Is Letitia James a racist? (1 Viewer)

[Coach Beard]

Former President Donald Trump recently responded to the civil suit New York Attorney General Letitia James filed against him yesterday. In a recent response, posted on Truth Social, the front runner to win the Republican nomination for President in 2024 Donald Trump says Letitia “Peekaboo” James is a racist.

Do you agree with Trump’s claim that the attorney general for the state of New York is a racist?

 

[joffer]

The evidence is what it is

 

[Joe Summer]

What is the evidence of her alleged racism?

 

[Rubiobot]

What is the evidence of her alleged racism?

Trump says so.

 

[John123]

Don't know much about her. First time I heard of her was yesterday. I suspect she's more a political opportunist.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

 

[Snotbubbles]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

I’m not that familiar with her campaign. But there’s been stories that Trump’s business dealings in New York haven’t been kosher for literally decades. Not seeing how what you’re describing is any different from prior AG candidates who pledge to take on the mob.

In any case it doesn’t change the fact that if he’s guilty of a crime this is her duty. In your viewpoint, when and if Garland indicts Trump will that also be politically motivated? If your answer is yes then IMO you’re effectively making Trump above the law since it becomes impossible to punish him without political motivation- which is exactly the defense he consistently makes.

 

[(HULK)]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

So, we should disregard factual evidence because the motivations of someone weren't pure? Is that your argument?

 

[The Commish]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

Its "political" because she mentions Trump in her campaign stump speeches instead of simply saying "I will prosecute any/all those violating......" kinds of things. That's where we're at right now.

 

[Zow]

I don't understand why there's only one "no" answer and why it has to be mutually exclusive with the evidence being "overwhelming."

It's certainly quite possible that she isn't racist and is still nonetheless prosecuting a weak case for political reasons (not saying this is my set opinion, but it's an obvious possible answer that is bizarrely not included in this silly poll).

 

[Snotbubbles]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

So, we should disregard factual evidence because the motivations of someone weren't pure? Is that your argument?

At this point in a civil suit, the evidence isn't factual, it's a question of fact.

I have no problem with an AG being presented with evidence and determining whether to investigate and file action. I do have problem with an AG candidate saying they will be seeking evidence against a citizen as the basis for people to put them in office. There is a distinction there and it's very dangerous for prosecutorial offices to operate in this manner.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

I’m not that familiar with her campaign. But there’s been stories that Trump’s business dealings in New York haven’t been kosher for literally decades. Not seeing how what you’re describing is any different from prior AG candidates who pledge to take on the mob.

In any case it doesn’t change the fact that if he’s guilty of a crime this is her duty. In your viewpoint, when and if Garland indicts Trump will that also be politically motivated? If your answer is yes then IMO you’re effectively making Trump above the law since it becomes impossible to punish him without political motivation- which is exactly the defense he consistently makes.

Strawman isn't relevant here. Garland wasn't voted into his position on the basis of prosecuting Trump.

 

[(HULK)]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

So, we should disregard factual evidence because the motivations of someone weren't pure? Is that your argument?

At this point in a civil suit, the evidence isn't factual, it's a question of fact.

I have no problem with an AG being presented with evidence and determining whether to investigate and file action. I do have problem with an AG candidate saying they will be seeking evidence against a citizen as the basis for people to put them in office. There is a distinction there and it's very dangerous for prosecutorial offices to operate in this manner.

Did you have similar reservations about Trump running on locking up Hillary as like 33% of his campaign?


BTW, I don't like it either. But, just because it's not great doesn't mean people shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

So, we should disregard factual evidence because the motivations of someone weren't pure? Is that your argument?

At this point in a civil suit, the evidence isn't factual, it's a question of fact.

I have no problem with an AG being presented with evidence and determining whether to investigate and file action. I do have problem with an AG candidate saying they will be seeking evidence against a citizen as the basis for people to put them in office. There is a distinction there and it's very dangerous for prosecutorial offices to operate in this manner.

Did you have similar reservations about Trump running on locking up Hillary as like 33% of his campaign?


BTW, I don't like it either. But, just because it's not great doesn't mean people shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes.

Trump wasn't running for a prosecutorial position so his "lock up Hillary" is nothing more than rhetoric. If Bill Barr made the same comments, then yes.

EDIT: Trump was impeached in part for asking for a politically motivated investigation. For asking. James ran on investigating Trump. Got elected in part because of those statements. Then followed through with the investigation. People are acting like there's nothing to see here.

 

[Zow]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

So, we should disregard factual evidence because the motivations of someone weren't pure? Is that your argument?

At this point in a civil suit, the evidence isn't factual, it's a question of fact.

I have no problem with an AG being presented with evidence and determining whether to investigate and file action. I do have problem with an AG candidate saying they will be seeking evidence against a citizen as the basis for people to put them in office. There is a distinction there and it's very dangerous for prosecutorial offices to operate in this manner.

Did you have similar reservations about Trump running on locking up Hillary as like 33% of his campaign?


BTW, I don't like it either. But, just because it's not great doesn't mean people shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes.

Trump wasn't running for a prosecutorial position so his "lock up Hillary" is nothing more than rhetoric. If Bill Barr made the same comments, then yes.

EDIT: Trump was impeached in part for asking for a politically motivated investigation. For asking. James ran on investigating Trump. Got elected in part because of those statements. Then followed through with the investigation. People are acting like there's nothing to see here.

Huh? The President, which is the superior position in the executive branch of government, is a prosecutorial position as prosecution is purely an executive power. Even Morrison v. Olson didn't disturb that.

 

[jon_mx]

When a white cop arrests a black person, racism is the presumption. By that standard, she should be presumed racists until she proves otherwise. That is what is called equal treatment.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

So, we should disregard factual evidence because the motivations of someone weren't pure? Is that your argument?

At this point in a civil suit, the evidence isn't factual, it's a question of fact.

I have no problem with an AG being presented with evidence and determining whether to investigate and file action. I do have problem with an AG candidate saying they will be seeking evidence against a citizen as the basis for people to put them in office. There is a distinction there and it's very dangerous for prosecutorial offices to operate in this manner.

Did you have similar reservations about Trump running on locking up Hillary as like 33% of his campaign?


BTW, I don't like it either. But, just because it's not great doesn't mean people shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes.

Trump wasn't running for a prosecutorial position so his "lock up Hillary" is nothing more than rhetoric. If Bill Barr made the same comments, then yes.

EDIT: Trump was impeached in part for asking for a politically motivated investigation. For asking. James ran on investigating Trump. Got elected in part because of those statements. Then followed through with the investigation. People are acting like there's nothing to see here.

Huh? The President, which is the superior position in the executive branch of government, is a prosecutorial position as prosecution is purely an executive power. Even Morrison v. Olson didn't disturb that.

The DOJ makes prosecutorial decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch not at the direction of the President. A lawyer has the ethical obligation to determine when to prosecute a case and does not take direction from a non-lawyer (ie, the President) on when to prosecute.

You may want to read this: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5588&context=flr

In recent presidential administrations, the president has respected prosecutorial independence; while making policy decisions, the president deferred to the Attorney General and subordinate federal prosecutors to conduct individual criminal cases. In a recent article, we argued that this is as it should be because the president has no constitutional or statutory authority to control federal criminal prosecutions.

 

[Zow]

When a white cop arrests a black person, racism is the presumption. By that standard, she should be presumed racists until she proves otherwise. That is what is called equal treatment.

WTF are you talking about? White cops arrest black people all the time without allegations of racism.

 

[Zow]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

So, we should disregard factual evidence because the motivations of someone weren't pure? Is that your argument?

At this point in a civil suit, the evidence isn't factual, it's a question of fact.

I have no problem with an AG being presented with evidence and determining whether to investigate and file action. I do have problem with an AG candidate saying they will be seeking evidence against a citizen as the basis for people to put them in office. There is a distinction there and it's very dangerous for prosecutorial offices to operate in this manner.

Did you have similar reservations about Trump running on locking up Hillary as like 33% of his campaign?


BTW, I don't like it either. But, just because it's not great doesn't mean people shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes.

Trump wasn't running for a prosecutorial position so his "lock up Hillary" is nothing more than rhetoric. If Bill Barr made the same comments, then yes.

EDIT: Trump was impeached in part for asking for a politically motivated investigation. For asking. James ran on investigating Trump. Got elected in part because of those statements. Then followed through with the investigation. People are acting like there's nothing to see here.

Huh? The President, which is the superior position in the executive branch of government, is a prosecutorial position as prosecution is purely an executive power. Even Morrison v. Olson didn't disturb that.

The DOJ makes prosecutorial decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch not at the direction of the President. A lawyer has the ethical obligation to determine when to prosecute a case and does not take direction from a non-lawyer (ie, the President) on when to prosecute.

You may want to read this: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5588&context=flr

In recent presidential administrations, the president has respected prosecutorial independence; while making policy decisions, the president deferred to the Attorney General and subordinate federal prosecutors to conduct individual criminal cases. In a recent article, we argued that this is as it should be because the president has no constitutional or statutory authority to control federal criminal prosecutions.

I understand all this. I think we're arguing semantics. I see your point that Trump couldn't just prosecute Hillary himself. I don't agree that his comments should be downplayed as rhetoric.

 

[djmich]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

So, we should disregard factual evidence because the motivations of someone weren't pure? Is that your argument?

At this point in a civil suit, the evidence isn't factual, it's a question of fact.

I have no problem with an AG being presented with evidence and determining whether to investigate and file action. I do have problem with an AG candidate saying they will be seeking evidence against a citizen as the basis for people to put them in office. There is a distinction there and it's very dangerous for prosecutorial offices to operate in this manner.

Did you have similar reservations about Trump running on locking up Hillary as like 33% of his campaign?


BTW, I don't like it either. But, just because it's not great doesn't mean people shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes.

Trump wasn't running for a prosecutorial position so his "lock up Hillary" is nothing more than rhetoric. If Bill Barr made the same comments, then yes.

EDIT: Trump was impeached in part for asking for a politically motivated investigation. For asking. James ran on investigating Trump. Got elected in part because of those statements. Then followed through with the investigation. People are acting like there's nothing to see here.

Huh? The President, which is the superior position in the executive branch of government, is a prosecutorial position as prosecution is purely an executive power. Even Morrison v. Olson didn't disturb that.

The DOJ makes prosecutorial decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch not at the direction of the President. A lawyer has the ethical obligation to determine when to prosecute a case and does not take direction from a non-lawyer (ie, the President) on when to prosecute.

You may want to read this: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5588&context=flr

In recent presidential administrations, the president has respected prosecutorial independence; while making policy decisions, the president deferred to the Attorney General and subordinate federal prosecutors to conduct individual criminal cases. In a recent article, we argued that this is as it should be because the president has no constitutional or statutory authority to control federal criminal prosecutions.

I understand all this. I think we're arguing semantics. I see your point that Trump couldn't just prosecute Hillary himself. I don't agree that his comments should be downplayed as rhetoric.

What should his comments be portrayed as?

I’d say they should be portrayed as improper, as should this woman’s. Running on prosecuting your political opponents seems really bad and dangerous regardless of the side. Not sure why there’s an argument here.

 

[Rubiobot]

When a white cop arrests a black person, racism is the presumption. By that standard, she should be presumed racists until she proves otherwise. That is what is called equal treatment.

What the #### are you talking about?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

Let's make a list of all the elected officials whose actions are not politically motivated. You start.

 

[Zow]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

So, we should disregard factual evidence because the motivations of someone weren't pure? Is that your argument?

At this point in a civil suit, the evidence isn't factual, it's a question of fact.

I have no problem with an AG being presented with evidence and determining whether to investigate and file action. I do have problem with an AG candidate saying they will be seeking evidence against a citizen as the basis for people to put them in office. There is a distinction there and it's very dangerous for prosecutorial offices to operate in this manner.

Did you have similar reservations about Trump running on locking up Hillary as like 33% of his campaign?


BTW, I don't like it either. But, just because it's not great doesn't mean people shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes.

Trump wasn't running for a prosecutorial position so his "lock up Hillary" is nothing more than rhetoric. If Bill Barr made the same comments, then yes.

EDIT: Trump was impeached in part for asking for a politically motivated investigation. For asking. James ran on investigating Trump. Got elected in part because of those statements. Then followed through with the investigation. People are acting like there's nothing to see here.

Huh? The President, which is the superior position in the executive branch of government, is a prosecutorial position as prosecution is purely an executive power. Even Morrison v. Olson didn't disturb that.

The DOJ makes prosecutorial decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch not at the direction of the President. A lawyer has the ethical obligation to determine when to prosecute a case and does not take direction from a non-lawyer (ie, the President) on when to prosecute.

You may want to read this: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5588&context=flr

In recent presidential administrations, the president has respected prosecutorial independence; while making policy decisions, the president deferred to the Attorney General and subordinate federal prosecutors to conduct individual criminal cases. In a recent article, we argued that this is as it should be because the president has no constitutional or statutory authority to control federal criminal prosecutions.

I understand all this. I think we're arguing semantics. I see your point that Trump couldn't just prosecute Hillary himself. I don't agree that his comments should be downplayed as rhetoric.

What should his comments be portrayed as?

I’d say they should be portrayed as improper, as should this woman’s. Running on prosecuting your political opponents seems really bad and dangerous regardless of the side. Not sure why there’s an argument here.

Improper is a fair term I'd use for both speakers. But neither is unlawful.

 

[jon_mx]

When a white cop arrests a black person, racism is the presumption. By that standard, she should be presumed racists until she proves otherwise. That is what is called equal treatment.

What the #### are you talking about?

The presumption going into every news story or arrest or persecution is that white people are racist until proven otherwise. Those same presumptions should be applied to everyone in a fair and just society. Really, the presumption should be innocent, but the woke have thrown out that outdated principle a long time ago, so we are kind of stuck with this stupidity.

 

[Rubiobot]

The presumption going into every news story or arrest or persecution is that white people are racist until proven otherwise.

This is a bunch of BS.

 

[glvsav37]

Her last few decisions can at least be questioned. Maybe not for racism, but def for political gain.

She went after the sitting NYS gov, Gov Cuomo, got him ousted.....and then ran for his seat. After she bowed out of the race, all the allegations against Cuomo magically went away.

As for Trump, he's been doing business in NYS for how many decades? What changed now that would make the democratic AG of NY start seriously probing his business dealings now? Oh right, an election year.

 

[tommyGunZ]

When a white cop arrests a black person, racism is the presumption. By that standard, she should be presumed racists until she proves otherwise. That is what is called equal treatment.

This is a lie.

 

[Zow]

When a white cop arrests a black person, racism is the presumption. By that standard, she should be presumed racists until she proves otherwise. That is what is called equal treatment.

What the #### are you talking about?

The presumption going into every news story or arrest or persecution is that white people are racist until proven otherwise. Those same presumptions should be applied to everyone in a fair and just society. Really, the presumption should be innocent, but the woke have thrown out that outdated principle a long time ago, so we are kind of stuck with this stupidity.

I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about here.

 

[tommyGunZ]

When a white cop arrests a black person, racism is the presumption. By that standard, she should be presumed racists until she proves otherwise. That is what is called equal treatment.

WTF are you talking about? White cops arrest black people all the time without allegations of racism.

Modern conservatism is essentially nothing more than white victimhood.

 

[jon_mx]

When a white cop arrests a black person, racism is the presumption. By that standard, she should be presumed racists until she proves otherwise. That is what is called equal treatment.

What the #### are you talking about?

The presumption going into every news story or arrest or persecution is that white people are racist until proven otherwise. Those same presumptions should be applied to everyone in a fair and just society. Really, the presumption should be innocent, but the woke have thrown out that outdated principle a long time ago, so we are kind of stuck with this stupidity.

I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about here.

Believe women. Structural racism. blah, blah, blah. Every story or case in which a white man does something to a protected class, the presumption is he is a guilty/racist. So when a Black AG does something to Trump, why can't it be presumed she is a racist? Why is this presumption just attached to a white man? We should have a country where everyone is treated equally. But we do not anymore. The foundation of what made this country great has been destroyed. So under the absurd presumption of racism, I would say she is a racist until she can prove otherwise.

 

[jon_mx]

When a white cop arrests a black person, racism is the presumption. By that standard, she should be presumed racists until she proves otherwise. That is what is called equal treatment.

WTF are you talking about? White cops arrest black people all the time without allegations of racism.

Modern conservatism is essentially nothing more than white victimhood.

Absolutely stupidity and you fail to understand anything....I just believe in treating all races equally. That is what our country should stand for. But liberals have convoluted everything and destroyed decency and fairness.

 

[Rubiobot]

Believe women. Structural racism. blah, blah, blah. Every story or case in which a white man does something to a protected class, the presumption is he is a guilty/racist. So when a Black AG does something to Trump, why can't it be presumed she is a racist? Why is this presumption just attached to a white man? We should have a country where everyone is treated equally. But we do not anymore. The foundation of what made this country great has been destroyed. So under the absurd presumption of racism, I would say she is a racist until she can prove otherwise.

Hard to believe a white male can be this insecure.

 

[jon_mx]

Believe women. Structural racism. blah, blah, blah. Every story or case in which a white man does something to a protected class, the presumption is he is a guilty/racist. So when a Black AG does something to Trump, why can't it be presumed she is a racist? Why is this presumption just attached to a white man? We should have a country where everyone is treated equally. But we do not anymore. The foundation of what made this country great has been destroyed. So under the absurd presumption of racism, I would say she is a racist until she can prove otherwise.

Hard to believe a white male can be this insecure.

Expecting equal treatment is not insecure. I am 100 percent convinced liberals can not make an argument. It is all about making it personal. Pathetic.

 

[Rubiobot]

Believe women. Structural racism. blah, blah, blah. Every story or case in which a white man does something to a protected class, the presumption is he is a guilty/racist. So when a Black AG does something to Trump, why can't it be presumed she is a racist? Why is this presumption just attached to a white man? We should have a country where everyone is treated equally. But we do not anymore. The foundation of what made this country great has been destroyed. So under the absurd presumption of racism, I would say she is a racist until she can prove otherwise.

Hard to believe a white male can be this insecure.

Expecting equal treatment is not insecure. I am 100 percent convinced liberals can not make an argument. It is all about making it personal. Pathetic.

Everytime someone does make an argument you throw the white guilt nonsense out there.

 

[zoonation]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

So, we should disregard factual evidence because the motivations of someone weren't pure? Is that your argument?

At this point in a civil suit, the evidence isn't factual, it's a question of fact.

I have no problem with an AG being presented with evidence and determining whether to investigate and file action. I do have problem with an AG candidate saying they will be seeking evidence against a citizen as the basis for people to put them in office. There is a distinction there and it's very dangerous for prosecutorial offices to operate in this manner.

Did you have similar reservations about Trump running on locking up Hillary as like 33% of his campaign?


BTW, I don't like it either. But, just because it's not great doesn't mean people shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes.

Trump wasn't running for a prosecutorial position so his "lock up Hillary" is nothing more than rhetoric. If Bill Barr made the same comments, then yes.

EDIT: Trump was impeached in part for asking for a politically motivated investigation. For asking. James ran on investigating Trump. Got elected in part because of those statements. Then followed through with the investigation. People are acting like there's nothing to see here.

Huh? The President, which is the superior position in the executive branch of government, is a prosecutorial position as prosecution is purely an executive power. Even Morrison v. Olson didn't disturb that.

The DOJ makes prosecutorial decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch not at the direction of the President. A lawyer has the ethical obligation to determine when to prosecute a case and does not take direction from a non-lawyer (ie, the President) on when to prosecute.

You may want to read this: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5588&context=flr

In recent presidential administrations, the president has respected prosecutorial independence; while making policy decisions, the president deferred to the Attorney General and subordinate federal prosecutors to conduct individual criminal cases. In a recent article, we argued that this is as it should be because the president has no constitutional or statutory authority to control federal criminal prosecutions.

I understand all this. I think we're arguing semantics. I see your point that Trump couldn't just prosecute Hillary himself. I don't agree that his comments should be downplayed as rhetoric.

What should his comments be portrayed as?

I’d say they should be portrayed as improper, as should this woman’s. Running on prosecuting your political opponents seems really bad and dangerous regardless of the side. Not sure why there’s an argument here.

"political opponent" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

 

[jon_mx]

Believe women. Structural racism. blah, blah, blah. Every story or case in which a white man does something to a protected class, the presumption is he is a guilty/racist. So when a Black AG does something to Trump, why can't it be presumed she is a racist? Why is this presumption just attached to a white man? We should have a country where everyone is treated equally. But we do not anymore. The foundation of what made this country great has been destroyed. So under the absurd presumption of racism, I would say she is a racist until she can prove otherwise.

Hard to believe a white male can be this insecure.

Expecting equal treatment is not insecure. I am 100 percent convinced liberals can not make an argument. It is all about making it personal. Pathetic.

Everytime someone does make an argument you throw the white guilt nonsense out there.

The current foundation of the Democratic platform is that our society was created to promote white supremacy and we must tear it down institution by institution. The only way to fight such non-sense is to confront it head on with how utterly stupid the ideology is.

 

[Genxersrule]

Haha. Please point out that part of the democratic platform. What we do know for sure is that we have a group of white guys who for some reason think white males are discriminated against when white males hold a Massive disproportionate share of almost all positions of power. Making white males some kind of victim in this country is behind ludicrous.

 

[djmich]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

So, we should disregard factual evidence because the motivations of someone weren't pure? Is that your argument?

At this point in a civil suit, the evidence isn't factual, it's a question of fact.

I have no problem with an AG being presented with evidence and determining whether to investigate and file action. I do have problem with an AG candidate saying they will be seeking evidence against a citizen as the basis for people to put them in office. There is a distinction there and it's very dangerous for prosecutorial offices to operate in this manner.

Did you have similar reservations about Trump running on locking up Hillary as like 33% of his campaign?


BTW, I don't like it either. But, just because it's not great doesn't mean people shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes.

Trump wasn't running for a prosecutorial position so his "lock up Hillary" is nothing more than rhetoric. If Bill Barr made the same comments, then yes.

EDIT: Trump was impeached in part for asking for a politically motivated investigation. For asking. James ran on investigating Trump. Got elected in part because of those statements. Then followed through with the investigation. People are acting like there's nothing to see here.

Huh? The President, which is the superior position in the executive branch of government, is a prosecutorial position as prosecution is purely an executive power. Even Morrison v. Olson didn't disturb that.

The DOJ makes prosecutorial decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch not at the direction of the President. A lawyer has the ethical obligation to determine when to prosecute a case and does not take direction from a non-lawyer (ie, the President) on when to prosecute.

You may want to read this: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5588&context=flr

In recent presidential administrations, the president has respected prosecutorial independence; while making policy decisions, the president deferred to the Attorney General and subordinate federal prosecutors to conduct individual criminal cases. In a recent article, we argued that this is as it should be because the president has no constitutional or statutory authority to control federal criminal prosecutions.

I understand all this. I think we're arguing semantics. I see your point that Trump couldn't just prosecute Hillary himself. I don't agree that his comments should be downplayed as rhetoric.

What should his comments be portrayed as?

I’d say they should be portrayed as improper, as should this woman’s. Running on prosecuting your political opponents seems really bad and dangerous regardless of the side. Not sure why there’s an argument here.

"political opponent" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

lol, if you cant see the connection than ok

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

she mentions Trump

 

[General Malaise]

Former President Donald Trump recently responded to the civil suit New York Attorney General Letitia James filed against him yesterday. In a recent response, posted on Truth Social, the front runner to win the Republican nomination for President in 2024 Donald Trump says Letitia “Peekaboo” James is a racist.

Do you agree with Trump’s claim that the attorney general for the state of New York is a racist?

Why is he calling her "Peekaboo"? Is there a joke there I'm not getting?

 

[Stealthycat]

I don't see anything showing her a racist though she very well might be .... at least, her actions on Trump doesn't appear racist but yes, its political

 

[FairWarning]

I don't know if she's racist. Her actions are at least politically motivated.

I don’t get this. If the Trump organization committed the crimes she says they did, isn’t it her duty to go after them? If she abstained from doing so wouldn’t that be a political decision?

To get elected, she ran on a platform to prosecute Donald Trump for his business dealing. This was BEFORE she was AG. Her actions are politically motivate. She didn't have evidence come across her desk while being AG and said, let's investigate this. She literally said she was going to look for evidence against Trump so vote for me. That is political motivation. That is dangerous from an AG.

I’m not that familiar with her campaign. But there’s been stories that Trump’s business dealings in New York haven’t been kosher for literally decades. Not seeing how what you’re describing is any different from prior AG candidates who pledge to take on the mob.

In any case it doesn’t change the fact that if he’s guilty of a crime this is her duty. In your viewpoint, when and if Garland indicts Trump will that also be politically motivated? If your answer is yes then IMO you’re effectively making Trump above the law since it becomes impossible to punish him without political motivation- which is exactly the defense he consistently makes.

He’s skated on these charges for years, don’t know how he does it. Shady and unethical isn’t necessarily illegal (certainly not condoning any of his actions).

 

[(HULK)]

Former President Donald Trump recently responded to the civil suit New York Attorney General Letitia James filed against him yesterday. In a recent response, posted on Truth Social, the front runner to win the Republican nomination for President in 2024 Donald Trump says Letitia “Peekaboo” James is a racist.

Do you agree with Trump’s claim that the attorney general for the state of New York is a racist?

Why is he calling her "Peekaboo"? Is there a joke there I'm not getting?

I'll let you guess what word starts with "jig" and autocorrects to peekaboo.

 

[timschochet]

Believe women. Structural racism. blah, blah, blah. Every story or case in which a white man does something to a protected class, the presumption is he is a guilty/racist. So when a Black AG does something to Trump, why can't it be presumed she is a racist? Why is this presumption just attached to a white man? We should have a country where everyone is treated equally. But we do not anymore. The foundation of what made this country great has been destroyed. So under the absurd presumption of racism, I would say she is a racist until she can prove otherwise.

Hard to believe a white male can be this insecure.

 

[jon_mx]

Believe women. Structural racism. blah, blah, blah. Every story or case in which a white man does something to a protected class, the presumption is he is a guilty/racist. So when a Black AG does something to Trump, why can't it be presumed she is a racist? Why is this presumption just attached to a white man? We should have a country where everyone is treated equally. But we do not anymore. The foundation of what made this country great has been destroyed. So under the absurd presumption of racism, I would say she is a racist until she can prove otherwise.

Hard to believe a white male can be this insecure.

Lol...you have responded to me three times today and have yet to make a point.

 

[tymarsas]

Former President Donald Trump recently responded to the civil suit New York Attorney General Letitia James filed against him yesterday. In a recent response, posted on Truth Social, the front runner to win the Republican nomination for President in 2024 Donald Trump says Letitia “Peekaboo” James is a racist.

Do you agree with Trump’s claim that the attorney general for the state of New York is a racist?

Why is he calling her "Peekaboo"? Is there a joke there I'm not getting?

I'll let you guess what word starts with "jig" and autocorrects to peekaboo.

I've never heard this term. I had to search for words that start with jig. If this is true, then it is a pretty ironic nickname based on premise of Trumps post. And it's also super gross.

 

[Coach Beard]

Former President Donald Trump recently responded to the civil suit New York Attorney General Letitia James filed against him yesterday. In a recent response, posted on Truth Social, the front runner to win the Republican nomination for President in 2024 Donald Trump says Letitia “Peekaboo” James is a racist.

Do you agree with Trump’s claim that the attorney general for the state of New York is a racist?

Why is he calling her "Peekaboo"? Is there a joke there I'm not getting?

My guess is Trump said a racial slur from his era that kind of rhymes with “Peekaboo”, and whomever was dictating the post wisely changed it to “Peekaboo” so it would come off as confusing and insulting but not patently offensive.

 

[BladeRunner]

Former President Donald Trump recently responded to the civil suit New York Attorney General Letitia James filed against him yesterday. In a recent response, posted on Truth Social, the front runner to win the Republican nomination for President in 2024 Donald Trump says Letitia “Peekaboo” James is a racist.

Do you agree with Trump’s claim that the attorney general for the state of New York is a racist?

Why is he calling her "Peekaboo"? Is there a joke there I'm not getting?

My guess is Trump said a racial slur from his era that kind of rhymes with “Peekaboo”, and whomever was dictating the post wisely changed it to “Peekaboo” so it would come off as confusing and insulting but not patently offensive.

Didn't 2016-2020 teach you never to assume anything? How many times did your side run with every BS statement someone made as 100% fact and here you are again, repeating the same mistake.

Just making s### up to make yourself feel better.