I was, as it happens, alive and well and reading the newspapers and attentively watching the debates and et cetera when Reagan was president, but (a) I’d like to think that my views are my own, and (b) if my views did get formed by someone else back when, I’d like to think I’ve had ample time to revisit them and reason out whether they make sense to me.
But that’s me; whence, exactly, came your views on the subject of whether to let people get away with breaking laws?
QFT. …
No, not intentionally.
I will go back and review my posts and correct spelling errors via edit, unless a moderator can do it for me.
Were you a fan of the TV show, “Family Ties” in the 1980’s?
Was the character Alex P. Keaton (Michael J. Fox) one of your idols?
He represented to prototypical Yuppie or preppy conservative that had a major influence on popular culture at the time.
They gave a whole new definition of “It’s Hip To Be Square!”
But it was kind of quirky how teenagers and young adults in the 1980’s embraced old fashioned concepts.
None of this has jack shit to do with Trump the woman abuser, con man and possible future guest of a federal prison.
‘This side of Nixon’ sort of implies that Trump isn’t as bad as Nixon was. I think Trump is on the other side of Nixon. Nixon was charged with obstruction of justice for covering up the Watergate break-in, for abuse of power, and for contempt of Congress. Nixon’s operatives stole information about a political opponent that Nixon could use. There was no danger to the country, other than having an especially corrupt President getting away with a felony.
Compare and contrast: Trump illegally retained highly-classified documents that he would use to impress people. He discussed classified matters with people who were not properly cleared. (i.e., no security clearance or Need To Know.) Heck he was discussing classified information at a dinner table while people stopped by for a photo op! He kept the classified and other sensitive documents in a non-secured facility where they could be accessed by virtually anyone – including foreign nationals. His obstruction of justice is far more egregious than Nixon’s.
Say what you will about Nixon, but at least he wasn’t as bad as Trump.
The Other Waldo Pepper, I would like to ask you a few more questions about the Reagan Revolution.
When it came to your style choices in terms of clothing, did you prefer Ralph Lauren polo shirts, or Lacoste alligator shirts?
The line of demarcation, so to speak, that distinguished fashion trends in the 1970’s and the 1980’s, was the transition from polyester to cotton clothing, particularly with shirts.
Not really. They were making fun of Fox’s character.
Incorrect.
The argument being made is that any prosecution of Hillary would have failed, because the evidence was not compelling and the law was not on the side of the prosecution.
However, the indictment of Trump is valid, because the evidence is very clear, compelling and plentiful. And the law is also very clearly on the side of the prosecution.
I’ll ask you again:
Are you fine if Trump is allowed to keep any and all classified documents he chooses, because he’s declassified him ‘by thinking about them’, and keeping these documents (about nuclear secrets, military capabilities of allies, battle plans) in cardboard boxes easily accessible to the public? Is this just OK, because… reasons?
Yes you are correct!!!
This also happened to another conservative chacter, Archie Bunker from “All In The Family”.
The intention was to derogate these characters, but the idea backfired when the vast majority of the viewers embraced them.
Besides, at the end of each episode of FT that was Alex centric, he always took the moral highground and did the right thing.
Since this was asked and unanswered…
It is very, very rare.
It’s often brought up as a threat but usually that’s all it is.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/perjury.html
Perjury is rarely charged, and it is difficult for prosecutors to prove. However, the threat of perjury charges is often a tool lawyers use to ensure that witnesses provide candid testimony to the court.
In the case of Bill Clinton, they didn’t ignore the perjury. Republicans impeached Clinton on four counts, two of them being perjury. When the impeachment passed the House and went to the Senate, it included one of the counts of perjury as recommended by the House.
On September 8, 1998, the House opened an impeachment inquiry before the Judiciary Committee, which returned four articles of impeachment for a House vote in December. The articles of impeachment included two articles related to perjury, one for obstructing justice, and one for abuse of office. On December 19, the House voted in favor of two articles of impeachment, finding that Clinton had committed perjury before the grand jury and had obstructed justice, but rejected the remaining articles. The Senate held a trial in early 1999; on February 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted Clinton.
The idea that perjury was ignored and that somehow that shows favoritism toward Bill Clinton because normally he would be prosecuted for it is completely wrong on every level. This is a very bad example if someone is trying to show that Trump is being treated worse than other presidents have been when accused of wrongdoing.
Audiences like the characters, not the ideas the characters were spouting. They were laughing at them, not with them.
Instead of bringing up old TV shows, how about if you answer this question:
Are you fine if Trump is allowed to keep any and all classified documents he chooses, because he’s declassified him ‘by thinking about them’, and keeping these documents (about nuclear secrets, military capabilities of allies, battle plans) in cardboard boxes easily accessible to the public? Is this just OK, because… reasons?
I will concede that Trump was breaking the law by simply possesing classified documents, unless he can win the case by invokeing the presidential records act.
But all past presidents were technically breaking the law with their documents, but it was only the simple possesion of them.
None of them should go to jail for it though.
And Yes, if Hillary was charged she most probably would have been found not guilty, especially if it was a D.C. jury.
But that is what you can expect from a politically motivated prosecution.
Just because your favorite politicos commit major crimes, that does not automatically make it politically motivated prosecution.
Yes, I will stay on point, but I am a 1980’s pop culture junkie!
As stated above by many, if he had not lied about possessing them, showed them to people not authorized, and agreed to return them, he would not have been prosecuted. He didn’t just “simply possess classified documents.” He conspired to keep them illegally, had others lie about them, and failed to protect them from anyone who might want to have a look while looking for a bathroom.
I’m sure that the prosecutors on Trumps case would have been willing at any time, and may still be willing, to work out a plea deal for Trump that avoids jail time.
The issue is that plea deals require an admission of guilt, and Trump will never admit he’s wrong.
And Agnew didn’t avoid charges, he pled guilty to one count of felony tax evasion, which was a bargain considering how corrupt he was.
I was more of a “Cheers” guy — but I don’t think either show gave me my views on lawbreakers any more than they gave me views on, uh, shirts.
I don’t care about your views on shirts. Where did you get your views on lawbreakers?
It’s impressive how terrible all of the history @Michael_Varn cites is for his own arguments.