Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You’re fixating on timing and stage of process.
|
No, I'm saying that an elected official acting in his own interest to influence prosecutorial decisions is qualitatively different from hiring a lawyer who has credibility with the prosecutor such that the prosecutor may be more open to believing your story.
Now, maybe that's because my exposure to prosecutors is limited to a subset of federal prosecutors, who in my experience, would never do a "favor" to make a valid case go away. Having the prosecutor believe you when you try to show that the case is immaterial or your guy was just a dupe that didn't know what he was involved with isn't corruption.
Rather than viewing what the president did as no different than another from of corruption and thus acceptable, maybe you should find both forms equally outrageous?
Quote:
|
So I don’t see much damage here. You can’t place in peril the integrity of a system the integrity of which is rightly, based on obvious known facts, already doubted by many if not most citizens.
|
It's extraordinary that you think the president doing something that, to the extent it's happened in the past, was at minimum a big scandal (allegations of Reagan influencing antitrust cases) or impeachment (Nixon and the Saturday Night Massacre) is now just ordinary course.
