Given the state of criminal (in)justice in this country, it’s a possible issue, yes,. How big an issue remains to be seen, but most likely won’t have an appreciable impact.
Love that something like this makes you un-electable, but “grab em by the pussy” makes you president.
Overall? No. I don’t think so.
I personally don’t like it, because civil asset forfeiture is one of the worst things in the world to me. It’s just legalized theft. It’s a total violation of your most fundamental rights.
But other than that, she’s ok. As you say, she seems like a stronger leader than most of the other folks in the field.
They are not good people.
Also the Republicans love CAF. You know cause they’re all about reigning in government power and the Constitution. Kappa.
No kidding, right? It’s also assumed Warren did this with “malicious” intent - even from her supporters.
I thought people voted GOP because of fear. They are sensitive to loss and fear the other. GOP promises to protect them and their place in society (which is all complete lies).
Bingo! It’s easy to believe that the half of the country who doesn’t agree with you is evil, but it’s more about fear of loss: Loss of income, loss of job, loss of comfort, and, yes, even loss of a way of life they’re used to. If you want to believe they’re evil, that they’re not good people, fine. But there are no solutions in that.
I don’t disagree, but remember, it’s easy to do evil things that when you justify them with fear.
I think that the GOP had demonstrated that Fear is the mind killer.
And that fear leads to anger.
While I broadly agree that’s a view based on believing it’s a zero sum game which I think is a populist fallacy.
The other question is believing that at what point does being willing to do something to avoid the loss turn to evil?
I think the line is kidnapping children, throwing them in cages, and letting them die. It’s likely well before that, but it’s at least there. And every single person supporting the Republican Party at this point owns that. Evil, full stop.
This whole issue of whether the opposition are “bad people” is similar IMO to the issue of whether politicians should be prosecuted: which is, if there is actual harm, actual crimes, actual wrongdoing, then yeah, that’s bad and should be prosecuted.
A mere political disagreement should not be prosecuted and does not make someone a bad person (and by political disagreement I mean a philosophical difference on priorities or principles). However, if you actually launder money, evade taxes, conspire with foreign powers, cheat in elections, etc. etc., then that’s a crime and should be prosecuted. And if you support policies like child separation, that makes you a bad person.
So a “mere political” difference is not something we should criminalize. But when politics becomes action, becomes policy, then you have to face the consequences of your actions.
Was Bill Clinton lying under oath a crime or a political difference?
It was a civil violation, punished by a Judge with a 5 figure fine. It was referred to prosecutors IIRC but they declined to file criminal charges. If the prosecutors HAD made a case for criminal perjury that was legally and factually sound and secured a conviction, then that would have to stand, just as the Paula Jones lawsuit was allowed to stand.
Please note there is a difference on the Bill Clinton issues: I’m talking about criminal prosecution, not impeachment. Impeachment relates to bad conduct while in office abusing the powers of the office, or not doing the required duties, corruption, treason, etc. Lying under oath in a civil lawsuit for actions that occurred before the office are not an impeachable offense, although it could have been a criminal offense, and it certainly was a civil violation.
I agree with the assessment. Also if the progressives are out of it, they will side with Harris over Booker. They distrust Harris but loathe Booker.
The more moderate of the progressives will be willing to give her a chance if it’s her vs say, Biden.
As for Trump, I think the next Dem administration has to prosecute for something, if only to send a message, and as a reminder to the Democratic base what they could have again. Trump needs to be a generational boogeyman the way Carter was. We need to make Dems scared.
On Fox this morning they were wondering if Elizabeth Warren could/should be prosecuted for the crime of listing herself as a Native American on that one legal form. If we’re not going to prosecute a traitor to the country to the full extent of the law despite his/her title then we’ve already lost.
This is not the place for a long discussion of criminal law, but I think it’s worth noting that, since the days when the common law was formed in England, the law has recognized as a qualitative difference in crimes. Most serious crimes, especially crimes of violence, are said to be malum in se, that is inherently evil or bad in and of themselves. Other crimes, like failing to file a tax return, are said to be malum prohibitum, that is wrong because they’re prohibited. Where does lying to Congress fall in that spectrum? Does it matter what you’re lying about? Say an extra-marital affair as opposed to colluding with a hostile foreign government?
That’s entirely dependent on which political party you belong to.
Yeah, welcome to the USA.