Yes, because if there’s anything the last 10 years of politics has taught us is that the Democrats need to care more about precedent than holding elected officials accountable
The rule of law is important, that’s the entire point. It’s being flouted openly in all corners or our government. I can support a just government, but we do not have one, and we do not stand a chance of instating one without removing the openly corrupt one that we have in place. Simple as that.
We don’t want to make it acceptable for a governor to remove a mayor because they feel like it.
“Because they feel like it?” Are you unaware of the charges against him or something? This isn’t based on feelings it’s based on the crimes he’s committed while in office that he and Trump are trying to sweep under the rug.
That’s where we disagree. If there’s plenty of evidence then we can’t always wait on our justice system where the rich and powerful can use their resources to stall almost indefinitely. In this case, he will likely serve the remainder of his term without any repercussions.
Is the law being more closely followed by letting him remain in office despite taking bribes? I suppose in your opinion Trump is perfectly fine to do whatever he wants now that the “rule of law” says that he can.
A letter to Hochul stating “I didn’t do it, you didn’t see me do it, you can’t prove it if I did do it, and no way was my deal with Trump a quid pro quo” qualifies as an opportunity to defend himself, as well.
I didn’t miss a damn thing. The governor has a process available to dismiss him. That /\ is the process. Therefore, removing the mayor would not be extra judicial.
Who, whom? Russian: кто кого?, kto kogo?; Russian pronunciation: [kto.kɐˈvo] is a Bolshevik principle or slogan which was formulated by Vladimir Lenin in 1921.
deleted by creator
Yes, because if there’s anything the last 10 years of politics has taught us is that the Democrats need to care more about precedent than holding elected officials accountable
deleted by creator
It is not only acceptable but is required when the judicial system is compromised how it is.
deleted by creator
The rule of law is important, that’s the entire point. It’s being flouted openly in all corners or our government. I can support a just government, but we do not have one, and we do not stand a chance of instating one without removing the openly corrupt one that we have in place. Simple as that.
deleted by creator
“Because they feel like it?” Are you unaware of the charges against him or something? This isn’t based on feelings it’s based on the crimes he’s committed while in office that he and Trump are trying to sweep under the rug.
deleted by creator
This whole fucking story is about a law on record. They’re not talking about just taking Adams out back for a summary execution.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
“They go low, we go high” has been so extremely useful in the last 10 years or so.
deleted by creator
Yes? Don’t you think Trump should have been removed from office in his first term?
deleted by creator
That’s where we disagree. If there’s plenty of evidence then we can’t always wait on our justice system where the rich and powerful can use their resources to stall almost indefinitely. In this case, he will likely serve the remainder of his term without any repercussions.
deleted by creator
Is the law being more closely followed by letting him remain in office despite taking bribes? I suppose in your opinion Trump is perfectly fine to do whatever he wants now that the “rule of law” says that he can.
deleted by creator
Can you quote the specific law you feel is being ignored?
If you were being investigated by the FBI for corruption and openly pulled a quid pro quo with a political figure, would you still have a job?
deleted by creator
Not according to NY law, as there is no mention of a trial in the relevant statute.
deleted by creator
A letter to Hochul stating “I didn’t do it, you didn’t see me do it, you can’t prove it if I did do it, and no way was my deal with Trump a quid pro quo” qualifies as an opportunity to defend himself, as well.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Such a removal would not be extra judicial: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBO/33
deleted by creator
I didn’t miss a damn thing. The governor has a process available to dismiss him. That /\ is the process. Therefore, removing the mayor would not be extra judicial.
Quit moving the goal posts.
deleted by creator
I’m sorry, I must be blind. Please point out the word “trial” in that section of the New York State Constitution.
All I see is “… after giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard in his defense.”
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Being removed from office is not “punishment.”
deleted by creator
His elected position is not a possession. Taking it away is not punishment.
deleted by creator
That mayor is causing a crisis because he doesn’t want to be convicted of a crime he has already been accused of
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
And what happens if those other governors remove mayors for political reasons anyway?
deleted by creator
Precedent is a tool of the weak. In government, law and enforcement is what matters.
deleted by creator
it’s just more кто кого shit
. . . what’s that?
Edit: no, seriously, I don’t know what that is.
Oh. Uh, cool.