05-12-2021, 10:58 AM
(05-12-2021, 10:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're mistaking should and can. No one is disputing her ability to both pursue the charges and the dissolution. Also, I completely disagree with you that corruption at the leadership level irrevocably taints the organization as a whole. But that's not really my point, which is that her prosecution of the NRA is obviously motivated by partisan and personal bias. A prosecutor can stay completely within the scope of their duties and allow their personal biases to taint the prosecution. In this instance, with the scathing, and insanely hyperbolic, public statements she's made about the NRA, on several occasions she has shown herself to be a partisan actor in regards to the NRA. Prosecutors and bench officers with an obvious bias should always recuse themselves. The appearance of impropriety is as bad as actual impropriety, and in this case we have both.
I think I know you well enough to know that you're not ok with prosecutors or bench officers allowing their personal biases to intrude on their work. Lastly, I'll remember your position on being right if a judge agrees with you the next time one hands down a decision you don't like.
So because of her takes on the organization, she is incapable of carrying out her duty against them even if they themselves have admitted to the crimes? The judge agreeing is about the correctness of her actions in seeking the punishment she has, not that all judges are right but that it isn't some wild witch hunt in seeking the punishment because a judge at least found it reasonable to seek. Are we now to believe that any ramifications to the organization that knowingly broke the law is political no matter what they do? The way you have positioned it is that essentially the NRA, the organization, can't be punished because the person looking to enforce the laws publicly doesn't like them...that is a bit of reach.
As I said, it doesn't shut them down for good, that is simply hyperbole people who support them want to get out there. They can re-establish themselves very easily in any state that will take them. Call this what it is, an attempt to avoid consequences for their organizational lack of control. Hell, at any time they could have reclassified and moved away from being a non-profit, but they didn't because they wanted the benefits of illegally keeping the status.
