Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It involves politicians and benefits one over another.
Russiagate
Whitewater
Benghazi*
Clinton Impeachment*
Trump Impeachment**
All political. The investigations into Trump's taxes in NY, which would never have occurred but for who he is and who he's pissed off? Political.
Ted Stevens
Rostenkowski
Trafficant, that idiot from Ohio, is a rare exception in which a prosecution of a sitting legislator was not in part political. He was a criminal. Same goes for Sheldon Silver in NY. Those guys were engaged in racketeering.
The indictment of that DOJ lawyer for altering FISA court documents? Political.
Stone's indictment? Yup.
Manafort's? Yup. Had he not been in Trump's orbit, he'd have never been charged. In fact, a prior investigation of him for the same stuff he was convicted of had been closed without charges. (How dumb is he?)
That Obama lawyer who was put on trial by Mueller for failing to register as an agent of a foreign government? That one was really political. Disgustingly political. He was charged so Mueller's team could look tough on both sides. That one was truly outrageous.
_____
* Not criminal prosecutions, but brought by opponents purely for political gain.
** Technically defensible as Trump had attempted to shake down Ukraine, but also brought for political gain. (Had a Democrat president done that, the House would not have pushed for impeachment.)
|
Almost every single civil or criminal investigation of a politician will benefit another politician. The exception (which proves the rule) is Traficant, who had already been expelled from the Democratic caucus in Congress and wasn't welcomed by the Republicans, either. He was absolutely a criminal, in the sense that he broke the law, but the reason why you don't see him as political is that every single other politician thought he should go down.
What you are really saying is that as far as you are concerned, politicians are free to commit crimes, because when they do and so one finds out, politicians will disagree with each other about whether there was a crime and what should be done about it, which irrevocably taints any investigation as "political" and forces you to take sides in a debate between politicians. (We all know that you are completely above politics and would rather be caught dead than to take a political side, so by deciding that every such investigation is "political" you can exempt yourself from having to take a side, and remain above it all.)
Watergate, we all know, started when Republican operatives burglarized the DNC headquarters in the Watergate complex. No question: It was a crime, even bit as much as Traficant's taking bribes. By your view, as soon is it became clear that burglars were linked to the Administration, any investigation would become "political" -- it would involve politicians and certainly benefit the Democrats. Nixon's White House should have been allowed to burgle the opposition party's headquarters, and lie and obstruct justice, because as corrupt as that sounds, it would be worse to force you to decide that Democrats were right and that Nixon was wrong.
What you stand for is a form of qualified immunity for politicians, where they get to do whatever crimes they want unless *all* other politicians agree that it was so clearly and heinous a crime that they should be nailed. I personally think the qualified immunity doctrine we already have is bad enough, but congratulations -- you have thought up of a way to make it even worse.
