'Should be terrifying to everyone': Prosecutor fired by Trump delivers blunt warning
'Should be terrifying to everyone': Prosecutor fired by Trump delivers blunt warning
A formal federal prosecutor fired by President Donald Trump on Sunday delivered a blunt warning about what is happening to the rule of law in the United States.While speaking with CBS News' "60 Minutes," attorney Sara Levine bluntly said that "the Justice Department is under attack" by the new admin...
Summary
Former federal prosecutor Sara Levine, fired by Trump, warned on 60 Minutes that the Justice Department is "under attack."
Levine, who prosecuted January 6 rioters, said she was fired for upholding the law.
Legal expert Peter Keisler criticized Trump's pardons of Capitol rioters, arguing they signal that crimes committed in support of Trump's agenda may go unpunished.
These actions undermine the rule of law and discouraging accountability for political violence.
You're viewing a single thread.
Legal expert Peter Keisler criticized Trump's pardons of Capitol rioters, arguing they signal that crimes committed in support of Trump's agenda may go unpunished.
Um, isn't that the main point why Trump did it?
It's like the entire liberal world has been conditioned to act like the things that are very obviously happening may happen ... not right now though ... at some future unknown date ... so you don't need to worry about it really. Don't rock the boat and certainly don't miss work tomorrow... just continue consuming and hold tight while someone else presumably sorts it out.
It's like a civilization-wide bystander effect.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice
This is what pisses me off about all the people who kept talking about how the Democrats were failing to get voters engaged in 2024.
If the Dems weren't doing the job, what was keeping you from stepping up?
Its like there was a fire going on and people were complaining the firemen weren't doing enough instead of jumping in and helping.
My analogy is that it was like someone threw a molotov cocktail through your window, but you let the house burn down because the window didn't stop the bottle.
That'll teach that window.
The Harris campaign spent a billion and a half dollars on "getting voters engaged" and she still lost anyway. All the phone-banking and door-knocking in the world can't overcome the fundamental problem of refusing to adopt policies the people actually want!
So please, explain to me exactly what the fuck kind of "stepping up" you expect randos from the Internet, who had no ability to affect the campaign's platform, to actually fucking do?!
Idk, maybe voting against the dude who straight up said he would be a dictator and you'd never vote again?
That wasn't enough for the grandparent commenter, who was trying to shame people for not getting other people to vote too.
I'm not a politician. I developed an entirely different set of skills. Throwing away my career at the potential of reskilling is absurd.
And Dems weren't doing their job. I'm tired of people pretending like that's acceptable. I canvass. I get people ready to vote. I do my part.
I can't even tell you the last time a Dem policy benefitted me directly. What I have in common with them really just boils down to them being the only opposition right now. I pushed Harris like we had to and I'll never forgive them for running such an unlovable candidate. They knew what they were doing. The second there's another serious option I'm gone. Dems complete lack of opposition makes them complicit in everything that's happening.
AOC and Omar have entered the chat.
If you don't like the Dems that are in power now, you can primary them. If we get another election.
How long until the dems have effective leadership putting people like AOC and Omar in the spotlight and building around them rather than keeping them on the fringes?
Gee, almost as if you should be out there helping folks win the next set of primaries.
Lmao if you get a primary. Trump wasnt the one who took that away from you last time, and he wasnt the one who screwed over bernie before that. Good job pointing to the two token progressives as if that doesnt prove the other guy's point.
Keep saying both sides are the same enough, maybe you can convince yourself.
Thats literally not what im saying. Im saying you all should have demanded the democrats be better, not just pledged your undying devotion because they arent as bad. But keep blaming everyone except the politicians who fucked you, thats turning out great.
What is your actual plan?
I know the Dem I want to run against the current GOP Congressperson in 2026.
What are you planning on doing? Going to get a 3rd Party up and running in 24 months?
Probably the part where I didn't receive over a billion dollars in donations to actually get media attention. A lot of people have been campaigning to get people to ditch the Democrats because they're controlled corporate stooges for the last few decades, I think you were shouting at them for supporting third parties at the time.
Read up on how Hitler took power in the first place.
A lot of people hated him, but they hated other politicians more and decided that letting him have a go at it wouldn't be a bad thing.
If you thought a third party was going to come to the rescue in 2024 you have my abject sympathy.
A third party had no chance of coming to the rescue in 2024 because everyone has attacked third parties in the U.S. for at least the three decades I've been alive, and I'm pretty sure for another few decades before that.
Also, you're conveniently ignoring the economic conditions of the Weimar Republic that made the rise of Nazism in Germany an inevitability. Just like all the libs ignoring the economic conditions in the U.S. that led to the rise of Trumpism.
So, we agree. There was no other option except Harris and people didn't vote for Harris because they decided it was more important to blame the Dems then fight the actual fascist.
But yes, I'm sure that the same folks who couldn't get Bernie nominated in 2016, 2020, and 2024 will become political savants now and organize a powerful third party in less than 24 months.
I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. The problem is that the moderate libs have consistently shut down third party and leftist options for the last few decades. Since the Democrats haven't had any competition, they have abandoned their constituency, and now work exclusively for corporate interests. By constantly voting for the "lesser evil", you have allowed them to blossom into an evil that the average American cannot distinguish from fascism.
I'm not expecting anyone to organize anything. At this point, I'm just pulling up a chair to watch the collapse. But good job insulting the Bernie Bros who tried to pull you out of this downward spiral, it's good to know that the center will punch left no matter what.
, I’m just pulling up a chair to watch the collapse.
Sounds like you have a pretty privileged position in the world.
Don't have to worry about educating kids, or grandparents losing social security, or anything else.
BTW, I was a Bernie bro who contributed to him three times. I got to watch that money do nothing because people like you were sitting, waiting for the collapse.
Oh, I'm going to die, I just don't care anymore. Humanity is going to filter itself out, and good riddance.
Yes, you certainly sound like the sort of person to take advice from.
Good luck with the teenage angst.
And they should have been shouted at. The current system does not allow for third party viability as disappointing as that is.
Uh-huh, and how is constantly voting for the lesser evil going for you? What did you seriously expect to happen? We'd just keep slipping towards fascism but never actually reach it?
You and people like you are the problem, and you're blaming the people who are being directly affected by the poor decisions you yourself are choosing to make.
The fact that this is constantly the response from libs being called out is honestly the reason I have given up. I've spent the last decade being politically active, trying to motivate Americans to vote in their own self-interest for things that will actually improve their lives, and I've received nothing but insults and assumptions from centrists who've never done a damn thing to prevent the collapse we're witnessing now.
So yeah, fuck it. My informed opinion after campaigning for third parties and leftists for years is that Americans deserve everything that is going to happen to us. You didn't want a democracy, and now you don't have one. Congrats!
Is it the lesser evil if it's on the same team as the greater evil?
BoTh siDes ARe thE Same?
How is that working out for you?
Honestly, it's hard to fault politically disconnected people who feel that way. The democrats are just the ratchet strap that keeps us from going any further left while the republicans drag us farther right. The GOP also has a literal firehose of constant media drenching the working class while the democrats just suck on the corporate peepee. I voted for harris this time because it was the lesser evil but i am starting to understand how someone who doesn't pay attention winds up voting for trump.
It's almost as if protecting freedom is a full time job.
I realize people have difficulty parsing language sometimes, but she did not say “may signal” she said “signals”. She said he is doing exactly what you both are saying he is doing. Basically: You appear to be in violent agreement with her.
The “may” only comes in that if you commit acts of treason, etc. on behalf of dear leader, you may or may not show up on his radar.
I realize people have difficulty parsing language sometimes, but she did not say “may signal” she said “signals”. She said he is doing exactly what you both are saying he is doing. Basically: You appear to be in violent agreement with her.
"Glass houses," buddy. Check the sentence again:
Legal expert Peter Keisler criticized Trump’s pardons of Capitol rioters, arguing they signal that crimes committed in support of Trump’s agenda may go unpunished.
The future/hypothetical part of it that the person you replied to was complaining about wasn't the "signals" part, it was the "may go unpunished" part. In other words, the legal expert in question isn't in denial of what Trump's pardons "signal;" he (not "she," BTW -- you misread that, too) is in denial of the fact that the effect being signaled is already currently happening.
You cannot replace “may” with “will” or “shall” in that sentence and be correct 100% of the time.
Further, your admitted problem is you are trying to assess past actions to invalidate a forward looking statement, and it makes you wrong. The sentence is correct (and correctly parsed) as “crimes [which have not been adjudicated] may go unpunished.”
Note the tense of the word “may” is future, not past. Which is why you are wrong.
Someone's gonna be killed by one of these J6 yoyos. Could be a SC justice after a ruling that goes against Trump, could be one of those key people from the last administration that Trump quite openly dropped security details for.
Will Trump go the extra mile and pardon them? Will his party full of Christian Conservatives ignore their God's commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill" when the victim is a political opponent who they don't like? Of course they will.
At least three of them have already been re-arrested for other crimes.
One was killed by the cops, too
To be fair, that may be one of the ones I was thinking of.