from office is not “punishment.”
Yes, it is. He would be losing his elected position. He has not been proven guilty. We all suspect he is but that hasn’t been proven.
No elected politician should be removed without due process.
It is shocking how many pro-auth people there are here.
His elected position is not a possession. Taking it away is not punishment.
Ok buddy, sure it isn’t. What is it called when you face a negative outcome due to your potential wrongdoing? Oh yeah that’s called a punishment.
That mayor is causing a crisis because he doesn’t want to be convicted of a crime he has already been accused of
Trump is protecting Adams because he knows that Adams will deport people given the chance.
Regardless unless he has been convicted we can’t have governors removing mayors. This will permit others to just remove mayors they dislike.
unless he has been convicted we can’t have governors removing mayors
NY state law disagrees with you on that.
And what happens if those other governors remove mayors for political reasons anyway?
They will be able to cite the extrajudicial removal of Adams as precedent for why they can do it.
it’s just more кто кого shit
. . . what’s that?
Edit: no, seriously, I don’t know what that is.
Who, whom? Russian: кто кого?, kto kogo?; Russian pronunciation: [kto.kɐˈvo] is a Bolshevik principle or slogan which was formulated by Vladimir Lenin in 1921.
Oh. Uh, cool.
In a statement, Adams said there is “no legal basis” for limiting his authority.
“I have told the governor, as we have done in the past, that I am willing to work with her to ensure faith in our government is strong,” Adams said.
Then resign jackass
Then resign jackass
“I didn’t say I would do anything. I said I would work with her as in: she does what I want, I tell her to fuck off for everything else, and we call that cooperation!”
Thanks for nothing, lady.
It’s almost refreshing to see middle-of-the-road, classic, non-nazi slimeballs. The worst of a better world.
Ah yes because we live in a post-consequences-for-assholes world apparently
The Democrats are not going to save us. Consequences will come from the people, or not at all.
Good. This would have set an incredibly dangerous precedent for future administrations. The law should be amended; the governor shouldn’t have that kind of power in the first place.
So sad to see so many short-sighted, foaming at the mouth lemmings ITT. Not surprised, just sad.
Is there anything happening that isn’t an incredibly dangerous precedent? But thank god we still have plenty of people willing to sit back and do nothing. Wouldn’t want anyone to think someone other than republicans are allowed to meet the moment.
The next time you see someone ask why no one is doing anything, please think of the post I’m responding to. THAT is why.
Don’t worry. NYC voters will in the primaries.
You have faith in people’s decisions? You must be new here.
… but if they vote in Cuomo instead, is that any better, really?
As much as I wanted her to get rid of him, because he’s clearly a corrupt asshole, she isn’t the kind of politician to take a risk like that. She has shown herself to be a very weak governor. I’m also not sure if I’m okay with “our side” acting like authoritarians because the other branches are unwilling or unable to act through the proper process. She has the power, and he’s a piece of shit, but he was duly elected and primaries aren’t too far off (July I think). New Yorkers definitely won’t give him the job again. Though they’ll probably vote in another shitty mayor, the city has a laughably bad track record.
I think the best we can hope for is Judge Ho deciding to dismiss the case with prejudice effectively removing the Sword of Damocles from over Adams’ head. (The corrupt prosecutors asked for without prejudice.) That wouldn’t be ideal, because Adams’ would be off the hook completely, but at least it’d take away Trump’s leverage. And voters would finish the job by primarying him in a few months.
It all sucks major corrupt ass no matter how you sniff it.
Even without the Sword of Damocles over his head, Adams has shown time and time again that he’s a Republican. He only cares about himself. He wasn’t exactly fighting for NYers while Biden was in office.
Though they’ll probably vote in another shitty mayor, the city has a laughably bad track record.
Easy to blame the voters and there is certainly culpability there, but when do we direct our attention to and fix the system that produces nothing but shit candidates to the voters?
This seems pretty much like the best of all possible outcomes until you remember that Cuomo would very likely replace him.
Ugh Cuomo. I forgot about him. Would New Yorkers really vote for him? I go back and forth, but yeah, probably. That’d be on brand.
Clearly you support genocide. (/s)
