523
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club -1 points 2 months ago

If what you say is true, they are guilty of crimes and should be prosecuted. I think the DOJ is unlikely to do this. What legitimate reason would the DOJ have to not prosecute these people?

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Oh, maybe the fact that the US legal system has had a long policy of rightwing impunity, almost as much as it practices elite impunity?

[-] scarabine@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 months ago

No. My god, no. What sort of nonsense is that?

You’re taking the position of a catastrophic extreme in response to someone saying they should have been more circumspect about where their money came from.

They should have been more circumspect, though. There’s leagues between acknowledging that and saying that they should be prosecuted by the DOJ.

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

How is that extreme?

Prosecution isn’t execution, it is trying them for a crime that they may have committed. If they’re found guilty, even punishment could include things like seizing the money paid to them for those videos and putting watermark warnings on those videos explaining who funded them or taking them down entirely, not exclusively jail time.

[-] scarabine@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 months ago

It’s not extreme to seek their prosecution, it’s an extreme leap to jump from a post about how they should’ve known better (they really should have!) to “They should be prosecuted by the DOJ”.

I’m not sure they need to be prosecuted to have these funds seized, though. The government doesn’t even need to ask them for it I don’t think, depending on how the case proceeds. If the money is part of the case it is probably part of the verdict.

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

That still seems reasonable to me, though. If there’s evidence that they knew what they were doing, put it to a trial to determine culpability. If they’re not obviously in a position to have known better, I can see not prosecuting them, but prosecution is the normal next step when someone seemingly knowingly commits a crime. If it turns out that they really all got scammed, they’ll be found innocent.

I’m also not sure how it will proceed, but I think it’s much more fucked up if a non-party to a criminal case has assets seized. Given that there are currently sanctions against Russia, I could see it being seized separately by the DOJ and/or IRS, but I’d honestly much prefer that it go through a trial instead of just having the DOJ decide. At least then they can have a jury if they want and they can defend themselves. Civil forfeiture is fucked up

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

They're repeating verbatim the talking points of official propaganda outlets of a hostile power. That makes them undeclared foreign agents.

[-] realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club 2 points 2 months ago

I see, that's a fair take 👍🏾

this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
523 points (96.1% liked)

News

23367 readers
3194 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS