I have many issues with Pelosi but she seems to have been the only Democrat with any major influence over the party in recent memory who was willing to use the checks at her disposal against blatant corruption. The rest of the Democratic party leadership are proving to be utterly useless and incompetent.
who was willing to use the checks at her disposal against blatant corruption
Except for the insider trading that she participated in so lucratively. And the one fight that she always prioritized has been to keep the progressives down.
Yeah, I totally agree with you. Like I said, I have issues with her and I don’t want her back. But she’s also the only example of a leading Democrat in recent memory who’s exercised power to stand up to Trump in any meaningful way. She impeached him twice and withheld a SotU address until he relented in a government shutdown. My point is, why are the other Dems so fucking spineless at a time we need action the more than ever?
I talked with a friend of mine from the City, who pointed out that Andrew Cuomo’s publicly announced his interest in the position, and apparently polled well (moreso than other options on the poll, at least).
Can’t say I’m keen on Cuomo running in a special election and winning. New York’s seen enough of him and his.
Yes, because if there’s anything the last 10 years of politics has taught us is that the Democrats need to care more about precedent than holding elected officials accountable
The Supreme Court is compromised. The Federal courts are partially in the hands of MAGA placeholders. Trump is attempting to nullify the constitution by executive order. There is no rule of law.
It’s justice outside the formal system or no justice at all. Standing by idly and allowing elite impunity is not an acceptable approach.
The thing is if you want to maintain rule of law then you need to follow those rules. You can’t just decide to ignore it when you want to but then pretend you have any legitimacy. That would make you no different than any other dictator.
The rule of law is important, that’s the entire point. It’s being flouted openly in all corners or our government. I can support a just government, but we do not have one, and we do not stand a chance of instating one without removing the openly corrupt one that we have in place. Simple as that.
If you believe the rule of law is important than you need to actually follow the laws you have on record. We don’t want to make it acceptable for a governor to remove a mayor because they feel like it.
You advocate for an unjust action so do you really believe in a just government and rule of law? You are willing to flout them in this case.
We don’t want to make it acceptable for a governor to remove a mayor because they feel like it.
“Because they feel like it?” Are you unaware of the charges against him or something? This isn’t based on feelings it’s based on the crimes he’s committed while in office that he and Trump are trying to sweep under the rug.
That’s where we disagree. If there’s plenty of evidence then we can’t always wait on our justice system where the rich and powerful can use their resources to stall almost indefinitely. In this case, he will likely serve the remainder of his term without any repercussions.
And that disagreement is whether we should follow the rule of law. You are advocating ignoring the law because it would grant you your preferred result and that is never ok.
Is the law being more closely followed by letting him remain in office despite taking bribes? I suppose in your opinion Trump is perfectly fine to do whatever he wants now that the “rule of law” says that he can.
Yes there is. The mayor is to be presented with the charges against him and he has the opportunity to defend himself. It is linked elsewhere in this thread.
A letter to Hochul stating “I didn’t do it, you didn’t see me do it, you can’t prove it if I did do it, and no way was my deal with Trump a quid pro quo” qualifies as an opportunity to defend himself, as well.
“The chief executive officer of every city and the chief or
commissioner of police, commissioner or director of public safety or
other chief executive officer of the police force by whatever title he
may be designated, of every city may be removed by the governor after
giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an
opportunity to be heard in his defense. The power of removal provided
for in this subdivision shall be deemed to be in addition to the power
of removal provided for in any other law. The provisions of this
subdivision shall apply notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of
any general, special or local law, ordinance or city charte”
I added emphasis to a critical bit you missed. He needs to be able to defend himself against the charges presented. Everyone here is pushing for her to remove him without this. It’s a bad precedent.
“to be heard in his defense” that’s from the actual law. Im using defense because that was the verb used, whereas you are using respond which means the same thing in this context.
I didn’t miss a damn thing. The governor has a process available to dismiss him. That /\ is the process. Therefore, removing the mayor would not be extra judicial.
No one has moved goal posts. Everyone else is saying he should be removed and I have said he should not be removed without a trial. Stop trying to misuse logical flaws as away of not addressing the actual argument.
Who, whom? Russian: кто кого?, kto kogo?; Russian pronunciation: [kto.kɐˈvo] is a Bolshevik principle or slogan which was formulated by Vladimir Lenin in 1921.
Once again, Democrats. Always too little, too late. Never willing to meet the moment. Never able to read the room. No fight, no drive, no spine.
More like too nothing.
I have many issues with Pelosi but she seems to have been the only Democrat with any major influence over the party in recent memory who was willing to use the checks at her disposal against blatant corruption. The rest of the Democratic party leadership are proving to be utterly useless and incompetent.
Except for the insider trading that she participated in so lucratively. And the one fight that she always prioritized has been to keep the progressives down.
Yeah, I totally agree with you. Like I said, I have issues with her and I don’t want her back. But she’s also the only example of a leading Democrat in recent memory who’s exercised power to stand up to Trump in any meaningful way. She impeached him twice and withheld a SotU address until he relented in a government shutdown. My point is, why are the other Dems so fucking spineless at a time we need action the more than ever?
I talked with a friend of mine from the City, who pointed out that Andrew Cuomo’s publicly announced his interest in the position, and apparently polled well (moreso than other options on the poll, at least).
Can’t say I’m keen on Cuomo running in a special election and winning. New York’s seen enough of him and his.
Word on yet more of Cuomo, but get this compromised fuckhead Adams right the fuck outta here.
The governor removing a mayor from office who has not been convicted of a crime is a bad precedent.
Yes, because if there’s anything the last 10 years of politics has taught us is that the Democrats need to care more about precedent than holding elected officials accountable
Is extra judicial punishment ever acceptable? It’s sad how many people on this site seem to think so.
It is not only acceptable but is required when the judicial system is compromised how it is.
So you don’t believe rule of law is important? If you believe what you claim you cannot support any form of a just government.
The Supreme Court is compromised. The Federal courts are partially in the hands of MAGA placeholders. Trump is attempting to nullify the constitution by executive order. There is no rule of law.
It’s justice outside the formal system or no justice at all. Standing by idly and allowing elite impunity is not an acceptable approach.
The thing is if you want to maintain rule of law then you need to follow those rules. You can’t just decide to ignore it when you want to but then pretend you have any legitimacy. That would make you no different than any other dictator.
“They go low, we go high” has been so extremely useful in the last 10 years or so.
The rule of law is important, that’s the entire point. It’s being flouted openly in all corners or our government. I can support a just government, but we do not have one, and we do not stand a chance of instating one without removing the openly corrupt one that we have in place. Simple as that.
If you believe the rule of law is important than you need to actually follow the laws you have on record. We don’t want to make it acceptable for a governor to remove a mayor because they feel like it.
You advocate for an unjust action so do you really believe in a just government and rule of law? You are willing to flout them in this case.
This whole fucking story is about a law on record. They’re not talking about just taking Adams out back for a summary execution.
“Because they feel like it?” Are you unaware of the charges against him or something? This isn’t based on feelings it’s based on the crimes he’s committed while in office that he and Trump are trying to sweep under the rug.
Yes? Don’t you think Trump should have been removed from office in his first term?
Yes, after his first impeachment he should have been removed the difference is Trump had due process and faced an inquiry whereas Adams has not.
we shouldnt be punishing people over allegations no matter how compelling the evidence is.
That’s where we disagree. If there’s plenty of evidence then we can’t always wait on our justice system where the rich and powerful can use their resources to stall almost indefinitely. In this case, he will likely serve the remainder of his term without any repercussions.
And that disagreement is whether we should follow the rule of law. You are advocating ignoring the law because it would grant you your preferred result and that is never ok.
Can you quote the specific law you feel is being ignored?
Is the law being more closely followed by letting him remain in office despite taking bribes? I suppose in your opinion Trump is perfectly fine to do whatever he wants now that the “rule of law” says that he can.
If you were being investigated by the FBI for corruption and openly pulled a quid pro quo with a political figure, would you still have a job?
Yes, because in absence of a trial it isn’t legal or appropriate.
The courts don’t remove people from office. That’s a political process.
and that process requires the mayor to be presented charges that he gets to defend himself against. That’s a trial
Not according to NY law, as there is no mention of a trial in the relevant statute.
Yes there is. The mayor is to be presented with the charges against him and he has the opportunity to defend himself. It is linked elsewhere in this thread.
A letter to Hochul stating “I didn’t do it, you didn’t see me do it, you can’t prove it if I did do it, and no way was my deal with Trump a quid pro quo” qualifies as an opportunity to defend himself, as well.
Such a removal would not be extra judicial: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBO/33
“The chief executive officer of every city and the chief or commissioner of police, commissioner or director of public safety or other chief executive officer of the police force by whatever title he may be designated, of every city may be removed by the governor after giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. The power of removal provided for in this subdivision shall be deemed to be in addition to the power of removal provided for in any other law. The provisions of this subdivision shall apply notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of any general, special or local law, ordinance or city charte”
I added emphasis to a critical bit you missed. He needs to be able to defend himself against the charges presented. Everyone here is pushing for her to remove him without this. It’s a bad precedent.
He gets to respond to the charges. But it’s not a trial or any kind of judicial proceedings. It is solely a political process, as is impeachment.
“to be heard in his defense” that’s from the actual law. Im using defense because that was the verb used, whereas you are using respond which means the same thing in this context.
I didn’t miss a damn thing. The governor has a process available to dismiss him. That /\ is the process. Therefore, removing the mayor would not be extra judicial.
Quit moving the goal posts.
edit: mistook you for a different poster
No one has moved goal posts. Everyone else is saying he should be removed and I have said he should not be removed without a trial. Stop trying to misuse logical flaws as away of not addressing the actual argument.
I’m sorry, I must be blind. Please point out the word “trial” in that section of the New York State Constitution.
All I see is “… after giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard in his defense.”
Being removed from office is not “punishment.”
Yes, it is. He would be losing his elected position. He has not been proven guilty. We all suspect he is but that hasn’t been proven.
No elected politician should be removed without due process.
It is shocking how many pro-auth people there are here.
His elected position is not a possession. Taking it away is not punishment.
Ok buddy, sure it isn’t. What is it called when you face a negative outcome due to your potential wrongdoing? Oh yeah that’s called a punishment.
That mayor is causing a crisis because he doesn’t want to be convicted of a crime he has already been accused of
Trump is protecting Adams because he knows that Adams will deport people given the chance.
Regardless unless he has been convicted we can’t have governors removing mayors. This will permit others to just remove mayors they dislike.
NY state law disagrees with you on that.
And what happens if those other governors remove mayors for political reasons anyway?
They will be able to cite the extrajudicial removal of Adams as precedent for why they can do it.
it’s just more кто кого shit
. . . what’s that?
Edit: no, seriously, I don’t know what that is.
Oh. Uh, cool.