Yes, because if there’s anything the last 10 years of politics has taught us is that the Democrats need to care more about precedent than holding elected officials accountable
The rule of law is important, that’s the entire point. It’s being flouted openly in all corners or our government. I can support a just government, but we do not have one, and we do not stand a chance of instating one without removing the openly corrupt one that we have in place. Simple as that.
Because hoping for the plane to right itself is fucking stupid. There’s one group that thinks the rules still apply, while the other group is climbing through windows with knives.
That’s where we disagree. If there’s plenty of evidence then we can’t always wait on our justice system where the rich and powerful can use their resources to stall almost indefinitely. In this case, he will likely serve the remainder of his term without any repercussions.
Is the law being more closely followed by letting him remain in office despite taking bribes? I suppose in your opinion Trump is perfectly fine to do whatever he wants now that the “rule of law” says that he can.
And who exactly denied him the right to defend himself? IIRC it was Trump that ordered these charges to be dropped, and who knows what Adams got in return. It’s not like people are asking the NY govorner to send him to prison. He is a civil servant and there is a legal process already in place to remove corrupt mayors that is not being followed. Why are you licking the boots of the oligarchs so hard?
I didn’t miss a damn thing. The governor has a process available to dismiss him. That /\ is the process. Therefore, removing the mayor would not be extra judicial.
Yes, because if there’s anything the last 10 years of politics has taught us is that the Democrats need to care more about precedent than holding elected officials accountable
deleted by creator
It is not only acceptable but is required when the judicial system is compromised how it is.
deleted by creator
The rule of law is important, that’s the entire point. It’s being flouted openly in all corners or our government. I can support a just government, but we do not have one, and we do not stand a chance of instating one without removing the openly corrupt one that we have in place. Simple as that.
deleted by creator
This whole fucking story is about a law on record. They’re not talking about just taking Adams out back for a summary execution.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
“They go low, we go high” has been so extremely useful in the last 10 years or so.
deleted by creator
Because hoping for the plane to right itself is fucking stupid. There’s one group that thinks the rules still apply, while the other group is climbing through windows with knives.
Yes? Don’t you think Trump should have been removed from office in his first term?
deleted by creator
That’s where we disagree. If there’s plenty of evidence then we can’t always wait on our justice system where the rich and powerful can use their resources to stall almost indefinitely. In this case, he will likely serve the remainder of his term without any repercussions.
deleted by creator
Is the law being more closely followed by letting him remain in office despite taking bribes? I suppose in your opinion Trump is perfectly fine to do whatever he wants now that the “rule of law” says that he can.
deleted by creator
And who exactly denied him the right to defend himself? IIRC it was Trump that ordered these charges to be dropped, and who knows what Adams got in return. It’s not like people are asking the NY govorner to send him to prison. He is a civil servant and there is a legal process already in place to remove corrupt mayors that is not being followed. Why are you licking the boots of the oligarchs so hard?
If you were being investigated by the FBI for corruption and openly pulled a quid pro quo with a political figure, would you still have a job?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Such a removal would not be extra judicial: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBO/33
deleted by creator
I didn’t miss a damn thing. The governor has a process available to dismiss him. That /\ is the process. Therefore, removing the mayor would not be extra judicial.
Quit moving the goal posts.
deleted by creator
I’m sorry, I must be blind. Please point out the word “trial” in that section of the New York State Constitution.
All I see is “… after giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard in his defense.”
deleted by creator
Be my guest. I’d like to see how many of the words in your “explanation” fail to appear in the quoted section of the NYS Constitution.
Seems to me if the author meant a trial, they’d have used the word trial.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Being removed from office is not “punishment.”
deleted by creator
His elected position is not a possession. Taking it away is not punishment.
deleted by creator