Who do you want to see indicted first?

[jimbogumbo]

Prosecution ≠ death.

Didn't I read the phrase "up against the wall" earlier in this thread?

Probably. But, what on earth do YOU think it means?

https://www.phrases.com/phrase/up-against-the-wall_45115

I'm confused by your confusion.  "Up against the wall" is where they put you before they shoot you.  How do you not know that?  Then again, a forumite seemed never to have heard of the Berlin Wall earlier this year (was it you?), so nothing should surprise me anymore.

I know people think that. I should have phrased my question better, using why in place of what and adding that as the conclusion. I'm saying your interpretation is not what was implied in the context of indictments. I am also a big proponent of not having firing squads fire at walls.

Typically they're firing at people; the walls are just there for the bullets that miss.

What a helpful clarification! Yes, I indeed thought they just fired at the walls! Silly me!

FYI, I am a 68 year old man who group up in the middle of the US watching Westerns and war movies. I know about firing squads.

It may help you to think that people with different opinions know nothing, but you are incorrect. For example, I don't think writingprof and financeguy are ignorant; I just disagree with them a lot regarding policy and peoples' intentions.

[Parasaurolophus]

Just to clarify: I have no problem with the normal wheels of justice investingating and posecuting lawbreakers; what does disturb me is the idea of any new political regime using the powers of office to kickstart or accelerate the process against their rivals. The whole "Lock her up!" thing four years ago was very disturbing for the same reason. In that case, after the election the mob seemed to lose interest.

But that's not at all what anyone is advocating (except for the MAGA chuds who still want Hillary locked up, or Hunter Biden, etc.). What we're saying is that crimes were committed while in office, and those crimes need to be prosecuted.

I went back to the Bush administration, but that's because we have a slew of war crimes--including torture!--which have gone entirely unpunished, and that's entirely unacceptable. The cheese puff brigade has fewer of those on its hands, but it still has a whole slew of crimes on its hands (including some pretty horrifying crimes against humanity).

[Sun_Worshiper]

Trump family is in some danger in NY state, although probably nothing that would put them in handcuffs. Federal stuff will probably not happen "for the good of the country," and I agree that it is better to move on.... However, I wouldn't mind seeing some enforcement of Hatch Act. Petty corruption by Trump family is unfortunate, but hasn't done irreparable harm to the country imo, but people politicizing their positions in the bureaucracy is dangerous.

[ciao_yall]

May I change my vote?

At first I put Cheetolini but now I'm thinking it shoudl be McConnell so he is no longer Senate Majority Leader and can't actually do anything.

[writingprof]

May I change my vote?

At first I put Cheetolini but now I'm thinking it shoudl be McConnell so he is no longer Senate Majority Leader and can't actually do anything.

I'm no expert, but it's possible that another Republican would take his place, perhaps even one who could count to fifty-one (or fifty-two) and make the appropriate deductions about his ability to stop Democratic legislation.  The problem for you is the ideology, not the man.  If socialism can't be discredited once and for all--if campus leftists of my acquaintance still hold a flame for Pol Pot--I doubt you're going to eradicate the principles that drive Cocaine Mitch.

[Tee_Bee]

May I change my vote?

At first I put Cheetolini but now I'm thinking it shoudl be McConnell so he is no longer Senate Majority Leader and can't actually do anything.

His wife is as corrupt as the day is long. Oh, to be a federal attorney for the district of....well, just about anywhere after January 20.

I am well tired of the high minded calls for "avoiding retribution" and this notion that "we don't prosecute our enemies after an election." This ultimately isn't about "our enemies." It's about investigating and prosecuting credible offenses against the United States. The president* and his underlings all took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Those who have failed to do so should rightly be charged and prosecuted. The president* and his rallies chanted "lock him/her up." We are fortunate that they had neither evidence of their targets' putative crimes, nor competent officials to carry out these idle threats. If in fact the president* and his family are guilty of tax fraud--for which a credible case exist--they should be tried. The Ukraine stuff probably isn't indictable, and the Emoluments Clause probably doesn't attach any more after January 20. But the other stuff? Just appoint an ambitious couple of federal attorneys for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and for the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia...and then whisper "sic 'em." A fella can dream....

[dismalist]

Trump lost the election, yet there are so many, many articles about Trump. Odd that is.

Perhaps the Democratic Party has nothing to offer aside form Trump.

[eigen]

Trump lost the election, yet there are so many, many articles about Trump. Odd that is.

Perhaps the Democratic Party has nothing to offer aside form Trump.

Maybe because Trump is throwing a tantrum that is putting people moving past the election on hold by claiming that he won the election and riling up his base to protest the 'steal'?

[dismalist]

Trump lost the election, yet there are so many, many articles about Trump. Odd that is.

Perhaps the Democratic Party has nothing to offer aside form Trump.

Maybe because Trump is throwing a tantrum that is putting people moving past the election on hold by claiming that he won the election and riling up his base to protest the 'steal'?

Great example! :-)

[mamselle]

That's gone a bit quieter in the past week.

Still interested to see how it will play out, but maybe not so interested as to want to feed the glory-basking by reading or listening to anything about it.

..."Nothing to see here, you can move along now..."

M.

[eigen]

Trump lost the election, yet there are so many, many articles about Trump. Odd that is.

Perhaps the Democratic Party has nothing to offer aside form Trump.

Maybe because Trump is throwing a tantrum that is putting people moving past the election on hold by claiming that he won the election and riling up his base to protest the 'steal'?

Great example! :-)

I think it's a fine line. If Biden move's too fast, they risk more accusations of stealing the election. I think everyone's just waiting it out.

The fact that congress is on a break and we're in the middle of growing shutdowns due to the pandemic also probably does not help.

[Anselm]

I would like to see something done to whomever made it easier for restaurants to steal tips from their servers.

[mamselle]

Yes. I tip directly, in cash, for that reason.

When I was eating at restaurants, that is.

In the Before-times.

M.

[writingprof]

I would like to see something done to the people who raised the minimum wage above what the market demands, thus ensuring that waitresses of the future will be robots.

[mamselle]

Have you ever worked in a restaurant?

M.