But his NY felony convictions were not about those cases but about paying off Stormy Daniels. That case I do think was lawfare; it was politically motivated and on similar facts would never have been brought against, as an example, Joe Biden.
It’s also a very dangerous precedent to bring criminal charges against the presumptive (and in hindsight, actual) winner of the at time forthcoming presidential election, even if some of the cases have merit. Regardless of the merit of the cases, it’s impossible for that scenario to not be at least partly politically motivated and to have the effect of trying to disenfranchise half the country.
Thanks for reminding me, he also broke campaign finance laws with the pornstar payoff.
No, if Joe Biden had the same facts against him the entire right wing -- including you -- would be eagerly prosecuting them and singing of the high-minded justice in doing so. Have you forgotten "lock her up!"?
"President is above the law" is a far more dangerous precedent to set, and "nominees are above the law" is out-of-this-word nuts.
I am not right wing, have never voted for Trump or chanted "lock her up", and no, I believe in principles and not party loyalty and would have felt the same had it been Biden.
I was also against Clinton's impeachment for the same reason. Stormy Daniels and Monica Lewinsky were both private sexual matters, and to try to use ancillary technical crimes (obstruction; campaign finance) to remove your political opponent is a bad precedent and it's bad when both parties do it.
Your reply itself also proves my point. You say that the right wing would have prosecuted Biden on the same facts, not that the same left wing New York DA would have. Justice shouldn't be left wing and right wing.
If impartial non-partisan justice were your concern, you would spend your time focusing on the most egregious violations (Aileen Canon, the Supreme Court, etc) rather than grabbing the conversation by the horns and aggressively steering it towards an alleyway where you hoped to force a draw.
Your choices betray your priorities and they are not what you claim.
It’s also a very dangerous precedent to bring criminal charges against the presumptive (and in hindsight, actual) winner of the at time forthcoming presidential election, even if some of the cases have merit. Regardless of the merit of the cases, it’s impossible for that scenario to not be at least partly politically motivated and to have the effect of trying to disenfranchise half the country.