Trump FINALLY indicted: "We are living in a Police State" say Fox Commentators

[Dill]

(03-31-2023, 03:42 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: We like to think that our politicians are more heavily scrutinized and held to a "higher ethical standard" than business people in the U.S. But if there is any truth to that, it is only because the rival party vets opponents and demands accountability through media platforms, eh.

So, you always have the opposing parties looking for 'dirt' on each other. But sometimes, that search for dirt reveals what the opposition might consider a 'gold nugget': a potential prosecutable violation of the law (i.e. a mudslingers wet dream). If that happens, the opposition can turn it over to the justice department to investigate and follow up on. The opposition loves this because they can now sling mud from the sideline while a supposedly unaligned third party takes the field and makes a determination if there is sufficient evidence to pursue charges and to follow up/not follow up as the situation requires in their determination. I write 'supposedly unaligned third party' in reference to the Justice Department because 1) it is a large bureaucratic department with many lawyers and judges who support one party or another to some degree or another (i.e. results may vary depending on who, when, and where); and 2) as a massive bureaucratic department reflecting many views, the overall effect nationwide is to appear unbiased. But that said, criminal charges are criminal charges and even the most blatantly partisan judges cannot totally ignore or white wash them. If someone apparently broke the law and the charges make it to a docket, they will get consideration.

So, yeah, the case doesn't see the light of day if not for a political motivation (I believe the official 2020's response is, "Yeah... so what?"). But at the same time, a court finding finding sufficient evidence of violation of a law to indict is generally not politically motivated.

B, you'd have made a good political scientist! 

Your analysis here works in the opposite direction of a conspiracy theory. Where you see complexity and fracture, which in part prevents one party or group from controlling a gov. bureaucracy, conspiracists see only monoliths--often directed by "Soros" or the DNC or some such entity.  For them there is no "friction" in bureaucracies.  (e.g., Bush orders people to bring down the twin towers and shoot down a passenger jet over PA, a conspiracy which would commit hundreds of U.S. military and intel members to murdering their own countrymen (and possibly family members), and of course they follow orders and all keep the secret for 20 years. Just so Bush can go after Saddam, though of course he has to invade A-stan first, falsely blaming Al Qaeda, whom he tricked into taking credit for 9/11.)  

In the case of the DOJ and the FBI, actions must often be reviewed by different people at different levels--e.g., an application for a warrant must be approved by supervisers and a judge independent of the FBI or whomever.  Very hard to get people on board an investigation of high level politicians without evidence to which laws can clearly apply--it's only the quality of evidence that saves them from dishonor and investigation themselves.

When it comes to legal issues like those Trump is facing, it is always possible for a small coterie of people to hide or manufacture evidence (say a policemen who invents a story to cover an illegal shooting and his buddies back him up, or a president who replaces DOJ personnel who won't do his bidding with people who will). But when you are talking about charges which have to be confirmed by multiple bureaucracies from accountants and investigators to defense lawyers to judges, and which have to align with law, it is very difficult to "politicize" in such cases, because all elements will eventually become transparent, and none of those involved wants errors or mistrials on his record, let alone criminal charges. 

Nothing expresses the current political dysfunction in the U.S. like all these RW Politicians and celebrities complaining the gov. has been "weaponized" because the guy who used the DOJ and other bureaucracies to favor friends and punish enemies--and to retain power illegally--is now to be arraigned himself on charges that 23 U.S. citizens thought warranted indictment. Their news organizations and blogs work 24/7 disinforming people about the nature of the charges and why they were brought. The monolithic DEEP STATE is after Trump because he is such a threat to "the Swamp" or the "elite" who always get away with crimes. 

Instead of urging people to consider why this ex-president calls so many investigations upon himself, they instead express faux outrage over the "unprecedented" action against an ex-president. MUST be political because no ex-president has been indicted before! It's as if Trump's 3,500 lawsuits over the course of 40 years, the current investigations over charges from rape to stealing classified documents to sedition, have all been thrown down Orwell's memory hole. Of course its going to be THIS PRESIDENT who finally breaks the precedent.

The "unprecedented" angle would be framed very differently if the FBI could ever actually muster some evidence against Biden that a prosecutor could feel confident bringing to court. As the Clinton impeachment demonstrates, they are all for "unprecedented" charges when it's the other party in dock, even as a sitting president.