145
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
145 points (91.0% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3221 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Great, and as I said, whatever they have should go in front of a grand jury for indictment if it’s worthwhile. If it’s nothing, should be no indictment. Simple. If they have something plausible, indict him. Again simple.
For now, they have a suspicion. Investigate it. If there is a hint at an issue, let’s get statements for the record.
Let’s take Clarance Thompson for example. There’s some pretty good suspicions there that some sort of payments/“gifts” have taken place. Let’s investigate him for wrong doing. We should also subpoena him (if possible) to get his official statements on things. Not sure why this is hard to agree on.
And I fail to understand you not being able to make a distinction on having a reasonable concern and investigating vs creating a platform of accusations based on a ‘desire’. This so called investigation is used as a tool to hammer someone, just because.
Indeed, take Clarence Thomas as an example. People disagree and abhor his political stance. It was not that what drove the current calls for investigation. It is based on records which became available and an admission he took those ‘gifts’.
Your failure to understand this make me doubt you know what you are talking about. Your suggesting a methodology we know all to well. It’s what was used to accuse ‘witches’, just because someone yelled ‘witch!’
As I said previously:
“I also hope anyone using this as a political weapon faces legal repercussions as well if it can be proven.”
I can read.
Again, we know this methodology and the way to prove you are not a witch is being thrown in a pool and drown. To bad you are dead but hey, your innocent and surely the prosecutors will get their comeuppance!
Your method relies on people being held to account after you have proven to be innocent on charges brought up with the motivation to destroy you or your reputation. Damage is done already.
I wonder, what rule of law you support. It sure as heck isn’t based on a fair and reasonable case being brought forward. You are promoting a kangaroo court style of law and I am absolutely not on board with that.
At what point then would you say you are allowed to investigate someone of something?
For the Clarance Thompson thing (funny my phone keeps trying to write clearance, which makes sense what he’s being accused of), someone had to have a suspicion and dig into it, found something, built a case, then put it out there. I assume you agree with that method?
That’s what I feel should happen here. Again as I said, should gather their evidence, build a case, and get an indictment. Without one, everything they say means nothing. I do disagree with putting it out in the public like this, to me that’s already coming close to, if not already, defamation.
“When you have the facts, pound the facts. When you have no facts, pound the table.”
Facts start a case. This investigation is based on retaliation. They admitted as much and had to grudgingly admit they have none but keep accusing and communicating there are facts. The lie.
We are seeing vindictive children pounding the table.