Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

OA443: The (Terrible) Case Against Indicting Trump (Patreon)

Published:
2020-11-30 04:36:34
Imported:
2022-10

Downloads

Content

Friend of the show Randall Eliason wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post called "The case against indicting Trump." Both of us on the show strongly disagree with the arguments presented and humbly submit our enthusiastic rebuke of it.

Before that, Andrew answers the clickbaity question of whether or not Trump made a major mistake in pardoning Flynn. As with all clickbait, the answer is no. Finally, we briefly touch on the terrible new decision out of the Amy Coney Barrett era that is our new hell.

Links: Last election nail, Biden hopes to avoid divisive Trump investigations, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses Seventh Edition May 2007, REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE, 20A87 Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (11/25/2020)

Appearances

None. Invite us on your show!

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Files

Comments

Anonymous

Justice may be a right in theory, but it is too often a privilege in execution. Even if Trump is indicted for what, by law, constitutes a crime and prosecuted for the harm we have the collective resources and interest in preventing in the future, I can't help but think of the countless people hurt by Trump who are left without any recourse. That is not to say that investigating and indicting him is a pointless exercise - I fully support it. But I feel the need to acknowledge how truly far even that would be to any fair or reasonable notion of justice. If I sound angry, its because I am. Three of my closest family members became seriously ill this year with covid, in large part due the lies this man, this stranger I will never meet and never care to, told to them. On top of constant concern about their health, I've had to tiptoe around the reality Trump has led them to believe or risk losing my relationship with them altogether. I am a laid back, peace-loving person who will be angry at Trump for the rest of my life for that. He may not ever be deemed a criminal in the eyes of the law, but I will never view him as anything but. I know his actions have directly impacted so many others in even more egregious ways. There is just no justice for all that he has done.

Anonymous

To steelman the Diocese v Cuomo case: in the 2nd Circuit, there's a holding that the government can't tell you what is and isn't required by your religion. Could that be part of the religious groups' argument?