Barr to jail, Trump to impeachment

[_honorentheos]

I know this is your thing and see any call for not charging off in a partisan manner as misguided attempts at moderation. But the fact is the justice department is claiming the reported whistleblowing doesn't meet the standards that require the claim be presented to Congress.

Well, if you can't trust Barr, then who can you trust?

Here's the fun thing, though. That's false. We already know the rationale they've given for that judgement is false. One might say, "lie." No further information needs to come out to know that is false. If basis for your condemnation of people criticizing Barr's illegal conduct is simply a misguided understanding of what they've asserted, then that's not a great look.

We know the rationale is false, huh? Interesting. I understand it appears that way but since the claim isn't public yet it is suspicion not known fact. You're getting ahead of yourself, EA. I'm not condemning people criticizing Barr's illegal conduct. I'm arguing that assuming it is illegal and we jump straight to calling for him to be in jail is circumventing one of the fundamental pillars of our republic. Because it is. You know that. You're just assuming what you believe is already proven fact. Could be it turns out that way, and frankly it looks bad. But the process is essential to what makes the system of government we've upheld and champion what it is.

It's clearly in the process of being investigated, by the media by attempts to get disclosure for Congress, etc.

The issue under discussion is specifically the thing that prevents Congress from being able to investigate in the way you say needs to happen. It's a perfect self-contained loop. We have to wait for Congress to investigate this illegal obstruction of the investigation, which is currently not happening because of the illegal obstruction of the investigation.

It's certainly problematic. But again, jumping straight to Barr belongs in jail before we get to the point of demonstrated factual basis for this claim is premature and partisan.

That's your other thing, saying Democrats need to start playing dirty, right?

I think that's a misleading description of what I've said.

Interesting given that echoes my view of you saying any argument for procedure over partisanship is just false attempts at moderation. It's a defense of democratic processes over partisanship. You don't let that get in your way when you just know you're right so see anything that isn't jumping straight over your assumptions to the finale as wrongheaded. So let's say I'm unsympathetic if you think you are being misrepresented.

[_honorentheos]

This shouldn't have to be said, but...

The problem with the "lock her up" mantra for Hillary Clinton was that there was no evidence she did anything that warranted her being put in prison. Because of this, calls to jail her functioned as an assertion that political opponents should be jailed for being poltiical opponents, which itself is attack on the core of democracy. It undermines the ability to have political dissent and free and fair elections.

You don't need to think it is always wrong for political actors to face jail time to see this. It is the case that political actors do occasionally engage in conduct that does warrant them going to jail. Saying that they should be held accountable is not the same as calling on Clinton to be locked up.

Equating a desire for Clinton to go to jail with a desire for members of what effectively is a crime syndicate in Trump-world to go to jail is obnoxious.

To the partisan right, they thought she was guilty of mishandling intelligence, had covered up a crime in Libya that involved US arms trading and Syria, and was directly responsible for the death of a US ambassador. No evidence any of that is true to the degree criminal prosecution was warranted? I agree. But partisanship makes people see hard evidence in allegations or rumors and jump to judgement like that.

[_EAllusion]

To the partisan right, they thought she was guilty of mishandling intelligence,

Republican leaders thought this? No they didn't. They pretended to be concerned about this to discredit her and journalists pretended to go along with it to seem fair and balanced. A deep concern about proper infosec practices is not something either group has displayed before or after Clinton including in the much more significant examples that have occurred under Trump.

The average person in the crowd shouting this? Yeah, some may have thought that*. That they were wrong is significant. They were victims, willing victims to varying degrees, of disinformation. That doesn't make every example of a politician engaging in corrupt or criminal conduct equally as mistaken or rushed. Just because there isn't evidence against some people in public doesn't mean there isn't public evidence against anyone.

*The fact that the same chant has erupted aimed at other political opponents when there isn't even a patina of wrongdoing covering it suggests that even to a substantial % of them, it's about a desire to see political opponents punished, not a concern for the rule of law.

[_honorentheos]

Just because there isn't evidence against some people in public doesn't mean there isn't public evidence against anyone.

We're not talking about "anyone", or evidence in some general manner. We are talking about a specific event going on right now. You're really hung up on this idea that any attempt at due process is because of an ill-advised attempt to be balanced so a person must be ignoring the details to not share your view. That's simply ignorant behavior I would expect from neo-con types.

But we're not talking about this as a generic attempt to remain balanced. It's because the evidence in this case is being gathered and the issue still coming into focus. It's insane to argue right now that Barr should be in jail. The only explanation for that is a person is letting their partisan feelings get in the way of their judgement.

[_honorentheos]

The fact that the same chant has erupted aimed at other political opponents when there isn't even a patina of wrongdoing covering it suggests that even to a substantial % of them, it's about a desire to see political opponents punished, not a concern for the rule of law.

It's funny how we see one side's defense of their views as motivated by politics while our own is purely out of concern for the rule of law. There's a term for that kind of thinking.

If the later is true, then let the law do it's job. That's the only difference that matters and shows one's perspective isn't just self-deceit.

[_Gunnar]

Is it even possible to successfully penalize Barr for contempt of Congress, obstruction of justice, or any other kind of lawbreaking, even if he is clearly guilty, without his acquiescence, as long as he is AG, and Trump still supports him?

[_Gunnar]

I have a strong suspicion that Trump is so confident that he can get away with anything he wants to do, no matter how unethical or criminal, that he will happily risk or even welcome impeachment, because he is so sure the Republican dominated Senate will acquit him, no matter what, and that the acquittal and accompanying publicity may be the surest way to overcome his current unpopularity enough to insure his reelection.

[_honorentheos]

Here's the thing - the narrative being pushed by conservatives is that Biden was doing wrong in the Ukraine to protect his son or protect his client from prosecution. So even if Trump asked the President of Ukraine to investigate Biden it's allegedly to expose and go after wrong doing on the part of the Obama administration. Then, they attempt to jiu jitsu the whistleblower reporting as a deflection from what they describe as the supposed actual wrongdoing on the part of Democrats.

The facts about what happened are clear, though. It is both true and out in the open that Victor Shokin was removed and Biden delivered the message from the president calling for this or threatening to withhold aid. Shokin, as prosecutor general, was responsible for investigating and prosecuting Hunter Biden's client, Burisma Holdings. But he was dragging his feet doing so just as he was with pursuing other corruption cases. Shokin's needing to be removed was the position of the US government, our NATO allies and the intelligence/state department as it was clear Viktor Shokin was obstructing justice reform and dragging his feet in prosecuting corruption cases from the Viktor Yanukovych regime. This included dragging his feet investigating the company that hired Hunter Biden. If Joe Biden was trying to protect Hunter Bidens client, the best move would have been to keep Shokin in as PG. Trying to turn that into a conspiracy to protect a corrupt corporation is the sort of story that only gains traction because people are focused on other things and get distracted. The facts are clear, the timeline clear, the motivations clear. Reducing this to partisan attacks and not being careful with the details plays into distorting the truth and reducing American politics to mafia rules. If you are a subbie or Ajax drinking the conservative Kool Aid then it looks like all the calls to jail Barr are how politics gets done in the US. Someone took a knife to one of ours, someone else uses a gun to even the score. Next time, there will be bombs.

That's BS. Fight the falsehoods and focus on the facts. That is how politics needs to be done in the Trump era.

[_EAllusion]

It's funny how we see one side's defense of their views as motivated by politics while our own is purely out of concern for the rule of law. There's a term for that kind of thinking.

If the later is true, then let the law do it's job. That's the only difference that matters and shows one's perspective isn't just self-deceit.

I believe the term you are looking for is "false equivalence."

It is not the case that people shouting at a rally to lock various Democrats up are as equally concerned with the rule of law as people wanting to see, for example, Trump be held to account for his lawlessness.

If you cannot tell the difference between an authoritarian desire to punish political enemies and a desire to hold genuinely lawless politicians to account in as obvious of a case as this, you're just an easy mark for these disinfo campaigns.

We're not talking about "anyone", or evidence in some general manner. We are talking about a specific event going on right now.

Yeah, that's the one I'm referring to. The one where there is ample evidence in public about Barr violating the law. You're rebuttal to this was to vaguely refer to the fact that Barr's DoJ says he isn't in violation of the law. You didn't get into the content of that denial, which is flat out wrong given what is already known, but just assume there is merit to it that needs to be sorted out. It apparently did not occur to you that they could be lying about the law in their own public defense, which they are.

You're really hung up on this idea that any attempt at due process...

What's under discussion is Barr's preventing due process from occurring. Your position that the DoJ can prevent due process from happening without judgment or consequence from the public until that due process happens is a closed loop of self-defeating logic.

[_EAllusion]

Trump proposes sending political opponents to internment camps for reeducation.

People: That seems bad.

Honor, a wise person: How is this any different than when conservatives were worried about Obama setting up FEMA death camps? I guess it's different when your side does it. Check your confirmation bias.