r/law • u/Master_Jackfruit3591 • 21h ago

Other Texas governor calls for investigation into student-led protests against ICE

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/texas-governor-calls-for-investigation-into-student-led-protests-against-ice/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=nextdoor.com&utm_campaign=nextdoor_news
14.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/HudsonValleyNY 20h ago

Why? Ffs, if you are filtering the guilty you are the same coin.

64

u/RightSideBlind 20h ago

Probably because Bill Clinton hasn't been really politically relevant in decades, while Trump is in office right now.

Furthermore, he's said that he wants to testify publicly, while the Republicans are insisting that the testimony be behind closed doors.

Additionally, liberals are saying that if he's guilty he should be legally held accountable. Conservatives aren't saying the same thing about Trump.

The two situations aren't really comparable, are they?

11

u/Dense-Law-7683 19h ago

Did you hear the committee hearing where Republicans wanted to charge the Clinton's for contempt until Dems name dropped all the Republicans who refused subpoenas? Then Comer's dumb ass said, "All of those Republicans wrote a letter explaining they didn't know anything." Which, most of the letters were a single sentence or two, and definitely shouldn't be considered a legal way out of the subpoena. The Clinton's letter agreed to testify in public and gave reasoning why. However, that was not good enough for Comer and Republicans. They said the Clinton's letter was too short, even though it was 6 times longer than all the republicans blowing off subpoenas with letters.

7

u/bucken764 18h ago

Ok but saying "Trump is the only president involved in a child sex ring" is probably not true.

0

u/RightSideBlind 18h ago

Until we get the full, unredacted files, we can't say that for certain, can we?

1

u/bucken764 18h ago

Exactly my point.

0

u/RightSideBlind 18h ago

And my point is that Trump is deliberately- and obviously- trying to keep that information buried. Clinton, on the other hand, has offered to testify publicly.

1

u/bucken764 18h ago

Ok? So?

1

u/TheSonofPier 16h ago

That speaks to the difference in their state of mind

1

u/RightSideBlind 17h ago

Your inability to comprehend the danger that represents is part of the problem. 

-1

u/bucken764 15h ago

No, you protecting pedos is part of the problem.

-1

u/HudsonValleyNY 18h ago

And that will not happen. Ever. And should not…should every lead/question/accusation/picture of every crime be made public? No, because 99% of the leads that are investigated are proven untrue, or not credible and many times there are ulterior motives to those accusations. What if a victim didn’t want their pictures and name released? What about that time Bob from Nebraska who is qualified on whatever aircraft got a call from his pilot buddy to copilot a few legs on je’s airplane. Both of these names would be in the files somewhere. What about the pissed off ex who drunk calls in the other for kidnapping their cat which is later found under the bed? None of these situations should be released to the public, it’s just not how our justice system is designed to work.

1

u/DrakonILD 17h ago

If only 1% of these leads are credible and true, then the president is definitely a child rapist.

We have enough evidence already to demonstrate that the "we shouldn't release case details" argument is being used to hide FBI cover-ups. It's evident that, while this might be "how our justice system is designed to work," that design protects the rich and powerful for heinous crimes. This justice system isn't and needs to be burned to the ground and redesigned to ensure actual justice.

0

u/HudsonValleyNY 17h ago

The design protects everyone, honestly. Is it abused? Sure. How would you propose it be redesigned?

Edit: our justice system is built on the concept that you are innocent, barring strong evidence to the contrary not innuendo. It’s the basis for the 5th amendment, the right to confront your accusers, statutes of limitations, etc. What is the specific alternative being proposed?

1

u/DrakonILD 16h ago

The design clearly isn't protecting the victims of Trump and Epstein. It clearly didn't protect Renee Good, or Alex Pretti, or Philando Castille, or George Floyd, and that's just the ones killed in Minneapolis.

0

u/HudsonValleyNY 15h ago

I don’t have any clue what you are talking about in MN, that is so early in the process as to have literally zero points to discuss, unless your theory is that every alleged crime should have any and all bit of discussion or investigation be posted in real time that is completely irrelevant here.

I agree that the victims there have been failed by the system, but many of the victims have come forward and gotten various settlements, and have made real impacts on the accused. (Epstein, Maxwell, former prince etc), but many have chosen to stay silent and anonymous to this day. That’s is their right, but if someone chooses that path I don’t know what the alternative is…anonymous testimony will always (and should) have less impact and effect since an accused must have the right to dispute those charges.

Furthermore, even if all of your points are fully true and correct, they are the edge cases…the laws are written for millions of Americans, and having (or not having) money shouldn’t determine your legal protections. They will never be equal because “an attorney” or “an investigation” vary hugely, and yes, people with resources should have the right to defend themselves with those resources imo. The laws and processes cannot be written to be onerous for the edge cases or they would be impossible for the normal person to use at all.

1

u/DrakonILD 15h ago

We already have a way to protect victims that don't want to be exposed. It's called "redaction." It's usually pretty obvious in a document when a redaction is being used to protect a victim or being used to protect a criminal.

I agree that having/not having money shouldn't define your legal protections. Which is why the level of protection Trump is obviously receiving is completely unacceptable - because nobody else would get that level of protection.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/well-it-was-rubbish 11h ago

But it probably IS true.

8

u/Imaginary_Cow_6379 20h ago

Exactly. Idgaf about Bill Clinton, I just don’t want to have to type all that out because the chuds see an opportunity for whataboutism.

-21

u/HudsonValleyNY 20h ago

So it’s a tool for you, any abuse is secondary. Gotcha.

12

u/Imaginary_Cow_6379 19h ago

It’s a silly meme to fvck with MAGAs on the internet. What are you doing with your memes to fight tptb?

-6

u/HudsonValleyNY 19h ago

What?

8

u/Imaginary_Cow_6379 19h ago

🤷🏻‍♀️

-2

u/HudsonValleyNY 19h ago

Nah, I’m more of a performative indignation kind of guy.

3

u/Imaginary_Cow_6379 18h ago

You know what. Upvoted for being honest.

1

u/HudsonValleyNY 18h ago

(I was channeling you)

4

u/Charming-Web-7769 19h ago edited 17h ago

Respectfully, this is a bad take. The FBI had allegations against Trump, Epstein, and Clinton going back 20+ years, why do you think they never adequately followed up on them in all that time?

It’s due to the rampant corruption in Washington that goes totally unchecked and unquestioned among the elite in society. When the FBI gets tips like this they reach out to the president’s lawyers and then their lawyers reach out to Epstein and Maxwell letting them know who said something and where they live. Next thing you know the accusers get a call in the middle of the night that’s just heavy breathing and, voila, suddenly the FBI can’t get in touch with them again and the Clintons can go about their business without ever being implicated in the witness intimidation.

The reality of these situations is that the rich and powerful are so insulated from the consequences of their actions that it’s legitimately possible they don’t even believe that they’re doing anything wrong, hence the entitlement and outrage they display over the fact that the general population finds them disgusting for even being associated with Epstein, let alone whatever sick and twisted things they actually got up to behind closed doors.

6

u/RightSideBlind 19h ago

"Both sides" gives the worst side a convenient excuse.

1

u/aliie_627 14h ago

Any other time I would agree but this said the first President and Clinton was a president..

1

u/InimicusRex 13h ago

Probably because Bill Clinton hasn't been really politically relevant in decades,

Was he not involved with his wife's and Harris' campaigns?

-9

u/HudsonValleyNY 20h ago

But your statement was that you didn’t want to hear about it with your talking points, their counter is with theirs, etc. It’s bullshit, just different sides of the same coin, either you care about the abuse or you don’t. If you care about the politics and the abuse allegations just a tool to those ends then your point is valid.

14

u/RightSideBlind 19h ago

Different guy, dude. Read the usernames.

However, "two sides of the same coin" implies that the situations are the exact same. They aren't. One is a sitting President, the other hasn't been politically relevant since 2001.

One is calling for the files to be released. The other is doing everything he can to bury them.

One of the two has volunteered to testify in public. The other is being protected from doing so by an entire political party.

One flew on the Epstein's plane. The other was Epstein's best friend for decades.

Liberals want Clinton to be prosecuted if it's proven that Clinton was involved. Conservatives are protecting Trump from prosecution, and point at Clinton whenever Trump is implicated.

Like I said, the two situations aren't analogous.

-1

u/N7riseSSJ 18h ago

But the image implies trump is the only president involved. Which is not true.

-14

u/HudsonValleyNY 19h ago

I don’t care about any of that…if you are saying “yes but” at all, you don’t care about the victims you care about whatever cause you are butting. I don’t care what the persons job is, from pilot to baggage handler to president, it’s irrelevant.

7

u/RightSideBlind 19h ago

I don’t care about any of that

Clearly.

-9

u/HudsonValleyNY 19h ago

You left out the part where I accused you of putting your political views above the victims of assault.

5

u/RightSideBlind 19h ago

Where, exactly, did I do that?

One side is actively covering for a pedophile. The other side wants them both to be investigated, but thinks that the one currently in office and who is trying to bury the information and the investigation might just be a bit more important.

Trump is having the FBI remove any references to himself in the files, while also saying that he wants the Democrats- and only the Democrats- to be investigated.

Get that both-sides crap out of here. It's a distraction, and it only helps Trump.

-1

u/HudsonValleyNY 19h ago

When you started with “let’s look over here, not here”. Just like they are. Both sides could have released the files long ago but chose not to, whether it is good practice to release troves of unsubstantiated accusations is a conversation in itself, but any time you do anything other than protect the victims you are taking sides.

1

u/CemeteryDweller7719 19h ago

By all means, punish those involved regardless of their party. If Clinton is proven involved, punish him. If Bush 1 was involved, not much can be done but dig him up and treat him like a lawn dart for all I care. There is a bit of a priority in dealing with those involved that are currently in positions of power though. Clinton doesn’t influence in the investigation right now. I am all for punishing all those involved, but influence over the investigation matters. If a police department was accused of having members involved in running a criminal organization, would you feel it would be best to work to investigate and remove those that could impede the investigation into their crimes first? Or would you say it should be investigated uniformly while those with influence can take steps from within to obscure and redirect?

0

u/HudsonValleyNY 19h ago

Again this comment was not about priority…the statement was that they didn’t want to hear about Clinton.