Who Since, Who Before?

Currently a former POTUS is under criminal indictment for over 40 crimes (feel free to fact check me on the exact number). Which to any rational person should certainly be a good thing as we know, beyond a shadow of doubt that politics from left to right is fraught with corruption and dirty dealing. For reference congress suffers from a 20% approval rate.

So I have a very simple compound question. Who since and who before has been held to the same legal and public standard as this former POTUS?

It's not a trick nor rhetorical question, there is an answer.

We can, have and will spend multiple pages about double standards and hypocrisy regarding the legal warfare and weaponization of the DoJ, which I remind you is your money at work, to pursue the guy.

Yet we've not had anything similar since nor before for anyone in public to this degree.

a reply to: JinMI

So I have a very simple compound question. Who since and who before has been held to the same legal and public standard as this former POTUS?

I am 57 years old.
There’s been nobody in my lifetime that I can recall except maybe Nixon but I was only a kid when that was happening.

a reply to: RazorV66

MLK for starters.

I mean, how far back do we wish to go? If we dig diligently enough, we can also show how intertwined actual racism is and it also extends to the 2nd amendment.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: JinMI

So I have a very simple compound question. Who since and who before has been held to the same legal and public standard as this former POTUS?

I am 57 years old.
There’s been nobody in my lifetime that I can recall except maybe Nixon but I was only a kid when that was happening.

I was a young adult in my 20's during the Nixon administration. He did what Obama did and now Biden is doing to our country, albeit on a much smaller scale.

In my mind Nixon was the first domino to fall.

a reply to: JinMI

If you want to go there, restriction of gun rights dates back before the founding of the US and was always linked to racism.

As to your question, nobody has, but in a weird topsy-turny world we live, Biden seems to be immune to any and every legal action imaginable. So while the DOJ works overtime to attack Trump at every turn, they are seemingly understaffed to the point of overlooking every other crime committed.

It's all very mind boggling.

a reply to: Guyfriday

If you want to go there, restriction of gun rights dates back before the founding of the US and was always linked to racism.

Indeed. Before the founding is obvious however.

As to your question, nobody has

Oh, folks certainly have. Perhaps not as public and certainly not to the same dollar amount of resources, but the full weight of the taxpayer certainly has.

a reply to: JinMI

One interesting thing that came out of Bush SR's funeral was that GHWB was under house arrest. The documents were floating around and can be had publicly.

As for the government going after a Former President and Presidential candidate. I can't think of one, off hand.

a reply to: Guyfriday

As for the government going after a Former President and Presidential candidate. I can't think of one, off hand.

Ah, I see the miscommunication. I meant people, more topically political people like say a 20% approval congress. Ex presidents, yes Nixon would be the closest approximate however he was still in office.

originally posted by: JinMI
Currently a former POTUS is under criminal indictment for over 40 crimes (feel free to fact check me on the exact number). Which to any rational person should certainly be a good thing as we know, beyond a shadow of doubt that politics from left to right is fraught with corruption and dirty dealing. For reference congress suffers from a 20% approval rate.

So I have a very simple compound question. Who since and who before has been held to the same legal and public standard as this former POTUS?

It's not a trick nor rhetorical question, there is an answer.

We can, have and will spend multiple pages about double standards and hypocrisy regarding the legal warfare and weaponization of the DoJ, which I remind you is your money at work, to pursue the guy.

Yet we've not had anything similar since nor before for anyone in public to this degree.

The last one was JFK, who promised to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.

Former President Truman, whose Administration established the C.I.A. in 1947, said in 1963 that by then he saw “something about the way the C.I.A. has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic positions, and I feel that we need to correct it.”

And President Kennedy, as the enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, said to one of the highest officials of his Administration that he “wanted to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”

He paid his life for that position.

So for the sake of argument, I would say that JFK has (so far) paid a higher price of Presidents in the last 100 years.

C EyE A still here though...

a reply to: Lumenari

Interesting.

So we have Nixon and Kennedy. A caveat however, both were still in office.

That leaves the question then, who since Trump has been held to the same standard?

a reply to: Guyfriday

If you want to go there, restriction of gun rights dates back before the founding of the US and was always linked to racism.

I don't want to stray from the topic, but please clarify this statement.

a reply to: JinMI

So I have a very simple compound question. Who since and who before has been held to the same legal and public standard as this former POTUS?

None, but I think we must understand that what we are seeing now is what we were repeatedly warned about for more than a century. The only reason Trump is still alive is because he is useful to further an agenda and to strike fear in the "MAGA crowd". As Lumenari mentioned, Kennedy paid the ultimate price, as have others. Some we know, and some we shall never know the names of.

a reply to: Klassified

I 2nd this one, very curious as to what the argument is for that.

a reply to: JinMI

Publicly, nobody.

Privately, I am sure some have been thrown in the basement and ad the house dropped on them.

But as far as this goes, we can expect that nobody is going to be held to this standard. I mean for Christ sake, the POTUS can't even hold his own son to the standard he wants to set forth. But lets throw all the books at that bad bad orange man, he hurt so many feelz and posted on Twitter.

Pretty much any mob boss you can think of. The most recent springing to mind is Whitey Bulger, who was convicted in 2013.

Considering Trump operates very similarly to a mob boss, it's not surprising that he gets the mob boss treatment.

a reply to: JinMI

Spiru Agnew.

Agnew’s downfall began in the summer of 1973, when he was investigated in connection with accusations of extortion, bribery, and income-tax violations relating chiefly to his tenure as governor of Maryland. Faced with federal indictments, Agnew fought the charges, arguing that the allegations were false,

Fake news!

that a sitting vice president could not be indicted, and that the only way he could be removed from office was by impeachment.

Sound familiar?

After the solicitor general released a brief asserting that sitting vice presidents could be indicted, Agnew launched an attack on the administration and vowed not to resign. With Nixon in danger of impeachment for his role in the Watergate scandal, the administration sought to remove Agnew from the presidential line of succession, and secret plea bargaining took place between Agnew’s lawyers and a federal judge. Agnew resigned the vice presidency on October 10, 1973, and appeared in United States District Court in Baltimore on the same day to plead nolo contendere to a single federal count of failing to report on his income-tax return $29,500 in income that he had received in 1967, while governor of Maryland. Acknowledging that the plea amounted to a felony conviction, Agnew declared that he had resigned in the national interest. He was fined $10,000 and sentenced to three years of unsupervised probation.

www.britannica.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Ford really does have the craziest path to the presidency.

He was only picked as VP because of his milquetoast reputation, which the GOP hoped would wipe the stink of Agnew's corruption of Nixon's presidency. Only for Nixon to end up being as corrupt as Agnew and having to resign in disgrace.

I'm amazed they ever convinced him to run in 1976.

Say what you will about modern politics but 1960-74 was a complete fever dream of insanity.

a reply to: PorkChop96

But lets throw all the books at that bad bad orange man, he hurt so many feelz and posted on Twitter.

100% truth.

The Liberals are weak minded, easily offended by the direction of blowing wind and can’t stand that Trump wants America first.
They hate themselves as much as they hate America.

a reply to: RazorV66

Don't get me wrong, I understand Biden has a line to walk;

Be damned for throwing the book at your own son and uphold the laws and policies you are trying so hard to push, or, be damned because you let him off because he is family and you are a "family man".

But, either way, I totally agree. Libs are the downfall of this country but that is a truth pill that all of them can't seem to swallow.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Ford really does have the craziest path to the presidency.

He was only picked as VP because of his milquetoast reputation, which the GOP hoped would wipe the stink of Agnew's corruption of Nixon's presidency. Only for Nixon to end up being as corrupt as Agnew and having to resign in disgrace.

I'm amazed they ever convinced him to run in 1976.

Say what you will about modern politics but 1960-74 was a complete fever dream of insanity.

that just laid the groundwork for today's clown world sh!t show.

So it appears you are capable to seeing corruption in someone other than Trump. If it's proven Joe was indeed selling influence with Hunter, will you continue to suck his toes and find ways to make him not a crook, or will you finally admit, Joe can be scummy too?