HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Is it wrong to ask for mo...

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 08:10 AM

Is it wrong to ask for more from Democrats?

Is it wrong to complain when our DOJ defends MF45? Is it wrong to expect our DOJ to do more to stop the law breaking in the Arizona fraudit? Is it wrong to expect the Senate do more to get S1 passed, such as, break the bill down and vote for parts of it? Vote to make election day a holiday - 1 vote. Vote to allow same day registration - 1 vote. Vote to allow voters who have been waiting in line for hours accept food and drink. Of course the GQP will vote down all of those individual bills, but doesn't that give Democrats more fodder to convince a few Democratic Senators to reform or eliminate the filibuster?

Believe me I am not bashing Democrats, I am urging them to do more. One thing that separates Democrats from the GQP is that we are OK having vigorous debates among ourselves. I believe that we are all getting to the same place by going down different paths, the filibuster needs to go or be reformed to get S1 passed.

15 replies, 705 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is it wrong to ask for more from Democrats? (Original post)
gab13by13 Jun 2021 OP
marble falls Jun 2021 #1
gab13by13 Jun 2021 #3
marble falls Jun 2021 #4
gab13by13 Jun 2021 #5
marble falls Jun 2021 #8
lagomorph777 Jun 2021 #14
lagomorph777 Jun 2021 #9
marble falls Jun 2021 #11
lagomorph777 Jun 2021 #12
marble falls Jun 2021 #13
lagomorph777 Jun 2021 #15
gibraltar72 Jun 2021 #2
gab13by13 Jun 2021 #6
Elessar Zappa Jun 2021 #7
smirkymonkey Jun 2021 #10

Response to gab13by13 (Original post)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 08:32 AM

1. Another thing that seaparates us from 45 and the Basket of Deplorables is rule of law ...

... and a rule of law that 45 and the BoD didn't write shouldn't be ignored. This is a protection for Democratic Presidents, too. It isn't as if our DoJ is 45's DoJ. 45's going to face justice, and he'll be guilty regardless who gives him legal counseling.

We don't need to trip him up just to bring him to justice. Whatever shortcuts we'd use would be used against a Democratic President in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 08:51 AM

3. A federal judge

gave an opinion that DOJ should not take MF45's place in the E. Jeanne Carroll law suit. I'm sorry but I have that judge on my side.

The optics don't look so hot where a DOJ is defending an accused rapist.

Also you are basing your reasoning on a norm, not even a law. My belief is that a sitting president can and should be indicted if the evidence warrants it. My opinion is that no one is above the law, including the president. The view, and it is just a view, that a sitting president can't be indicted should have been challenged. Why protect criminals, including Democratic presidents if they are guilty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gab13by13 (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 09:04 AM

4. Even rapists gets the benefit of representation. And Presidents get the benefit of DoJ ...

... representation in this case by law.

Your district judge will not be the last word on this.

What you are missing is one of the few rights Americans have very few others in the world have: a presumption of innocence. The fact that 45 is a world class asshole guilty of many things worth imprisoning him for, none of those alleged crimes (presumed innocence) have been tried.

I also do not think for a moment there is no damning evidence of his many, many crimes.

I don't care who his lawyer is or who pays for it, he's going to go to jail, and we do not need to grease his skids to do it. Situational ethics is a dirty, dirty thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 09:08 AM

5. Wrong,

presidents only get the benefit of DOJ lawyers when they are performing the duties of the presidency. Explain to me how MF45's slandering of E. Jeanne Carroll is part of his duties as president?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gab13by13 (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 09:29 AM

8. Fortunately, you and I don't make those decisions. Beside the issue isn't about the specific ...

... allegations of Ms Carol. Do you think AG Garland has a soft place in his heart for 45? Let the law work for us. We don't need to lynch 45, we can hang him legally after the trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 09:45 AM

14. You can twist reality into a pretzel, but Trump's actions were obviously not tied to his duties.

The courts have to presume his innocence. DOJ does not have to act as his private lawyer, or worse, as the defendant. If that's what "equal protection" means, then DOJ should step in if I commit a rape, and take my place in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 09:31 AM

9. DOJ defending a criminal against civil and criminal proceedings is not the rule of law.

That is placing the President above the law. Way above it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 09:34 AM

11. Alleged criminal and the POTUS. Change the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 09:35 AM

12. Change the DOJ memo that makes this "acceptable."

The law is fine. We need to start enforcing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 09:39 AM

13. Then DoJ defends 45.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #13)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 09:48 AM

15. Nonsense.

The law only applies to an officer performing his duties. This clearly isn't the case, as the judge has already ruled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gab13by13 (Original post)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 08:48 AM

2. My beef is we are MINO.

Majority In Name Only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gibraltar72 (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 09:10 AM

6. It certainly seems that way at times.

A nice big fat infrastructure bill passed through reconciliation by majority vote would go a long way to restore our Democratic majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gab13by13 (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 09:15 AM

7. Infrastructure will pass.

It might not be all we want but it’ll get passed and signed by Biden. Voting rights is another matter. We won’t get that unless we’re able to get rid of the filibuster, which doesn’t look good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gab13by13 (Original post)

Wed Jun 23, 2021, 09:31 AM

10. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread