@sargentd: What do you think "weaponization of the DoJ against political opposition" means? Are they hanging Trump in the middle of times square with pitchforks out" No. It's a weaponization of the legal system. It's not a mob. That still doesn't make it ethical or "justice".
Generally, when one breaks the law, the Department of Justice is "weaponized" against them, yes. That's how it works.
How do you take the term to mean? That the DoJ is corruptly harnessed by one individual, party, or a government? In the end, claiming weaponization is a moot criticism to defend Trump, because it's not so simple as garbage in-garbage out as you are framing it. These cases are going to work their way through, and be filtered by, our institutions. They will be held to procedure, facts, evidence. They will be viewed and ascertained equally by a mix of ideologies and partisan leanings. Juries are composed of citizenry.
The DoJ and our justice system isn't some cohesive, nefarious evil eye entity where everyone is in on some grand scheme to disenfranchise someone else. Yes, there are bad faith actors and faults occasionally, as any human endeavor entails, but the way you're presenting it tends towards conspiratorial thinking, and it is nonsense. It's simply not the way our justice system functions, or even could function, given how it is structured. Bad motives won't stand a chance surviving the legal rigor these cases will be held to.
You have to be very naive to think all these different cases.. all needed the same the same amount of time to proceed.. and they all just happen to move forward during the election year... Come on.. if the cases were clear cut cases with evidence that couldn't be refuted these would have proceeded immediately.
I do not believe (as you do) that these cases wouldn't have been brought against Trump had he decided not to run for office again. They were coming regardless, which is exactly why he made such an early announcement that he was running. He did so because he's shrewd to the understanding that the optics would favor him if he announced and was then indicted. Then he could paint and push the narrative that he's being politically persecuted for running, and not the crimes he's committed, which is exactly what he's doing. Had he been indicted and then announced his candidacy, it would've had the optics that he was seeking office to evade the charges, and the shifting of attention from the charges to his supposed persecution would have been FAR harder to sell and far more impotent in its effectiveness to take anchor.
It, again, is all a PR game to Trump. He calculates and makes moves so he can frame the optics favorably to him, to then incessantly hammer them home with rhetoric, demagoguery, and toxic partisan appeals and division, leveraging that partisan potency he's been nurturing in the masses for years to be able to sell them favorably (and much more easily) to those who are prone to his manipulations.
Trump is a con man, and this is what he does. Unfortunately, many are so wrapped up in their partisan hatreds and look no deeper than the superficial, and admittedly, the optics, on surface examination, help Trump. I completely can see how it's a persuasive sell.....but when you look deeper, it's a con job to turn people to his side.
Ever heard the phrase "throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks".
This just reeks of desperation to try and bog down Trump.
Which, as I just explained, is due to the optics that Trump put into play so he could grab the narrative before circumstances became unfavorable to his ability to sell them to his benefit. He's been very successful in the way he's played the PR deck with these cases.
.....and yes, Trump throws shit at the wall all the time to see what sticks. I'm very familiar with it, as you should be also.
And you yourself are conceding in saying "yes, they are definitely doing this to try and stop Trump from winning re-election" "which I'm OK with because I think he's a danger to the country"
That is a huge concession man... I don't think you are comprehending what that really means.
I'm fully aware of what it means, and am 100% ok with stopping Trump on the merits of the legal consequences he's wrought that would, and should, preclude him from attaining the presidency again as they are directly relevant to his duties that he's shown he's 100% unfit for. The determination of Trump's guilt regarding the classified information, for just one example, is imperative for the American people to know before the election. Who in their right mind wouldn't want to stop him from regaining office with his guilt on this matter undetermined? Do you care about this country and our classified information? Don't you believe that is a wise thing to do?
It completely throws away the legitimacy of all these cases..if that's the motive of the cases being brought forth.. it pretty much tells you everything you need to know.
No, it doesn't delegitimize them.
The legal merits of the cases against him and law's process is entirely separate from what is motivating them. Either he broke the law, or he did not. The impetus for the cases does not negate the merit of their legal foundation, and I trust that if these cases truly are predicated upon faulty premise as any borne of weaponizing the DoJ would be, that will be revealed, and nullified, in their adjudication through jurisprudence's process.
Log in to comment