If Trump deliberately hid classified documents.

[Bootstrap]

\Do you think we should have a democracy, or do you think if the people vote for the “wrong” person that some how the government should be allowed to put the “wrong” candidates “under investigation”?

Part of the issue here is that the FBI and CIA now have zero credible with me (or with lots of other people).

Right. This is called political extremism. Law enforcement has zero credibility, the court system has zero credibility, elections have zero credibility, including election boards and the appeals process. Facts only have credibility if they attack the people you want to see attacked. Media has zero credibility unless it is reinforcing MAGA talking points.

But that "credibility" is a subjective opinion, and it should not be the basis for determining elections, investigations, or trials. After all, subjective credibility is precisely what propaganda is so good at manipulating. And that's precisely what terms like "political witch hunt" and "weaponizing" are all about.

If every stage of an "investigation" is advertised in political fundraising appeals and self-congratulation, if the "investigators" show up on politicized media step by step, without actually proving anything, that should tell you something.

[Josh]

Right. This is called political extremism. Law enforcement has zero credibility, the court system has zero credibility, elections have zero credibility, including election boards and the appeals process. Facts only have credibility if they attack the people you want to see attacked. Media has zero credibility unless it is reinforcing MAGA talking points.

#1, I don’t appreciate being called a political extremist. I am not a political extremist. One of the main reasons for my lack of confidence in the FBI is seeing how poorly Julian Assange has been treated.

I have not repeated any MAGA talking points. These ideas are my own.

But that "credibility" is a subjective opinion, and it should not be the basis for determining elections, investigations, or trials. After all, subjective credibility is precisely what propaganda is so good at manipulating. And that's precisely what terms like "political witch hunt" and "weaponizing" are all about.

All politics are subjective and part of personal opinions. There is not some “objective” agreed upon facts.

If every stage of an "investigation" is advertised in political fundraising appeals and self-congratulation, if the "investigators" show up on politicized media step by step, without actually proving anything, that should tell you something.

I have not sent out any fundraising appeals. Boot, I really wish you could stop viewing me and treating me like some kind of Trump campaign staffer and instead view me as an individual who has consistently held views that question the establishment for what is now two decades. I would remind you that in 2001, I was very concerned about government overreach with the patriot act and with unjustified invasions Afghanistan and Iraq. I became sceptical of a lot of government action after that. I was a leftist and a Democrat back then, but I have retained my scepticism even though I am nonpartisan now.

[Bootstrap]

But that "credibility" is a subjective opinion, and it should not be the basis for determining elections, investigations, or trials. After all, subjective credibility is precisely what propaganda is so good at manipulating. And that's precisely what terms like "political witch hunt" and "weaponizing" are all about.

All politics are subjective and part of personal opinions. There is not some “objective” agreed upon facts.

Do you believe people should be found guilty or innocent based purely on personal opinions?

[Bootstrap]

If every stage of an "investigation" is advertised in political fundraising appeals and self-congratulation, if the "investigators" show up on politicized media step by step, without actually proving anything, that should tell you something.

I have not sent out any fundraising appeals. Boot, I really wish you could stop viewing me and treating me like some kind of Trump campaign staffer and instead view me as an individual who has consistently held views that question the establishment for what is now two decades. I would remind you that in 2001, I was very concerned about government overreach with the patriot act and with unjustified invasions Afghanistan and Iraq. I became sceptical of a lot of government action after that. I was a leftist and a Democrat back then, but I have retained my scepticism even though I am nonpartisan now.

Clearly, you are not the people who are doing this. I wasn't trying to describe you there.

[Bootstrap]

Right. This is called political extremism. Law enforcement has zero credibility, the court system has zero credibility, elections have zero credibility, including election boards and the appeals process. Facts only have credibility if they attack the people you want to see attacked. Media has zero credibility unless it is reinforcing MAGA talking points.

#1, I don’t appreciate being called a political extremist. I am not a political extremist. One of the main reasons for my lack of confidence in the FBI is seeing how poorly Julian Assange has been treated.

I have not repeated any MAGA talking points. These ideas are my own.

I think these are widely circulated MAGA talking points. You may well have come to them on your own. But taken together, I think they really do amount to:

1. The processes of democracy don't count. There is no fair way to judge both sides.
2. They should be prosecuted. We should be protected. We should conduct political witch hunts. If they aren't found guilty, it's an outrage. If we are found guilty, it's an outrage. The government should deliver the verdicts that our people want.

I don't think that's true. If the system is imperfect, keep working to improve it, but don't burn it down.

If you get rid of verifiable fact and fair processes, you wind up with torches and pitchforks. We saw that on January 6th. And it's amazing how some politicians glory in their ability to get away with serious wrongdoing.

[Josh]

Clearly, you are not the people who are doing this. I wasn't trying to describe you there.

There really isn't anyone on MN at all who is representing a "pro-MAGA", pro-Trump position. Maybe 1 or 2 people that I can think of, but they don't even participate in political discussions very much and have other priorities on their mind. To a large degree, the endless pages criticising MAGA, Trump, right wing nationalism, whatever is just building up a straw man and then lighting him on fire. I don't think this is helpful at all.

[Bootstrap]

Clearly, you are not the people who are doing this. I wasn't trying to describe you there.

There really isn't anyone on MN at all who is representing a "pro-MAGA", pro-Trump position. Maybe 1 or 2 people that I can think of, but they don't even participate in political discussions very much and have other priorities on their mind. To a large degree, the endless pages criticising MAGA, Trump, right wing nationalism, whatever is just building up a straw man and then lighting him on fire. I don't think this is helpful at all.

I think you missed my point. I was talking about the Congressional Oversight Committee hearings, which are clearly a pro-MAGA, pro-Trump endeavor. Those are "the people who are doing this" in the post you responded to. You aren't. When I am describing them, you don't need to take offense.

[Robert]

This is the kind of thing that seems outrageous to me: dismissing witnesses without allowing Democrats to cross-examine them to let the other side be heard. Both sides really do need to be able to weigh in, with access to the witnesses.

I join you in disagreeing with and disliking this.

[temporal1]

This is the kind of thing that seems outrageous to me: dismissing witnesses without allowing Democrats to cross-examine them to let the other side be heard. Both sides really do need to be able to weigh in, with access to the witnesses.

I join you in disagreeing with and disliking this.

If i recall, this was an ongoing hangup in the J6 “show trial?” viewtopic.php?t=4700

[Bootstrap]

This is the kind of thing that seems outrageous to me: dismissing witnesses without allowing Democrats to cross-examine them to let the other side be heard. Both sides really do need to be able to weigh in, with access to the witnesses.

I join you in disagreeing with and disliking this.

If i recall, this was an ongoing hangup in the J6 “show trial?” viewtopic.php?t=4700

Except that the Republicans insisted that the same Republicans who were under investigation should represent their party in the investigation, and refused to nominate others.

So the Democrats found Republicans who were willing to participate, but that meant that the Republicans didn't have as much influence as they normally would. Their brinkmanship backfired. I don't know how the Democrats could have done better, though, given the circumstances.