This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] p0ssum 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago
Yeah, well, welcome to the real world. They shouldn't be necessary, unfortunately they are. In the case of Clinton, it was PURELY a political hit. In the current case, the Russians did their level best to have a hand in our last election, and if Team Trump coordinated or colluded with them, to do so, it needs to be brought to light. That, if true, would certainly be disqualifying. If Trump obstructed the investigation, that would also be disqualifying. Neither of those is a political target ... they protecting our democracy.
[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I disagree Clinton was purely a political hit. But leaving that aside, can you think of a single special prosecutor from the 1970s to now who did less harm than good? I cannot. The system is not built for it. It does structural harm far greater than any ill which it is trying to address. If the executive has done something wrong, the legislature can impeach. Only then under a new administration should a criminal investigation amd prosecution be brought. If Congress refuses to do that because of politics or cowardess, then that problem should be dealt with by voters not ignored by using an extra-Constitutional special prosecutor.
A special prosecutor is never necessary. It is an imposition of a new branch of government outside of the three called for in the Constitution and which operates outside of the checks and balances set up therein. It is as bad as the administrative state that courts have allowed to grow under (and even apart from) the Administrative Procedure Act. Frankly, it is possibly worse. While executive agencies are essentially legislating without the safeguards of the Constitutional system, at least they are usually done pursuant to rule making procedures and underlying legislation. Special prosecutors act almost like ad hoc tyrants subject only to their own appetites.
[–] p0ssum 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
What was the original charge for? Whitewater right? That was somehow NOT political ... seriously?
I disagree, I see it as a necessary evil. The DOJ is part of the Executive branch ... its a conflict of interest for them to investigate the president. Plain and simple. Leaving it to a partisan congress is no better.
And in the present case, I think it's MORE necessary than it was for even Watergate.