- 11,996
- 3,286
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
You know that Republicans are not interested in any violations of the law. In fact they actively shielded Roger Stone from prosecution for obstructing their committee until Mueller forced their hand. They knew Stone was lying to them because Stone publicly released communications that he unequivocally claimed not to have under oath, twice. They blocked motions to subpoena the communications that everyone knew Stone possessed, after all those documents would unequivocally prove Stone was lying.
Therefore you can dismiss any and all violations as flops and refrain from any substantive discussion, presumably to minimize scrutiny of the president and his associates.
Let me illustrate your approach with an example of unjustified police shootings.
Cop blatantly uses excessive force on camera and empties a whole magazine into a young unarmed black man's back.
As is the case with police shootings, there is a very high likelihood that the cop will be acquitted, if any charges are even filed in the first place.
You then respond to that shooting, as well as all other shootings, with "flop".
"Tamir rice flop, Eric Garner flop, Trayvon Martin flop, ..."
Your analogy misses the mark. Among other things, you are comparing acquittals to non-indictments. If Trump gets impeached and then acquitted by the senate it would not be a flop. But I don’t think that scenario will play well for the Dems long term.
Also, the officers mentioned were fired. This is the inherent problem with comparing political theater to homicide investigations.