What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[HisMajestyBOB]

The problem isn't that Biden issued the pardons. It's that he feels it is necessary because of Trump's likelihood of seeking revenge.

[Barrister]

The problem isn't that Biden issued the pardons. It's that he feels it is necessary because of Trump's likelihood of seeking revenge.

Yes, that's obviously why he granted them.

It's just a question of what it says about the US Justice system.  It strengthens the notion that criminal prosecutions are just a political ploy.  And that even if someone did nothing wrong, and at the end of the day is found not guilty - that the process of investigations and prosecutions itself is the punishment.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, I think it's also a problem that he's, in the last minutes, issuing sweeping pardons to family members (to say nothing of the decision about Hunter).

[DGuller]

It's kind of damning for a sitting US president to admit that merely being involved in the legal system already presents hardship which can be intolerable.  For a long time one of my pet peeves was lawyers and cops saying something like "explain this in court", as if the process of getting to court is so benign for regular people.  I think one of the greatest failings of our legal system is that victories in courts are often Pyrrhic, and that this fact can be used as a weapon by people who can tolerate the costs.

[The Brain]

That even a "good side" POTUS has publicly written off the US justice system says a lot.

[Admiral Yi]

It's kind of damning for a sitting US president to admit that merely being involved in the legal system already presents hardship which can be intolerable.  For a long time one of my pet peeves was lawyers and cops saying something like "explain this in court", as if the process of getting to court is so benign for regular people.  I think one of the greatest failings of our legal system is that victories in courts are often Pyrrhic, and that this fact can be used as a weapon by people who can tolerate the costs.

As a weapon to achieve what end?

[Neil]

The power of an administration to harass their enemies has always been pretty great.  And after they tried so hard but utterly failed to convict Trump of anything meaningful, he's going to retaliate.  It's the same tit-for-tat that's been going on since the Republicans tried to do Clinton in the Nineties, and the stakes keep getting raised.

[Barrister]

The power of an administration to harass their enemies has always been pretty great.  And after they tried so hard but utterly failed to convict Trump of anything meaningful, he's going to retaliate.  It's the same tit-for-tat that's been going on since the Republicans tried to do Clinton in the Nineties, and the stakes keep getting raised.

The thing is - Biden (and AG Garland) tried really hard to NOT go after Trump.  In the Documents case they let it go on for months and months before getting a warrant.  In January 6th case they waited until they were pretty much forced by the Jan 6 commission.

There's a reason the only conviction of Trump came from a state-level prosecution.

[DGuller]

It's kind of damning for a sitting US president to admit that merely being involved in the legal system already presents hardship which can be intolerable.  For a long time one of my pet peeves was lawyers and cops saying something like "explain this in court", as if the process of getting to court is so benign for regular people.  I think one of the greatest failings of our legal system is that victories in courts are often Pyrrhic, and that this fact can be used as a weapon by people who can tolerate the costs.

As a weapon to achieve what end?

Coercion in general.  A lot of the rights and entitlements that we all have can ultimately only be defended in court, should someone choose to challenge them.  The vast majority of the time no one calls that bluff, but when you know that you're up against a rich person with a team of lawyers who's willing to use them, and you're not, you know that a legal war is not something you can survive until you win.  Therefore, that rich person can force you to not exercise your rights or claim your entitlements, because the alternative is a lot worse.

[Neil]

The power of an administration to harass their enemies has always been pretty great.  And after they tried so hard but utterly failed to convict Trump of anything meaningful, he's going to retaliate.  It's the same tit-for-tat that's been going on since the Republicans tried to do Clinton in the Nineties, and the stakes keep getting raised.

The thing is - Biden (and AG Garland) tried really hard to NOT go after Trump.  In the Documents case they let it go on for months and months before getting a warrant.  In January 6th case they waited until they were pretty much forced by the Jan 6 commission.

There's a reason the only conviction of Trump came from a state-level prosecution.

That's the worst of all worlds though.  All the hype and tension of the investigation (and hype is what's most important to Trump), with none of the actual punishment.  And the New York conviction was pretty soft.  The only way that this could ever work is if Trump was convicted and locked up, or if the Biden administration had been so outrageously successful that people were willing to re-elect a Democrat.  Now, he's going to be coming for revenge, and his people don't care about little things like laws, rules or norms.  He won't differentiate between the New York officials who went after him or federal civil servants, they're all 'The Libs', and thus his enemies. 

[Admiral Yi]

Coercion in general.  A lot of the rights and entitlements that we all have can ultimately only be defended in court, should someone choose to challenge them.  The vast majority of the time no one calls that bluff, but when you know that you're up against a rich person with a team of lawyers who's willing to use them, and you're not, you know that a legal war is not something you can survive until you win.  Therefore, that rich person can force you to not exercise your rights or claim your entitlements, because the alternative is a lot worse.

Sounds like you're talking about civil cases, which have nothing to do with cops.

[DGuller]

Coercion in general.  A lot of the rights and entitlements that we all have can ultimately only be defended in court, should someone choose to challenge them.  The vast majority of the time no one calls that bluff, but when you know that you're up against a rich person with a team of lawyers who's willing to use them, and you're not, you know that a legal war is not something you can survive until you win.  Therefore, that rich person can force you to not exercise your rights or claim your entitlements, because the alternative is a lot worse.

Sounds like you're talking about civil cases, which have nothing to do with cops.

I'm talking about legal system in general, I just gave an example that was civil.  Cops can likewise use the power of the state to fuck with you, if that's what they choose to do.  Some traffic offenses, over which cops have great discretion, can still cost you a pretty penny to defend yourself against, with serious consequences if you don't.

[HVC]

Sounds like you need to stop speeding

[Sheilbh]

I'm talking about legal system in general, I just gave an example that was civil.  Cops can likewise use the power of the state to fuck with you, if that's what they choose to do.  Some traffic offenses, over which cops have great discretion, can still cost you a pretty penny to defend yourself against, with serious consequences if you don't.

I find the "friend of the NYPD" cards cops give out absolutely insane.

[Maladict]

That even a "good side" POTUS has publicly written off the US justice system says a lot.

Yeah. If you can't trust your legal system to protect someone like Fauci you've got a problem no pardon will solve.