1, if courts would be about justice, doesn't decency direct that ANY of old accusations, to any candidate, would be rejected, case dismissed?

[strateguy632]

2, if courts had ANY decency, don't you think ANY of old accusation, about events that #biden allegedly did, or trump, more than six months before declared candidacy, but not opened case then, such as cases opened when they are candidates, would get rejected, because lost validity and credibility?

3, a decent court would reject such a case. wouldn't it?

4, these stalinist style stuff towards kavanough and trump is awful. are you okay with this?

[WindAtMyBack]

The legal system is so tied up in procedure that they lost sight of the goal. They will give a reason for everything they do. It will even sound like a good reason, and maybe it really is. So they will keep doing it because there is a good reason to.

But when you look at the big picture and the end result, the sum of all those well-meaning things are often way off the mark.

Sometimes the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. Other times the sum of the parts is less than the whole. The legal system is the latter.

Every ruling and every procedure should ask the questions, "What is the ultimate goal, and is this the best ruling to accomplish that goal?". Everything else should be secondary. They are too busy dotting the Is and crossing the Ts to ask those questions.

[Zestyassmf1997]

I disagree. While the accusations are likely politically motivated, judging by their convenient timing, I think they should still be investigated thoroughly.

[strateguy632]

why? no good reason.

[Zestyassmf1997]

Because an accusation was made.

[strateguy632]

so? you already admitted it was false for politics.

[Zestyassmf1997]

No, I admitted that it was politically motivated, not that it was false.

[normalice]

No, because then any criminal could escape accountability by just saying they are running for office, like Trump is trying to do.

[strateguy632]

you ignored the time gap. i wrote OLD. so i will spell it out for your bias.
if i do a crime on June 1 and run for office it is NOT OLD YET.

[normalice]

The flaw here is prosecutors are always extremely slow when it comes to prosecuting rich people. So anything a rich person does would be legal by some arbitrary standard of how old the accusation is. And anyway what qualifies as an accusation? Can I tell my friends to accuse me of a crime I committed at a party or whatever, but say they were joking. And then after a 4 year investigation it turns out they were not joking I can just say I was accused of that 4 years ago and am ru Ning for president, case dismissed?

[strateguy632]

so you agree, not accused at the "alleged" time because it hadn't happened. tnx.

[normalice]

I can't figure out what you're trying to say., sorry.

If you just want him to get away with it, say so. I already know anyway..

[abc3643]

I don't understand this question.
Can you please reword this?

[strateguy632]

sure. if courts had decency they should distinguish between accusation of recent accusation that might be real in contrast to old stuff, that was not accused at the time.

[abc3643]

I still am not sure what you are asking, but, when it comes to a criminal case, prior acts are irrelevant unless trying to establish a pattern of behavior. Every marginally competent lawyer knows this. It's one way courts neuter "whataboutism".

[strateguy632]

correct. tnx.

[RedInnocent68]

Not how law works, but whatever…

[strateguy632]

true for most people, but when courts are weaponized for political opponents, courts need to be aware that people have political agenda to lie and falsely accuse.

[RedInnocent68]

There’s a fine line between using law for competitive advantage and abusing the court system. It can actually be disciplined under many lawyer codes of conduct, and is one of the reasons Trump keeps losing, and so many of his lawyers withdraw or have turned against him. That, and not getting paid.