dobrojim wrote: dckingsfan wrote:
You start down that road and then each next administration prosecutes the previous administration.
FAH1223 wrote:Yes. Torture and the lies of invading Iraq. Ample evidence was there. People like Bolton and Haspel shouldn't be back in government in a normal country. They'd have been prosecuted.
I am just saying the unintended consequences of those type of actions might not be what you want.
Are the Rs going to prosecute Obama for the 500K deaths in Syria? I think it would get stupid weird.
I think the Ds need to just come up with ideas that work and implement them.
I hear this seemingly a lot. Thing is, don't there have to be actual crimes at least for a
prosecution to be successful?
Seems like the consequences, intended or otherwise, might not be so bad.
For instance, why does Jonathon Woo have a cushy job as if he was an actual legal scholar?
First, this website SUCKS donkey schlongs. Twice during the writing
of this post, it has abruptly taken me off the page I'm on to some randem
page, forcing me to attempt to re-write what I just typed.
But I digress, to the matter at hand
I'd rather take the chance that the justice system would have to
deal with politically motivated prosecutions (as long as the courts
continue to appear able to so appropriately)
than to deal with the reality of
politically connected people getting away without any threat of
accountability for real criminal behavior. This lack of accountability
has already done great damage to the general feelings of/by average
people of unequal justice when dealing with the rich, powerful and connected.
All that said, your concern is valid but I'll believe it when I see more
instances in which courts fail to act independently and succomb to political pressure.