cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/41968573
On Wednesday, nine Democrats voted with Republicans to hold Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress, while three Democrats voted to hold Hillary Clinton in contempt.
If the full House votes in favour, the Department of Justice would decide whether to prosecute the charges, which is a misdemeanour offence punishable by a fine up to $100,000 (£74,500) and imprisonment up to a year.
In a statement, Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer urged the full House to hold the Clintons in contempt, saying his committee had sent a “clear message” that “no one is above the law, and justice must be applied equally—regardless of position, pedigree, or prestige”.
The Clintons had contended the subpoenas - a legal orders to provide testimony - were “nothing more than a ploy to attempt to embarrass political rivals, as President Trump has directed”.
No offense, but seeing as Trump is literally the only one preventing the release of the Epstein Files, now illegally against the will of Congress, yes you do have to choose one over the other if you actually want justice.
Instead, our tax dollars are going towards arresting Bill Clinton. If you want to try everyone on the Island, that literally MUST start with the person illegally stopping that from happening. Or it will literally never happen. Just like Trumps Tax returns, Wall, and Health Plan.
No, you don’t. Trying Clinton won’t prevent trump from being tried. If Bill Clinton never existed Trump would still be interfering in the release of the files to protect himself. If you’re suggesting that trying no one at all serves justice better than trying Clinton I vehemently disagree.
I’m quite frankly stating this serves Trump far more than it serves justice.
It’s a very clear attempt to further avoid justice by blaming Clinton in place of Trumps crimes. Resulting in Clinton being literally the only one punished as a fall guy narrative for Trump. Making an entire side of the scale of Justice permanantly held down by an orange fist.
If you want to get on a pedastal about Justice, maybe start at the top instead of at the bottom. Where you’re claiming what’s clearly injustice, and would never happen in a world where this was being handled by adults, is actually kinda fair if you just squint and don’t look at the “in” part of “injustice.”
Choosing to find righteousness in Clinton’s arrest over rage is the banal acceptance of authoritarianism in place of anything resembling a just society.
So you’re saying we should let a child rapist walk so trump doesn’t get what he wants. That’s certainly an opinion I guess.
Personally I’d like to see Clinton blamed for Clinton’s crimes and Trump blamed for Trump’s crimes.
No. That’s what you want me to be saying in place of what I am.
Here’s what I’m saying:
Pedo authoritarianism for Clinton is not the same as justice for him and Trump. No matter how much you want it to be.
Because there’s a clear difference between a justice system where innocence is presumed, and the one we now have where the opinion of an admitted pedo is used to determine guilt.
You’re saying both of these systems provide the same quality of justice. I’m saying they very clearly don’t.
Do you honestly believe Clinton would have a fair trial under the Trump administration? Yes or No.
If you agree with me that, no, he clearly won’t. Then you agree that nothing that would happen in that trial could be considered fair or even believably “just.” Which means that any “justice” served in that trial is poor at best, and immediately questionable in its accuracy and application at worst. Which means that such a trial would fail to fit the definition of justice at all. Because that’s political persecution, just now poorly cosplaying as justice.
Just because a mall Santa looks like Santa, doesn’t mean he is actually Santa. Just because the word “justice” is a part of the DOJ, doesn’t mean they actually serve justice. As evidenced by their continued, and now illegal protection of the Epstein Files and those of their own cabinet inside them. They are about as far from the definition of “just” as you can get.
Same as you pretty much admitting no trial is needed to determine Clinton’s guilt. You’re good with just the opinion of a admitted pedophile saying he is in determining what’s “just.”
Here’s said pedophiles opinion on how young of a kid he’s admitted to fucking:
https://www.thewrap.com/trump-age-limit-howard-stern-interview/
Show me Clinton saying anything remotely the same if you want me to assume his guilt to the degree you already have. I’d much rather wait for a fair jury to determine that. Something that in all likelihood will now never happen.
If you actually cared about Justice as you’ve been virtue signaling, you wouldn’t be acting as if Clinton is guilty at all. He’s not on camera talking about the youngest kids he’s fucked. He’s not in the Epstein files in reference to killing infants, raping teens, and killing children to dispose of evidence.
Yet you readily accept the guilt of Clinton for doing all those actions, not the person who made them whose opinion you so readily prefer to a judge or juries.
Because you want authoritarianism, and only I want justice. They are not the same. Even if you are unwilling to notice. Unlike you, I’m not willing to blindly accept fascism as a substitute for justice just because a pedophile told me it’s the same thing. Yet that’s very much the choice you keep continuing to make here, whether you know you are or not.