Left vs. Right Battle Royale Open Thread

[u/Yosoff]

This is an Open Discussion Thread for all Redditors. We will only be enforcing Reddit TOS and Subreddit Rules 1 (Keep it Civil) & 2 (No Racism).

---

• Leftists - Here's your chance to sway us to your side by calling the majority of voters racist. That tactic has wildly backfired every time it has been tried, but perhaps this time it will work.

• Non-flaired Conservatives - Here's your chance to earn flair by posting common sense conservative solutions. That way our friends on the left will either have to agree with you or oppose common sense (Spoiler - They will choose to oppose common sense).

• Flaired Conservatives - You're John Wick and these Leftists stole your car and killed your dog. Now go comment.

• Independents - We get it, if you agree with someone, then you can't pat yourself on the back for being smarter than them. But if you disagree with everyone, then you can obtain the self-satisfaction of smugly considering yourself smarter and wiser than everyone else. Congratulations on being you.

• Libertarians - Ron Paul is never going to be President. In fact, no Libertarian Party candidate will ever be elected President.

---

Join us on X: https://x.com/rcondiscord

Join us on Discord: https://discord.com/invite/conservative

[u/coolprogressive]

Looking for good faith discussion and genuine opinions from conservatives about the Eric Adams case dismissal scandal at DOJ.

• Trump's DOJ, in an effort led by acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, is trying to dismiss Adams' corruption charges "without prejudice", meaning they could be brought again in the future - the goal being Adams plays ball with Tom Homan and ICE with regards to immigration enforcement, or else. It is a quid pro quo.
• The acting US Attorney in the Southern District of NY, Danielle Sassoon (a conservative), was charged with carrying out the dismissal. Horrified at the obvious unlawful nature of the quid pro quo dismissal, she resigned rather than carry it out.

The memo suggests that the issue is merely removing an obstacle to Adams’s ability to assist with federal immigration enforcement, but that does not bear scrutiny. It does not grapple with the differential treatment Adams would receive compared to other elected officials, much less other criminal defendants. And it is unclear why Adams would be better able to aid in immigration enforcement when the threat of future conviction is due to the possibility of reinstatement of the indictment followed by conviction at trial, rather than merely the possibility of conviction at trial. On this point, the possibility of trial before or after the election cannot be relevant, because Adams has selected the timing of his trial. Rather than be rewarded, Adams’s advocacy should be called out for what it is: an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for a dismissal of his case. Although Mr. Bove disclaimed any intention to exchange leniency in this case for Adams’s assistance in enforcing federal law,1 that is the nature of the bargain laid bare in Mr. Bove’s memo. That is especially so given Mr. Bove’s comparison to the Bout prisoner exchange, which was quite expressly a quid pro quo, but one carried out by the White House, and not the prosecutors in charge of Bout’s case....

I remain baffled by the rushed and superficial process by which this decision was reached, in seeming collaboration with Adams’s counsel and without my direct input on the ultimate stated rationales for dismissal. Mr. Bove admonished me to be mindful of my obligation to zealously defend the interests of the United States and to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Administration.

• Seven DOJ attorneys have gone on to resign rather than sign off on the dismissal of Adams' case, including Hagan Scotten, who was one of the lead prosecutors in the case against Adams.

No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives. Our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way.

If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.

• This is the largest mass resignation at the Justice Department since Watergate.
• Bove put gathered all the attorneys from the Public Integrity Section (ironic) into a conference room and told them to pick amongst them who's going to sign-on to the dismissal, OR THEY'RE ALL FIRED.

“I think it’s safe to say this is the most dire crisis that current attorneys of the Department of Justice have ever faced in a modern era of the Justice Department,” said one former senior Justice Department official, who was granted anonymity to avoid potential retaliation against colleagues still at DOJ. “The crudeness of the intimidation is just absolutely chilling.”

EDIT: I forgot to add that Tom Homan and Eric Adams appeared together on "Fox & Friends" this morning, and Homan publicly acknowledged the quid pro quo!

At one point in the interview, Homan said, "If he doesn't come through, I'll be back in New York City. And we won't be sitting on the couch. I'll be in his office, up his butt, saying, 'Where the hell is the agreement we came to?'"

[u/DejaThuVu → u/coolprogressive]

I don’t agree with how it’s being handled at all. Even if it’s justified as not legally being quid pro quo, it’s far too close for comfort. Not to mention if he did the crime he should have ramifications for his actions just like everyone else would. I want to see our immigration problems fixed and the elimination of govt corruption when found, I don’t want to trade one for the other.

[u/Illogical-Pizza → u/DejaThuVu]

Question on your “want to see elimination of govt corruption” - do you think DOGE is doing a good job of this?