05-12-2021, 11:04 AM
(05-12-2021, 10:58 AM)Au165 Wrote: 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.
No, you're completely missing the point being made. The organization, and the members engaged in corrupt activity, absolutely can be punished. The person actively prosecuting the case absolutely should not be someone with a known, extensive history of partisan hostility towards the organization being prosecuted. Seriously, this is a cornerstone of the legal system, recusing yourself when there is even the possibility of a perception of bias. Well, if you're at all ethical that is.
Quote: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.
Again, you're not addressing the actual point being made. The motivation for them filing in Texas has literally nothing to do with the point of my argument.
