"Race For The White House 2024" Open Chat

[MsKreed 1,185]

Quote

 

“Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”

Sol Wachtler, then the Chief Justice of New York's Supreme Court

1985 

 

I've never been on a grand jury.

But from what I understand from others who have, the "burden" is a a very low bar. Essentially not much more than a hunch or suspicion.

In fact one person told me the DA (in a local county) was apoplectic when they didn't indict just one of the several cases they heard.

[Chris 2,172]

In due time, with enough proof, I don’t disagree. But I’m the meantime what does someone do: “Hey Joe, launch an investigation into yourself and your son.”

Good luck with that. Same as Trump and his daughter.

Indictment/Criminal Charges Score So Far

Biden: 0/0 

Trump: 4/91

”Whataboutism” doesn’t negate the fact that evidence indicates that a sitting president and his people tried to overthrow an election after he lost. To me this is far more dangerous to our nation than a president or any politician using the power of their office to make sweetheart deals that benefit their family. Which we all know has gone on since Day 1.

The fact that people aren’t more angry about it is just completely mind boggling.

No one is saying the Bidens are squeaky clean. Hell he’s been in DC so long jt’d be miraculous if he in fact was. Hunter Biden is a complete scumbag, no doubt about it.

The common response to one scumbag being to say “what about” another scumbag is a weak argument. Yet it’s one the bat-shit crazy GOP seems to think will work for them.

[MsKreed 1,185]

Not to dismiss the idea that tit-for-tat bickering can be a distraction.....but frankly, tossing around the term”whataboutism” as a pejorative always makes me roll my eyes.

Comparing cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues has, in fact, long been considered a "foundational concept in the American legal system". 

 

Cornell Law School – Legal Information Institute

Quote

Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues. Precedent is incorporated into the doctrine of stare decisis and requires courts to apply the law in the same manner to cases with the same facts. Some judges have stated that precedent ensures that individuals in similar situations are treated alike instead of based on a particular judge’s personal views.

 

The American Bar Association

Quote

Stare Decisis—a Latin term that means “let the decision stand” or “to stand by things decided”—is a foundational concept in the American legal system. To put it simply, stare decisis holds that courts and judges should honor “precedent”—or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases. Respect for precedents gives the law consistency and makes interpretations of the law more predictable—and less seemingly random.

 

[Chris 2,172]

22 minutes ago, MsKreed said:

frankly, tossing around the term”whataboutism” as a pejorative always makes me roll my eyes.

I'm sorry for any damages to your eyeballs. 😁

[Chris 2,172]

I guess what I'm trying to say is, Party A being scumbags doesn't make Party B any less a scumbag or ( possibly ) guilty. 

[MsKreed 1,185]

 

 

Of course, the points I quoted refer to examples in the courtroom (in front of a judge)....like when the judge made a point of establishing that neither side could cite any precedent for the terms of Hunter’s (rejected) plea deal.

 

But all court cases (whether a plea deal or grand jury proceedings) originate from the prosecutor....where we should expect that individuals in similar situations are treated alike, before a case reaches the judge’s bench.

If precedent is completely circumvented at the prosecution level, then it nullifies the legal foundation of stare decisis. So, "whataboutism" absolutely should be raised regarding who/when charges are brought under comparable situations.

[Chris 2,172]

Another thought I had along these lines, that may tie in with what @MsKreedposted above:

If the investigation into and charges filed against Trump is election interference, how would an investigation or charges filed against Joe Biden be any different? They're both candidates and presumptive nominees at this point. 

[MsKreed 1,185]

16 minutes ago, Chris said:

Another thought I had along these lines, that may tie in with what @MsKreedposted above:

If the investigation into and charges filed against Trump is election interference, how would an investigation or charges filed against Joe Biden be any different? They're both candidates and presumptive nominees at this point. 

Now you’re getting it!!

At this point....what I’ve seen brought up by Trump’s side as “election interference” refers to the gag order....if there’s also been the same argument over the investigation and charges themselves, I missed it.

But whether it’s the gag order or more....if the Trump team successfully argues “campaign/election interference” then I’d think it makes sense to raise the “whataboutism” question of that decision establishing a precedent that could legally be applied to a Biden case. 

The entire idea of lawyers learning how to research and properly cite relevant case law is basically codified ways to say..... "whatabout Plessy v Ferguson??" and "whatabout Times v. Sullivan??"

[Chris 2,172]

Honestly my “whataboutism” statement doesn’t pertain so much to the legal aspect and nuance of the case(s) against him so much as John Q Citizen that hears the news about another indictment and in response brings up Hunter Biden.

It reminds me of when one kid gets caught doing something and in their defense says, “Well Johnny did it yesterday!”

Yeah, but Johnny didn’t get caught, did he? At least not yet.

From a legal case/ precedent viewpoint, then yes, of course it makes sense. 

[Adam 373]

7 hours ago, Chris said:

I guess what I'm trying to say is, Party A being scumbags doesn't make Party B any less a scumbag or ( possibly ) guilty. 

correct but somehow it that exact premise has now morphed into " look at how much a scumbag party B is; i'm(they're) not so bad. Or that one IS such a scumbag, folks are alright with looking past the lesser-scumbag. Case in point: People were ragging on Trump for skeezing on younger women and because he has a douchey-aura thats worse than old Uncle Joe given the sniff &nibbles to pre-pubescent girls?

So in reality Whataboutism is apparently o.k when it works out for your( general-term) "team"

on a tangent: if there is a minimum age(35) to run for POTUS, why is it so far-fetched to place a maximum age? say 70? Feinstein, McConnell, Trump and Biden are all EASY arguments for that to be put in place

[Adam 373]

1 hour ago, Chris said:

t reminds me of when one kid gets caught doing something and in their defense says, “Well Johnny did it yesterday!”

Yeah, but Johnny didn’t get caught, did he? At least not yet.

But when Johnny claims and pontificates about the moral/intelligent high-ground despite everyone knowing, but not able to prove guilt, it tends to drive some to apoplexy

[MsKreed 1,185]

18 minutes ago, Adam said:

But when Johnny claims and pontificates about the moral/intelligent high-ground despite everyone knowing, but not able to prove guilt, it tends to drive some to apoplexy

Also, when a cop pulls someone over and cites them for going 70 in a 65.... it’s a pretty strong natural impulse to want to point out if he just ignored Johnny and his three friends that flew past in the other lane.

[TTL News 308]

Quote

 

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Republicans attacked Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday as the longtime environmental lawyer and anti-vaccine activist launched an independent bid for the White House, reflecting growing concerns on the right that the former Democrat now threatens to take votes from former President Donald Trump in 2024.

The Republican National Committee and Trump’s campaign both took aim at Kennedy’s liberal background while national Democrats stayed silent as Kennedy insisted in a speech in Philadelphia that he was leaving both political parties behind.

“Voters should not be deceived by anyone who pretends to have conservative values,” said Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung in a statement. He labeled Kennedy’s campaign “nothing more than a vanity project for a liberal Kennedy looking to cash in on his family’s name.”

 

Source

[Adam 373]

12 hours ago, Elmira Telegram said:

former Democrat now threatens to take votes from former President Donald Trump in 2024.

run a better frigging candidate!

really best thing would have been: trump nominated/elected to be speaker of House. takes him off the POTUS board, ramaswamy or someone else now steps up in polls, and Biden has ZERO chance at re-election. 2025 rolls around, bring up vote to remove Trump from speakership like they did with Mccarthy and viola he either dies of old age before next race and we are spared the geriatric-football hump weve dealt with the last 6 years

[Chris 2,172]

The Kennedy family isn't even supporting him:

[KarenK 383]

Heck his original intent was to present a Democratic challenge to Biden.  He stepped that back a bit.  

He's a very moderate Democrat.

[Ann 264]

Pretty bad when your own family doesn’t support you.

[Hal 341]

Well , that was damn nice of them ! 

[KarenK 383]

2 hours ago, Ann said:

Pretty bad when your own family doesn’t support you.

I honestly don't think they ever have.  He's a moderate democrat at best however the party isn't criticizing him, the Republicans are.  He's pulling votes from Biden but also from Trump.

Dude might win.

[Ann 264]

10 hours ago, KarenK said:

I honestly don't think they ever have.  He's a moderate democrat at best however the party isn't criticizing him, the Republicans are.  He's pulling votes from Biden but also from Trump.

Dude might win.

I wonder how he differs from the “Kennedy Democrats”. so that they don’t support him.  Is it because he’s going against “party line” and running against Biden.  I’m tired of all these politicians putting Party first instead of what’s best for this Country and the American people.

[Chris 2,172]

There's reports that RFK Jr. supports the idea of reparations. That should appeal to the extreme left of the Democratic Party.

[Ann 264]

2 hours ago, Chris said:

There's reports that RFK Jr. supports the idea of reparations. That should appeal to the extreme left of the Democratic Party.

Scratch that candidate.

[MsKreed 1,185]

Looks like MN Congressman Dean Phillips will run against Biden in teh Dem primary. 

Quote

 

According to multiple reports, Phillips will announce his candidacy in Concord, New Hampshire, where he will file to appear on the state’s primary ballot. Friday is the filing deadline for that election. 

Phillips has yet to confirm publicly that he plans to run for president, but there have been signs leading up to the expected announcement. 

He said in August he was mulling a presidential run himself but had hoped someone who was better positioned to take on Biden would join the race. 

Last month, after no one answered his call, the Minnesota congressman told a podcast he had not ruled out the possibility of running. 

A week later, Phillips stepped down from his role in House Democratic leadership, citing his views about the 2024 presidential election. He had been the co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee. 

And this week, a presidential campaign tour bus emblazoned with Phillips’ name was spotted in Ohio, possibly heading to New Hampshire. 

 

 

[Chris 2,172]

Good!

[KarenK 383]

4 hours ago, MsKreed said:

Looks like MN Congressman Dean Phillips will run against Biden in teh Dem primary. 

 

Wow.