|
Post by robeiae on Aug 10, 2022 14:39:19 GMT -5
...if you're not a criminal."
I remember how common this pov was for law and order people--mostly Repubs and Conservatives, it is true--for a ling time, how they offered it out of hand as a defense of police actions and as a criticism of citizens who ran from the police, refuse to comply, or even actively resisted. Hell, I think I may have offered it up back when I was much younger before I know enough to know such a pov simply did not fit everyone's life experiences. Liberals and progressives--many of whom are Dems as well--have opposed this pov (in varrying levels, to be sure).
But now, across the last 2 days, I'm seeing these two ideas all over twitter, offered up by...yes, liberals and progressives, and questioned be...yes, conservatives and Repubs (libertarians happily--for them--are the only group that still seems consistent here, from what I've seen):
Forget Trump, forget the disingenuously titled bill, the "Inflation Reduction Act." The above two points of view--only guilty people have a reason to take the 5th and only tax cheats worry about an IRS audit--are in the same world as "only criminals fear the cops," the world of utter bullshit. And it's so disappointing to see people agreeing with these takes, all because "Orange Man bad" and "Biden great."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 10, 2022 18:04:00 GMT -5
Another:
Though to be fair, that's a response to an equally ignorant take:
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 10, 2022 18:59:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 10, 2022 19:35:34 GMT -5
Absolutely. I think calling him on that is 100% justified and is something for which his dumbass supporters have no answer.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Aug 10, 2022 20:33:25 GMT -5
Though to continue being fair, it (why take the fifth if you have nothing to hide) is a pretty commonly held belief, right up until people realize they should take the 5th.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 11, 2022 8:20:49 GMT -5
Look at this:
Smelly is actually a lawyer. He should know how stupid his take is, no?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 11, 2022 13:27:23 GMT -5
Even Popehat is groaning at Tara's "analysis":
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Aug 11, 2022 15:05:01 GMT -5
I've seen the media hyping the number of times the Don took the 5th....which is completely irrelevant since the 5th is an all or nothing proposition. You either invoke it for all related questions or you can't invoke it at all.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 11, 2022 15:20:31 GMT -5
Though to continue being fair, it (why take the fifth if you have nothing to hide) is a pretty commonly held belief, right up until people realize they should take the 5th. Reminds me of this video I watched several years ago. Very thought-provoking stuff and a lot of points I'd never considered before.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 11, 2022 15:24:10 GMT -5
I'm a bit annoyed at how the media (on both sides) keep calling this an "FBI raid."
They executed a lawful search warrant. They contacted the Secret Service at Mar-a-Lago several hours ahead of time to let them know they were coming. The SS let them in. The FBI intentionally did this on a day that Trump wouldn't be there.
The press is making it seem like SWAT busted the door down and agents ran in there in body armor with guns drawn.
They likely just drove up, knocked on the door, and the SS let them in like they'd already discussed on the phone earlier that day.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 11, 2022 15:44:13 GMT -5
Meh, I guess I don't hear "raid" in that way. I feel every agency you might name has conducted "raids." In my mind, it means that they entered and searched a given location, either to find contraband or fugitives. I take it as a given that it was lawful.
And the SS (lol at the initials) doesn't work for the Trump family, anyway. They still work for the Federal Government. More significant--to me--is what notice Trump's legal reps were given. But again, I assume it was all perfectly legal, as a matter of fact.
But just because it was legal, it doesn't mean it was smart. Nor does legality rule out the idea it being an over-the-top action.
That said, it's ridiculous to frame this action as some sort of grave threat to our democracy. Likewise, it's also ridiculous to defend the action with the idea that Trump was holding on to super-secret stuff like nuclear missile codes or the like. I've seen both of these arguments from blue checkers on twitter (a category or people who I am starting to think are actually dumber than the average non-check mark twitter user).
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 11, 2022 15:49:50 GMT -5
Oh dear god, the stupid, it burns...
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 11, 2022 17:53:55 GMT -5
This is the definition of "raid" that I was thinking of and it seems to fit with what a raid is typically construed as (i.e., surprise, forced entry, guns drawn, etc). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_raidWhat the cops did at Breonna Taylor's home was a "raid." What they did at Trump's was just a "search."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 11, 2022 18:13:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 11, 2022 18:37:54 GMT -5
Yeah, my original point is that many in the news media (and Twitter blue checks) keep calling it a raid when it wasn't. To me, they're doing it for sensationalist reasons, not accuracy reasons.
Everything with Trump is taken to 11 when it's reported. Gotta get those clicks.
|
|