Point taken, it's a good and pertinent one, and this is not a criticism but a straightforward question and premise.
Are those here in society, me among them, and those within our government who are resolved to preserve the rule of law and therefore the existence of the U.S. as an actual democratic republic - however imperfect it may be -…
Point taken, it's a good and pertinent one, and this is not a criticism but a straightforward question and premise.
Are those here in society, me among them, and those within our government who are resolved to preserve the rule of law and therefore the existence of the U.S. as an actual democratic republic - however imperfect it may be - supposed to start using the same calculus about the enemies of our country within our borders as we do those on foreign soil, treating them as if they possess nuclear weapons and proceeding perhaps too timidly because of it?
Well-armed they are, but that must not be a deterrent, not here on our own soil, no matter what arms they bear or how many. Because this is the whole darned shootin' match right here. If we engage in any form of appeasement, if we allow ourselves to be dissuaded from our resolve by fear, if we shrink from our resolve for any reason, they win. And they won't have to fire a shot.
The above concerns are more than valid. But living in fear of what these people might do is a sure way to make sure they destroy what we should all be defending. No thanks. Not doin' it. It's possible to be concerned and resolved and, if necessary, brave, all at the same time.
Bravo, true in every part. My only addendum would be, ‘If you come for the king, you’d best be damned sure you kill the king’ and can get it upheld on appeal. Taking Trump to trial and have him get off would do more damage than not having tried him at all.
Tough call on this one for me for a few reasons. Lots of downside in either a swing-and-a-miss or getting caught looking and called out with the bat still behind our shoulder. My personal preference is if we're gonna' go down, let's go down swingin'. But I'll admit that's about equal parts reason and sentiment.
There's trying him and there's first investigating him. They MUST investigate, whether it results in an indictment or not. All the legal pundits I follow see no signs DOJ is investigating.
I have no doubt he is featuring in the DoJ investigations of 1/6 but they will not say that, nor should they just to appease the frustrations of the public. That’s where Comey went badly wrong, he had no need to say anything until he was sure there was new evidence against HRC but he gave in to fear of leaks and public pressure & announced the ‘re-opening’ of an investigation 10 days before an election. There are good reasons why DoJ should not discuss these things in public. But the evidence of a criminal offence will have to be well beyond a reasonable doubt for DoJ to indict Trump and again for good reason. The country is a tinder box, he must be held to account if the evidence is there but they can’t just take a flyer and hope they get a sympathetic jury.
Comey really, really screwed that whole thing up by opening his yap, whether that was well intended or not. And I get it about why DOJ may seem idle due to the relative silence. Hoping they just learned a lesson from Comey and are actually getting their ducks very quietly in a row. I'm with Sandy in that all I want, and have wanted, is a 1st rate legitimate investigation and let the chips fall where they may. But if they don't fall at all, I'm really going to be beyond pissed off!!
Of course they don't say anything about investigations, but, as legal pundits like Preet Bharara, Joyce Vance and Dan Goldman have pointed out, no one close to Trump is being subpoenaed. That would get out if it were happening.
I'm not looking for an indictment, just an investigation.
The Jan 6 committee is getting evidence from Jared, Ivanka, Miller, plus what it has already got from Meadows & countless others who we don’t know about. It awaits the release of e mails from John Eastman. If I was DoJ investigator, I’d want every scrap of evidence available in the public domain before I decided who to subpoena & what questions I want to ask about it. They are not going to operate on our time scale & whatever happens in the mid-terms even if the House flips, it will not affect the DoJ. That remains ongoing until a new president is in office.
Point taken, it's a good and pertinent one, and this is not a criticism but a straightforward question and premise.
Are those here in society, me among them, and those within our government who are resolved to preserve the rule of law and therefore the existence of the U.S. as an actual democratic republic - however imperfect it may be - supposed to start using the same calculus about the enemies of our country within our borders as we do those on foreign soil, treating them as if they possess nuclear weapons and proceeding perhaps too timidly because of it?
Well-armed they are, but that must not be a deterrent, not here on our own soil, no matter what arms they bear or how many. Because this is the whole darned shootin' match right here. If we engage in any form of appeasement, if we allow ourselves to be dissuaded from our resolve by fear, if we shrink from our resolve for any reason, they win. And they won't have to fire a shot.
The above concerns are more than valid. But living in fear of what these people might do is a sure way to make sure they destroy what we should all be defending. No thanks. Not doin' it. It's possible to be concerned and resolved and, if necessary, brave, all at the same time.
Not just possible, essential.
Agree.
Bravo, true in every part. My only addendum would be, ‘If you come for the king, you’d best be damned sure you kill the king’ and can get it upheld on appeal. Taking Trump to trial and have him get off would do more damage than not having tried him at all.
Tough call on this one for me for a few reasons. Lots of downside in either a swing-and-a-miss or getting caught looking and called out with the bat still behind our shoulder. My personal preference is if we're gonna' go down, let's go down swingin'. But I'll admit that's about equal parts reason and sentiment.
Agree let's go down swingin'. What do we get if we don't?
When the stakes are this high, there's risk in every move, no matter what.
I'm game. Batter! Batter! Batter!
There's trying him and there's first investigating him. They MUST investigate, whether it results in an indictment or not. All the legal pundits I follow see no signs DOJ is investigating.
They make a few noises here and there, but they don't seem too serious about it, do they? At least not at this point. Hope I'm wrong.
I have no doubt he is featuring in the DoJ investigations of 1/6 but they will not say that, nor should they just to appease the frustrations of the public. That’s where Comey went badly wrong, he had no need to say anything until he was sure there was new evidence against HRC but he gave in to fear of leaks and public pressure & announced the ‘re-opening’ of an investigation 10 days before an election. There are good reasons why DoJ should not discuss these things in public. But the evidence of a criminal offence will have to be well beyond a reasonable doubt for DoJ to indict Trump and again for good reason. The country is a tinder box, he must be held to account if the evidence is there but they can’t just take a flyer and hope they get a sympathetic jury.
Comey really, really screwed that whole thing up by opening his yap, whether that was well intended or not. And I get it about why DOJ may seem idle due to the relative silence. Hoping they just learned a lesson from Comey and are actually getting their ducks very quietly in a row. I'm with Sandy in that all I want, and have wanted, is a 1st rate legitimate investigation and let the chips fall where they may. But if they don't fall at all, I'm really going to be beyond pissed off!!
Of course they don't say anything about investigations, but, as legal pundits like Preet Bharara, Joyce Vance and Dan Goldman have pointed out, no one close to Trump is being subpoenaed. That would get out if it were happening.
I'm not looking for an indictment, just an investigation.
The Jan 6 committee is getting evidence from Jared, Ivanka, Miller, plus what it has already got from Meadows & countless others who we don’t know about. It awaits the release of e mails from John Eastman. If I was DoJ investigator, I’d want every scrap of evidence available in the public domain before I decided who to subpoena & what questions I want to ask about it. They are not going to operate on our time scale & whatever happens in the mid-terms even if the House flips, it will not affect the DoJ. That remains ongoing until a new president is in office.