Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JudasChair t1_j2eameq wrote

Reply to comment by Electr_O_Purist in Commonwealth Court sides with Philly DA Larry Krasner in impeachment lawsuit by boundfortrees

Hmm sounds familiar.

−76

Electr_O_Purist t1_j2ebc7p wrote

How? Impeachments are for people using their office to commit crimes, for example, bribing foreign leaders with military support in exchange for political favors, or instigating violence in support of something like a fake electors plot to overthrow the election you lost. These are just random examples.

Did Krasner commit a crime, or do you just not approve of his platform?

77

dclxvi616 t1_j2ecztr wrote

Impeachments are entirely outside of both the civil system of law and the criminal system of law. They're uniquely a political proceeding.

3

felldestroyed t1_j2fgsy0 wrote

Federal impeachment is not the same as PA impeachment, as the PA constitution states that the conduct must be "misbehavior in office" that has "improper or corrupt motive".

12

dclxvi616 t1_j2fh6u2 wrote

Federal impeachment limits the grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", but that still doesn't make it a criminal proceeding.

3

TrashApocalypse t1_j2euhew wrote

It’s almost like you don’t understand that our politics actually determine how we live in a society.

Just like how a government should be run by citizens of a country, who work in the best interest of the citizens of that country. “Politics” is just the word we use to describe our own governance.

So when someone gets impeached, it’s almost as if society as a whole is saying, “hey, that shit you did right there, not cool dude” of course, that’s only assuming that our political leaders actually reflect the values of its citizens.

9

dclxvi616 t1_j2eut68 wrote

>It’s almost like you don’t understand that our politics actually determine how we live in a society.

On what basis are you making this judgment? In case it was unclear, all I've really said is that impeachments are not criminal proceedings.

3

hedgerow_hank t1_j2ec73g wrote

Ah! Another know nothing right wing mouthpiece.

−3

jaythebearded t1_j2ecxpe wrote

How does what they're saying make them a know nothing right winger?

Edit: I'm starting to feel like some people are vastly misreading electr's comments as being dismissive of the 2 trump impeachments, but it's literally the opposite they're saying those were legitimate impeachments unlike this krasner impeachment.

11

hedgerow_hank t1_j2eeuo0 wrote

Because the right winger is applying one false set of circumstances to another non-complicit person entirely. Kind of falls under the "shill" category.

Will you be needing help with what the word "complicit" means also?

0

jaythebearded t1_j2egbls wrote

I still don't get it honestly, what false circumstances are you saying electr_o_purist is applying?

3

hedgerow_hank t1_j2egkdz wrote

Might I suggest reading the article and quit plying me with idiotic questions that are easily answered if only you read the article?

Hmm?

−6

jaythebearded t1_j2eh8u1 wrote

I did read the article and I still fail to see how what they've said in this comment chain makes them a right winger.

> Impeachments are for people using their office to commit crimes, for example, bribing foreign leaders with military support in exchange for political favors, or instigating violence in support of something like a fake electors plot to overthrow the election you lost

And

> This whole phony impeachment is a hollow right wing publicity stunt.

This doesn't sound like a right winger to me. I'm trying to understand what you're saying, there's no need to be rude.

3

hedgerow_hank t1_j2f3fi6 wrote

So you read it and don't understand it. Perhaps your mom can explain it to you because everything you've said so far indicates that you have little to no comprehension regardless how well you read.

−6

jaythebearded t1_j2f4tuu wrote

I comprehend the article and electr's comments just fine, what I don't understand is why you think electr is right wing when their comments indicate they are not.

Electr said

> Impeachments are for people using their office to commit crimes, for example, bribing foreign leaders with military support in exchange for political favors, or instigating violence in support of something like a fake electors plot to overthrow the election you lost

And you claim that

> the right winger is applying one false set of circumstances to another non-complicit person entirely.

What exactly are you trying to say is a false set of circumstances?

1

Finrodsrod t1_j2fan0z wrote

He's sealioning you. Don't bother answering the troll

0

jaythebearded t1_j2ferli wrote

I'm literally not, look at electr's comments across this thread, he doesn't at all come across as a right winger. Can you explain how the electr saying

> Impeachments are for people using their office to commit crimes, for example, bribing foreign leaders with military support in exchange for political favors, or instigating violence in support of something like a fake electors plot to overthrow the election you lost

Leads to a response of

> the right winger is applying one false set of circumstances to another non-complicit person entirely.

I haven't sealioned at all, I've been asking about one thing this entire time, how they think the user electr is a right winger. Beyond that, I've refrained from any insulting comments despite them being repeatedly rude

1

Odd_Shirt_3556 t1_j2fcejn wrote

So Trumps first impeachment was an attempt to remove a sitting president?

−6

Electr_O_Purist t1_j2ffhj6 wrote

It was an attempt to hold a criminal accountable for abusing his office.

13

DutyRoutine t1_j2esjzu wrote

Well there was that time when Krasner requested a sentence reduction for a man giving a life sentence for the brutal murder of a husband and wife. At the hearing, they blatantly lied to the judge saying that the victims now grown child was notified about the hearing and had no problem with it. Total bullshit, never notified, never agreed to it. Somehow stories such as this isn't worth the Philadelphia Inquirer's time.

−11

Electr_O_Purist t1_j2ew6oc wrote

Downvoting this with an explanation: people who make vague references like this do it with intention: to control the narrative. We only have as much information as you give us, so we can’t see it from any perspective but yours. Your job is done though, you’ve already spread your view. We could asks for links and have a conversation about whether what you’re saying is accurate or even fits here, but it’s all under your original framing, which is the part you want to promote anyway. In other words, you’re trolling and it shows.

8

AbsentEmpire t1_j2f28ec wrote

Or you know instead you could look it up, since it actually happened.

Federal judge: Philly DA Larry Krasner’s office misled court while trying to free a man from death row

And this wasn't the only time he got reprimanded by judges for bad conduct.

−2

Electr_O_Purist t1_j2f2u1d wrote

Oh, would you look at that. The sentence reduction was from the death penalty to life without parole. Wow, what a monster!

10

AbsentEmpire t1_j2f406k wrote

The issue is that he lied in court, which is why he was reprimanded by the judge, the issue that the other user was alluding to.

−1

Electr_O_Purist t1_j2f4ey1 wrote

K, shouldn’t have done that. Didn’t help the case. Isn’t an abuse of the office.

4

AbsentEmpire t1_j2f4vql wrote

Expect he has a track record of getting slapped down by judges for lying or just straight up trying to rewrite laws.

0

Electr_O_Purist t1_j2fc4nm wrote

You don’t have much experience with the judicial system, do you?

3

Electr_O_Purist t1_j2f40mq wrote

Alright, so I read it. I mean, I’m not going to defend it, but, under no possible reading of this is it an impeachable offense. People who worked for Krasner suggested to a court that a victim said something they didn’t…yeah, lawyers are manipulative, scummy people. Welcome to adulthood. It’s not a crime that abuses the office. The judge rejected the claim anyway, Pennsylvania doesn’t really put people on death row to death. In fact, most people on death row get their sentences reduced to life.

5

Electr_O_Purist t1_j2f2lwe wrote

Hey, thanks for posting this inquirer article (in response to your post about how the inquirer can’t be bothered to cover). Off to a good start! Now I’m gonna read it.

3

AbsentEmpire t1_j2f42tl wrote

Different user, I'd didn't say they didn't cover it.

2

Finrodsrod t1_j2fada7 wrote

No there's a damn difference when the President of the US deliberately halts already Congress approved funding as an abuse of his power, or incites a riot to stay in power. Those things justify an impeachment and Senate hearing.

6

jaythebearded t1_j2fghwi wrote

Wait do you think electr's comment is saying those don't justify impeachments? Electr clearly says those are what impeachment is for, meaning they are justified.

−1

Finrodsrod t1_j2fvtku wrote

No judaachair is alluding to Trumps impeachments.

2

jaythebearded t1_j2fw19p wrote

Oh I see my mistake among all the sub comments I thought you were replying to electr, my bad.

So your comment is in agreement with electr, then why are you calling me a troll for not understanding why someone would think electr is right wing based off their comments?

1

ChrisTheHurricane t1_j2elacj wrote

Takes me back to 1998. I was 12 then, but even middle schoolers were talking about that one.

3

Or0b0ur0s t1_j2fubgo wrote

You remember the Clinton administration, I see.

2